Floor Statements

I thank my good friend from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I really want to say thank you to my parents for instilling in me the opportunity to live the American Dream. My father didn't have much as a child. He didn't even have an education. But he grew up in a place where he could live his dream. He knew if he worked hard that he could live and do what he wanted to do, and that was to provide for his family, buy a farm, own a business, and give us the opportunity to lead our lives in the way that we wanted to. I instilled that hope and that desire in my own daughter. Over 5 years ago, I decided to run for this office. It was March 23, 2005. I'll never forget the date. It was the day my daughter got engaged. As we celebrated both decisions, I realized the enormity in the decision that I was making. See, back then I realized that government was spending too much money, and we had to do something about it. But now that she is married and I've been here over 5 years and administrations have changed, I realize that we weren't spending as much then as we are today. The accelerated spending is really hurting our American Dream.

My daughter owns her own business, and she has two wonderful little children, but I fear that they won't be able to have the American Dream that she is trying to hold onto and that I was afforded by my own parents. And I look today and I say to myself, what has this administration done to help us move forward? A year ago, the President announced that in 2010, June 17, was going to be the summer of recovery.

How is that recovery going? Well, we're still over 9 percent unemployment. We spent over $1 trillion in stimulus money to no effect. Our underemployment is at 19 percent. We have over 14 million people that are underemployed and looking for work and 9 million people have part-time jobs. But in addition to those statistics, our economy is not growing, and it's not growing because this government is getting in the way of the growth and it's with overregulation.

I worked with Bob Gibbs on one bill, H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which took an erroneous court decision and put it in its place. But it's more than just that bill that's in our way. As a mother and a grandmother, I'm alarmed at the USDA getting into my grandchildren's lunch boxes and into my pantry with overregulation, telling schools what they can provide for their students. They're taking potatoes out of the lunch room. It's not just eliminating potatoes to one cup a week, but it's the enormity of the burden of expense that's put onto our school system, over $5 billion mandated to public schools, and most of that burden is on schools that can least afford it.

I could go on and on about the overregulation that is squelching the ability for our country to grow. I have a stake in this. Actually I have two. It's Michael and it's Anthony. They mean everything to me. I want those two wonderful little boys to have all the hopes and dreams that I had as a child fulfilled as an adult. I want them to have the same hopes and dreams that my daughter had fulfilled. I want what my father gave to me, the belief that with God and living in America, all things are possible.

We have to stop the overregulation and the overspending that is occurring in this country today. Our future is at stake, and it is serious. The Republican women in the House get it, and I applaud them for fighting with me for their children, for their grandchildren, but most importantly for my Michael and my Anthony.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend from California had an amendment that she did withdraw that really wanted to codify into law the USDA's rules regarding the school lunch program. And while I won't go into the lengthy reasons why it's the wrong way to go for nutrition--not just the cost that it bears to the schools, but also the fact that USDA was recommending reducing the consumption of potatoes, corn, peas and lima beans to just one serving a week--which believe me I was shocked. But it wasn't just myself that had this reaction; it was also the California Fruit Growers Association, it was the National School Boards Association, it was the Council of the Great City Schools that wrote a letter. And that's why I and 40 other colleagues wrote to Mr. Vilsack of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in reaction to the promulgation of these rules.

I will enter into the Record the testimony I was going to give until she withdrew the amendment, as well as these four letters.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Breakfasts and lunches served in schools are important components of the diets of school age children. Improving the nutritional profile of meals served to school children is very important.

When the USDA proposed a rule that eliminated potatoes from the School Breakfast program and limited the School Lunch program to one cup a week of potatoes, I was very concerned.

On the Agriculture Committee, I have made it frequently known how important healthy living and nutritious eating habits are to me as a person, a mother, a grandmother and as a legislator. It is especially near and dear to my heart when we discuss policies that affect children's nutritional needs.

When I heard that the USDA recommended reducing the consumption of potatoes, corn, peas, and lima beans--I was shocked.

When my daughter was growing up, I took great care to ensure that she ate healthy, balanced meals. Of course, potatoes were a part of that equation. You all know that they are full of potassium, vitamins C and B6, potassium, fiber, and antioxidants. I cannot understand why the USDA would want to reduce school children's consumption of potatoes.

I think that it is short sighted for the USDA to ignore the health benefits that the potato provides. When looking at how to incentivize healthier eating habits, we in Congress need to find a way to encourage and educate program recipients to eat balanced meals.

I think it is very important to make sure that children receive balanced meals, and that certainly includes potatoes.

I, along with forty-one of my colleagues sent a letter to the USDA asking a number of questions about this proposed rule. Mr. Speaker, without objections, I would like to submit a copy of this letter to the Record.

Mr. Chair, potatoes, lima beans, peas, and corn are all healthy vegetables that should certainly be in the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs.

Potatoes are an excellent source of potassium and good source of fiber. According to the USDA's own magazine, Amber Waves, potatoes deliver these nutrients at a very low cost.

FNS has estimated that the proposed rule would increase the cost of school meals by $6.8 billion over the next five years. Per meal, the cost will increase by 14 cents per lunch and fifty cents per breakfast.

Mr. Chair, school districts and states across the country are already cash-strapped and cannot afford this increased cost.

This additional burden will be passed onto students paying full price for their meals.

While I agree with the intent of the USDA to encourage the consumption of more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins--restricting the consumption of nutritious vegetables like potatoes, lima beans, peas, and corn is short-sighted and not the most effective approach to achieve that goal.

I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and instruct the USDA to issue a new proposed rule on implementing the new national nutrition standards for the School Breakfast and School Lunch Programs.

California League of

Food Processors,

Sacramento, CA, June 15, 2011.

Hon. Lynn Woolsey,

Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Woolsey: The California League of Food

Processors (CLFP) respectfully opposes your amendment to the

FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 2112, prevent

the Agriculture Department from reissuing more reasonable and

cost effective proposed regulations on the school breakfast

and lunch program.

CLFP has concerns about USDA recommending school breakfast

programs eliminate ``starchy vegetables'' and proposing

restrictions on the use of tomato paste and cheese. As I'm

sure you remember CLFP members account for 95% of the fruits

and vegetables canned, frozen and dehydrated/dried in

California and this repersents more than 35% of U.S.

production. For a number of preserved food products,

California produces 100% of U.S. output, for example tomato

paste. These new USDA restrictions could potentially mean the

loss of millions of dollars in sales of vegetables, fruit and

cheese to the national school program. Its negative effects

would ripple throughout the industry,

from farmers, dairymen, package manufacturers, etc. The cost

impact of this rule on our schools and food producers should

be considered by USDA. Affirmative changes to the meal plan

relative to starchy vegetables limits and tomato serving

calculations would go a long way to fixing the cost issues

that are concerning to schools.

CLFP supports your efforts to help ensure school kids have

access to healthy and nutritious meals. However, we urge you

to allow USDA to ensure the new rule on school meals is cost

neutral and resist efforts by USDA to proclaim vegetables and

other healthy foods ``good'' or ``bad''.

Very Truly Yours,

Ed Yates,

President and CEO,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the 90th birthday of a restaurant. While it was started in Wichita, Kansas, in 1921, this restaurant then came to Ohio, came to Cincinnati, and it's that little square hamburger, White Castle. And when you look at the Ingram family and what they've done across the Nation with their idea of an entrepreneurship of just a little square hamburger--they now have 400 stores in 11 States. This is a family company, and it employs thousands of people.

The craze that Mr. Ingram created in 1921 has grown in large part due to marketing, innovation, and adaptations of service. It has been reported that White Castle was the first fast-food restaurant to advertise in newspapers. It developed cardboard cartons for hamburgers, French fries, drinks, and even invented its own small type of semipermanent restaurant building. Mr. Speaker, ``White Castle'' was certainly a fitting name for this Ohio institution. Please join me not only in congratulating the Ingram family on the 90th birthday of White Castle but to remind ourselves of the importance of jobs and entrepreneurship in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for my district because today we're going to lay an American hero to rest, Private First Class William ``Seth'' Blevins. He was only 21.

Just before Christmas in 1989, on December 22, Steven and Trish Wagnoner Blevins got the best gift of all--a beautiful, healthy little boy. They lived in rural America, Sardinia, Brown County, Ohio. They were small business owners, working hard to make a living and working harder to make sure that their children achieve the American Dream. And they did their job with Seth. You see, Seth was a wonderful young man, a young man who loved our country so much he put the cloth of his country, a uniform, on and decided to protect our freedom no matter what cost or peril it was to him.

In 2008, he graduated from Eastern High School in Brown County. He played soccer, basketball, participated in the band, and was a member of the Eastern High School chapter of the National Honor Society, clearly a winning individual. He attended Ohio University and took courses at the University of Cincinnati prior to enlisting in the Army. He was a member of the Peace Lutheran Church in Arnheim.

His parents now feel an unbearable sorrow with the loss of their wonderful son, Seth, but so does his sister, Paige Blevins, his mother's fiance, Brandon Black, his maternal grandparents, Will and Shirley Wagoner, and all of the aunts and uncles and cousins and friends, everyone in the community.

Seth was a member of the U.S. Army, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks in Hawaii--commonly referred to as the Wolfhounds--and he loved what he did. Unfortunately, on May 23, 2011, while so many Americans were planning their celebrations for Memorial Day, he was the victim of an improvised explosive device in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, we must never forget the bravery of our men and women in uniform that continue to serve our country and continue to serve it in harm's way. These are true American heroes--so many who have died, so many continue in the battlefield, so many that are injured. But today, I ask this Chamber and America to recognize Seth Blevin's family and pray for them so that they can endure this heartache and find a way to overcome it.

Mr. Speaker, may Seth Blevins rest in peace, and may his family find peace.

I want to thank Chris Smith and Chairman Smith for this very simple but profound bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, all this bill does is end public funding-- taxpayer funding--of abortion. The driving force behind H.R. 3 is simply to update the longstanding Hyde amendment and apply it to programs that are federally funded but outside the scope of the Labor- HHS appropriations as well as replace a patchwork system with permanent law. It takes the Hyde amendment, the Dornan amendment, the Helms amendment, the Hyde-Weldon amendment, as well as others, and makes them permanent. That's what the bill does.

H.R. 3 enjoys great bipartisan support and had over 227 cosponsors. The support of this bill is in the public's hands. A CNN poll recently taken last month said 61 percent of the respondents do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. And that's what this bill does. It ends the public funding of abortions. There are a host of other polls that clearly state the same thing.

The Hyde amendment is in current law but it simply needs to be broadened for all the things that we do here in Congress.

I ask my colleagues to vote for this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, you know, times are tough, including in Congress. And we have to find wise ways to spend our taxpayer dollars. For every 33 pregnant women that walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic, 32 receive an abortion. Planned Parenthood does over 1,000 abortions a day, and they receive $1 million a day from taxpayers. The time has come to stop funding Planned Parenthood. We have better ways to spend our taxpayer dollars. Let's put it back to the Treasury and reduce the deficit.

I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act in a timely manner on H.R. 872 to ensure that our small businesses, farmers, communities, counties, and State and Federal agencies will not be burdened with a costly, duplicative permit requirement that offers no environmental or health benefits. It is important to note that pesticides play an important role in protecting our Nation's food supply, public health, natural resources, infrastructure, and green spaces. They are used not only to protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests, invasive weeds, and animals that can choke our waterways, impede our power generation, and damage our forests and recreational areas.

The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 amends FIFRA and the Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement of a permit for applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. This Act is being passed in response to National Cotton Council v. EPA, which found NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not intended to exempt waste- streams or discharges from regulation simply because they may contain pesticides or pesticide residues. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes clear that the NPDES exemption only addresses discharges of pesticide or pesticide residue resulting from applications consistent with FIFRA. The legislation does not exempt applications of pesticides that violate the relevant requirements of FIFRA.

There have been accusations that this bill would cause contamination of our waterways. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge those accusations. Today, some will argue in defending the Sixth Circuit Court decision that pesticide applications were a violation of FIFRA. The case in question is the Talent Water District in Jackson County, Oregon, where it is claimed that the application of pesticides in violation of the FIFRA label resulted in a fish kill of more than 92,000 juvenile steelhead. I point out that these pesticide applications were in violation of FIFRA and the requirements of FIFRA, and therefore would be addressed under that law. Requiring a duplicative permit under the Clean Water Act would not offer any additional environmental safety standard.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 872 is a simple fix. The legislation before us passed unanimously through the House Agriculture Committee and with an overwhelming 46-8 vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This proves that this is not a partisan issue but an issue of such importance that Republicans and Democrats and even the EPA have worked together to provide a solution.

H.R. 872 makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to require this redundant layer of bureaucracy, especially since the EPA already comprehensively regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. Although the court did extend the effective date of its order to October 31, it did not fix the underlying problem. The impact on all pesticide users required to obtain this extra permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burdensome cost or real impact on their livelihoods. The only things this extension provides is more months of regulatory uncertainty.

I ask my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation and to ensure that FIFRA remains the standard for pesticide regulation. Let us help protect our mutual constituency from duplicative obligations that provide no qualified benefit to human health or environmental concerns.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the good gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of the time for both myself and Mr. Gibbs.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about a subject I really love, and that is history, especially women's history.

I think all too often as we grew up as children, our history books failed to mention the courageous activities of women throughout the Nation and throughout the world. Somehow we learned about men, but all too often not about women. But when we did learn about women, we didn't learn what they really were all about.

Growing up as a little girl, I grew up in an era where women were not really allowed to do all the things we could do today. We weren't allowed to run marathons or drive race cars or be in the pits at the Indianapolis 500 as a press person. We weren't allowed in Rotaries. It was just not something women were allowed to do. Why, shoot, women weren't even allowed to vote until 1920. In fact, the first woman that served in this House served there 2 full years before women had the right to vote.

And when you think about all the things that happened in this last century, we have to look to a century before to see, wow, who were the folks that really made this happen, because it just didn't happen overnight.

In the hallway out in the Rotunda there is what I think is the best statue, and it is the statue of the pioneers for women's suffrage. It is an extraordinary piece of artwork, one that depicts the likenesses of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, arguably the women who pushed the button for women today to have true equal rights with men.

These were the most pro-women feminists in the history of America. And as you will see in a few moments, the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, for Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony was just not written when I was a little girl.

I would like to begin this hour by referring to a few quotes from a couple of these four mothers that truly show where they stood in history with what I believe is the most pro-feminine issue, and that's the issue of abortion. You see, Mr. Speaker, every one of us has the right to life, born and unborn. And it is the women who have the responsibility to make sure that that baby is born. Unfortunately, our courts over 38 years ago decided to change that and said that women had the right to end that life. But, Mr. Speaker, we don't have that right. It is our responsibility to bear those children. And these four mothers knew that.

In a letter to Julia Ward Howe in 1873, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the woman who shocked society, Mr. Speaker, by daring to leave her house proudly showing her pregnancy--because that was just not done--wrote: ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women to treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.''

When I was a child in school learning about the issues of women's suffrage and women's rights, I knew Elizabeth Cady Stanton was pro- woman, pro-freedom pioneer, but I didn't know she was pro-life. I didn't know she was pro-life until a few years ago. She was hardly alone in her pro-life views. As you can see, Susan B. Anthony also expressed her thoughts about pro-life in the publication ``The Revolution":

``Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life; it will burden her soul in death.''

Mr. Speaker, those words were written over 150 years ago, and yet they could easily be written today. Because today, Mr. Speaker, we hear from women who have had the painful tragedy of abortion on their soul, and they talk about how their heart weeps because of the life that they gave up and how they want not just to forgive themselves but to protect women from that awful decision that they made to protect other women from the suffering that they have. And yet Susan B. Anthony knew that years ago. So, you see, in history, pro-life was an issue.

You have to think about it, Mr. Speaker, and you have to think it makes sense because the whole issue of abortion, it just didn't come about in the 21st century. It came about centuries ago. Unfortunately, indiscretions have happened throughout history. And when indiscretions happen, babies are created, and then the issue becomes what do you do to hide the dirty little secret. Are you like Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's, ``The Scarlet Letter,'' where you put her in prison and then put her out into the wilderness, trying to hide Pearl, her beautiful daughter; in the end, only knowing that Pearl became the most beautiful little girl?

What was Nathaniel Hawthorne saying about the pregnancy? What was he saying about the birth of that child? Was he saying that child had the right to life or was Nathaniel Hawthorne thinking other things? We don't know. We can only wonder why he put her in prison and why he chastised her to the wilderness, but the point was they wanted to hide the secret. And because she chose to have the child, that secret was going to be born.

So for people like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the 1860s to say, wait a minute; women should have the right to get married, to get divorced, to raise their children, and, oh, by the way, have their children, own property, be able to vote; we shouldn't be surprised that protecting the child and the birth of that child was part of their platform.

Today, in 2011, I am very proud to stand here and carry on with their message, because today, ever more so, the assault of life is all around us. And I believe that assault to life is there because we don't recognize the meaning of life at its conception. And when you compromise it at its conception, I think you question the validity of life all the way through to its end.

Each year--and I'm so proud to represent the Second Congressional District of Ohio--I am really proud of the hundreds of thousands of people that come out to the lawn on the Capitol on probably the coldest day in January to petition Congress to end abortion. It's called the Right to Life March. In the 5 years that I have been in Congress, standing with them, we've yet to have a decent day. Sometimes it's just cold. Sometimes it's cold and snowy. Sometimes it's cold and rainy. But it's always cold.

And I stand out on a platform, and I'm there for maybe an hour, but they're standing there for hours. Kids from schools are coming up in buses, traveling all night, getting off the bus, only to stand on cold ground, only to get back on that bus and go right back home and go right back to school. Parents are coming with small kids, buses, cars, airplanes, caravans asking Congress to end something that is so wrong.

And as I look out on the lawn and I see these brave people, I say to myself, Wow, that's what America is all about. And among the crowd I see so many women. I believe more women than men, because women, we have the privilege to experience childbirth, and we understand firsthand what that life is like inside a womb. And I think when we do have that experience and we understand the meaning of life, it makes us want to get out and protect it so that it can have its natural right to come into the world and be the person God wants it to be. And I do this because I'm so proud of the folks that are out there, but I also do it for some folks back home.

Back when I was in high school, the whole issue of abortion began to emerge before Roe v. Wade because States were considering whether they should legalize abortion or not. There was a couple in Cincinnati by the name of Dr. Jack and Barbara Wilke--he a physician, she a nurse-- who were at the forefront of this movement. They gathered people like my parents and other people around their coffee table to discuss how we could protect Ohio from legalizing abortion. Of course, Roe v. Wade hit in 1973, and the campaign escalated to a national debate.

But along the way--and they weren't the only ones, Mr. Speaker. There were people all across coffee tables all across America debating how we're going to protect life. But it was Barbara among the group. And they were talking on the telephone. It was before email and BlackBerrys and even fax machines, talking on the phone long distance with one another.

But it was Barbara at her kitchen table that said one day, Jack, I just don't understand this whole debate. My gosh, we're protected. Our Nation protects us. It's as if everybody has the right to life. And he says, Barbara, that's the name of the movement. And the name of the movement was branded: the National Right to Life movement.

Now, Barbara and Jack Wilke have served for many years in many capacities in this movement. Jack served as president of the National Right to Life Committee for well over a decade. They founded the International Right to Life Federation and wrote the ``Handbook on Abortion,'' a book often described as the unofficial bible of the pro- life movement during the seventies and eighties.

They also have other groups that they work with around the world, fighting all kinds of life issues, not just for the unborn but for human trafficking and women's rights. I mention this because this couple, this simple couple from College Hill, Ohio, is just one of many across our Nation who recognizes the importance of this issue and is dedicating their lives to eradicating abortion.

So, when I stand out on that lawn on those cold January days each and every year, I look at people, and I think there are other Jack and Barbara Willkes--maybe not as famous--who are doing the same thing, hundreds and hundreds and thousands.

Then I think of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and of the contemporary bearers of that message like that of the Willkes, and I say, wow, there is a plan out there, and the last note on abortion hasn't been written. Alice Paul is another pretty important feminist in history. She was actually the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if you think that abortion is a hot issue, I can remember back in the 1970s when the Equal Rights Amendment was being debated across this land and the hot issue that that was. Oh, my gosh.

Should we give women the same rights as men?

There were women who said, No, no, no. They need to be back in the home.

Then there were folks who said, No, no, no. Women need to have equal pay as men.

What are we going to do about private facilities?

Ah, it was just an awful debate because it really deflected from the real issue that all of us are God's creatures and that all of us are created equal.

So I remember Alice Paul as being at the forefront of this, and I remember the debate both in high school and college--but, man, I didn't know until a few years ago that Alice Paul was pro-life. Now, here is a woman who was painted as this equal rights, left-wing feminist. When we look at pro-life issues, we think they're conservative, right-wing issues. Yet it was Alice Paul, the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment, who stated: ``Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' Let me repeat that. ``Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' This is from this far-left, hard-nosed person. Add to her views the ones previously referenced, and it is difficult to see any ambiguity or confusion about where these feminists and advocates of the women's rights movement stood on the issue of abortion. Simply put, they detested abortion and went as far publicly and privately as they could in condemning it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems as though their rhetoric has been largely lost over the years, hidden in the annals of history, and I just don't know why, because, if we don't understand the full depth of history, we'll never understand March 15, 2011, and the views that we debate in this very Chamber today.

It's sad because, as a little girl, I didn't know about these pioneers. I didn't know about their pro-life positions. I didn't know that they were sisters with me. I thought they were different. I thought that the folks who stood before me to give us equal rights were pro-choice. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

I think many people wrongly believe that feminism and pro-life principles are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled with each other; but when you look at history, you can see that they're not exclusive but inclusive because it is we, as I said earlier, who have the responsibility to have the children, to continue to procreate for the future. That is why we were put here on Earth--to have children. It is our responsibility to make sure that these children are cared for both inside the womb and out; and for a court to say it is our right to end it I think is exclusive of what we are made of. It is against what we are made of.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll speak more, but I've had the privilege of being joined by my good friend, the Congresswoman from North Carolina. I would like to yield as much time to the good Congresswoman as she would like.

Thank you to the gentlelady from North Carolina for so eloquently pointing out some of the dangers of abortion, both physical and emotional, and I don't think the chapter, Mr. Speaker, has been written on the dangers of abortion, but I do wonder about the lives that we've missed and the fabric, and how it has been compromised, the fabric of America, the fabric of the world, because an innocent life didn't get to be woven into it.

You know, when we're born, our parents don't know what we're going to become. They just hope that we're happy. They hope that we're healthy. I mean, if you look at our President, do you think when he was born his mom thought he was going to be the President of the United States? I seriously doubt it. He didn't come from a dynasty of Presidents. He was just an ordinary person born from an ordinary mom, but he, you know, had the opportunity and the privilege to live in America and become the President.

Our very own Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, I dare say, his parents never thought he would be Speaker of the House. They were ordinary people. They owned a bar. They had 12 kids. Chances are 12 kids will do 12 different things, but I don't think any of them thought they were going to be Speaker of the House. But that mother gave all those kids love, and because they lived in America, the piece of fabric that he has become resides over this wonderful body.

And I point that out because none of us knows what our children or grandchildren will become, but it's incumbent upon us to give them that chance to be the best person they can be, the best version of themselves, and that starts at conception. It doesn't start when we choose for it to start. It starts when God chooses for it to start, or if you don't want to use the term ``God,'' nature chooses for it to start, and when you compromise that, you compromise life all the way through.

You know, as I said before, many people see feminism and pro-life issues as exclusive. Well, they're inclusive, and I would like to offer evidence of the pro-life feminists in the past, the ones that we owe so much to, because they are in large part responsible for women being able to go to college, to serve in the military, to vote, and may I dare say, stand on the floor this very evening. It is because of them that we are here today arguing for this precious position.

In a few minutes, I am going to be joined by another good lady from North Carolina, and I believe that this young lady is going to eloquently talk about her views on women in history and the pro-life movement, and I now yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Especially for women because we're always cast as the ones that really want abortion, and it's the men that don't want it, but you're telling me that 70 percent of the women in that December 2009 study adamantly opposed Federal funding of abortion under the health care bill?

Thank you so much. I am really glad that you took the time to point out that survey, because I believe that the Nation has shifted its opinion on abortions since 1973. And maybe it's because with technology and the fact that sonograms can now show us the color of a baby's eyes and what it's going to look like inside the mom's womb as early as like 3 months, that we're really believing and knowing that it really is a baby. It's not this little fetus, this little mushy thing. It's really a baby. And when you see that sonogram and you see that baby inside the womb, you've got to say to yourself, How can I call this anything else but life? And I think that's probably one of the reasons why, throughout the years, public opinion has truly shifted on abortion.

A decade ago, back in 2001, there was a poll taken wherein 40 percent of the respondents identified themselves as being pro-life while 49 percent identified themselves as being pro-choice. Well, in 2005, another poll was taken. There was little movement toward the pro-life position: 42 percent said they're pro-life while 52 percent said they're pro-choice. But for some reason, in 2006, the number grew 45 to 47; and in 2008, the numbers were 46 to 48. Now maybe that's because of the prevalence of all these sonograms. And today when your daughter or your son goes in with his wife for the sonogram, the grandparents and great grandparents go, too. It didn't happen a decade ago. But, oh, my gosh, it's a family thing because we can't wait to see what the baby is. And we are told to cover our eyes at that one moment if you don't want to know what the sex of the baby is. Believe me, I couldn't tell anyway. But I have gone twice and had to close my eyes twice. And I think because the family is involved in this whole sonogram with the birth of the baby, that all of our eyes are beginning to light up and say, Wow, that really is a life. In just 3 months' time, it's a real baby.

In May 2009, 51 percent of those polled identified themselves as being pro-life where only 42 percent responded that they were pro- choice. Now, the latest poll I could find on the subject was conducted in January of this year, just a couple of months ago; and it was consistent with the 2009 poll. Half the respondents said they were pro- life. The numbers become even more definitive when it comes to public funding or taxpayer moneys going towards the funding of abortions, even indirectly.

This is a very real and timely debate as we struggle today to tackle our enormous deficit and debt which, Mr. Speaker, if we don't get under control will reshape this country in a way that I don't believe will allow our children to have at least as equal an opportunity as us, if not to have a better opportunity than us. But that's a debate for another day on the debt and deficit.

When I first got here in September of 2005, the very first person I wanted to meet was Henry Hyde of Illinois because he was my hero. You see, after Roe v. Wade, people at my kitchen table and in my family were talking about money, Federal money being used for abortion. My mom and dad were mad; and, shoot, even I was mad. And Henry Hyde was mad, too.

In 1976, he offered the Hyde amendment, and it simply said that Federal taxpayer dollars were barred from funding abortion, period, case closed. And that amendment has been consistent with the policy of this House ever since. So I wanted to meet that hero, that gentle man. And when you walk into my office, you see a picture of him and me on the last day that he served in this House. Of all the people that I have ever met, he is truly my hero.

Anyway, every year we debate this. Even in the health care bill, it was a hotly contested issue. And after the bill was voted on, the President had an executive order that at this point still stops the Federal funding of abortion in health care, we believe. But that's a very fragile piece of paper, and I really believe this body needs to recodify in the health care bill that no money will ever be spent for abortion and no insurance policies will have any Federal dollars attached to it that would allow for abortions to occur. But that's something I believe we have to work on this year, Mr. Speaker.

And even today in this body as we voted on the CR, the issue of abortion was there. Do we put it in the CR and stop the Federal funding of abortion or not? You know, we have a lot of pro-life leaders in the House. They have looked at the budget very, very shrewdly; and they have determined that if we don't put these protections in place, Federal funding will slip into the budget in the future. And that's why they are so adamant about putting out bills and provisions in CRs that would stop the Federal funding of abortion.

One of the latest initiatives to receive a full vote in the House was an amendment introduced by my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that would prohibit Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which happens to be the largest abortion provider in the country. Now, I know what you are going to say, Well, they have a separate wall, and they're really only using the money for women's health issues. They're not using it for abortion. But we know money is fungible, and we know in a building, you can't really dissect how much energy costs are going to one side of the building and how much are going to the other. We know that while, yeah, the actual procedure isn't using Federal money, we know that the building is. So it's fungible, and it's slipping through.

But a few weeks ago when we had the CR, his amendment received, I think, 239 votes out of this body that said, No, Planned Parenthood shouldn't receive the money. And you know, Mr. Speaker, maybe it's a bigger debate than just the abortion issue because what we saw last fall was a sting operation that showed where in some cases, abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood clinics across the country were actually talking about or ignoring the fact that people were coming in about human trafficking and saying there was a human trafficking issue, and if the underage girl got pregnant, how could they get an abortion. And the gal at the desk didn't think there seemed to be a problem with that conversation.

Now, I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood International condones it, and I'm sure that they don't, but I'm saying that there were clinics at which this conversation occurred. I know in my own hometown in Cincinnati, Ohio, where in 2 cases there were young girls that went to the Planned Parenthood clinic on Auburn Avenue, and both told the abortion provider they were underage and they were pregnant, one by her father, one by a coach. The father's now in jail. And the situation with the parents was, they didn't know the coach took her to the abortion clinic. He signed the document that said, oh, I'm the legal guardian, and it wasn't until later when she went to the doctor on another issue that the doctor said--When did your daughter have an abortion?--that this whole thing exploded. And right now it's in court. They're going after the coach, and they're trying to go after Planned Parenthood because the girl said, I'm 15.

So maybe Planned Parenthood shouldn't have our money if they're not careful stewards about people that are coming through their doors, because a 15-year old that's pregnant, well, I think that's called statutory rape, no matter who the father was. And if a girl comes in at 15 we should be asking questions--How did you get pregnant? Who was the father? What happened?--because that's breaking the law.

So above the fact that we have a looming deficit and a looming debt, above the fact that I believe that money is fungible with Planned Parenthood, above the fact that in some cases they have people that go into clinics and they have a lady or a guy at the desk that doesn't understand what human trafficking is all about, maybe they shouldn't have the money, because when it's right in their eye, they simply choose to ignore the issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of pro-life people in America, and there are a lot of pro-life people in this House. And I think it is time that we discussed this issue more openly, because people of this Nation understand that all life is precious, including the life of the unborn. They also understand that our

money comes from taxpayers, and taxpayers expect us to do the right things with their money, and that means protecting life at all costs.

One of the things that I want to say before I wrap up--and we talked about polling--is that there have been multiple polls conducted on the subject within the last year of Federal funds and abortion. Two that I want to highlight were conducted by CNN and Quinnipiac. Now, CNN is hardly a right-wing organization. But the CNN poll showed that 60 percent of Americans oppose public moneys going to fund abortion. That's well over a majority. The Quinnipiac poll shows 72 percent oppose it. Wow, that's a lot of Americans.

I believe that we need to do the right thing and end the public funding of abortion whether it's in the health care bill, any bill that comes here, or any moneys that go overseas.

Like the feminists, the pro-life women of the past, pro-life women today simply believe that we are all afforded the right to life. It is not a gift from our government; it is a gift from our Lord. He is the one that has allowed us to stand here in America and across the world. He is the one that has said to us, He wants us to be in His image and His likeness. It is our Lord that wants us to be the best person we can be. And if we are to be the best person we can be, we have to ensure that each other has that same chance whether it's a little seed in a womb that is 20 minutes old or it's an elderly person in a nursing home. All of us are equal in the Lord's eyes. All of us have the right to life.

So I am proud to stand here today, like my sisters before me--like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, like Susan B. Anthony and, yes, like Alice Paul--and say, enough's enough. Women's rights are women's rights, and if a woman has rights, those rights are the child's rights because everybody has the right to life.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Every day, Americans sit at their kitchen tables, and they do a number of things, including trying to figure out how to stretch that dollar and how to stop unnecessary spending. And they are asking us in Congress to do the same. I look at this room as our kitchen table.

Over the last week, we have debated that issue: How do we stretch the American tax-paying dollar?

Tonight, Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Pence amendment because it ensures that our precious tax dollars will no longer go to a group whose main purpose is to provide abortions.

Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood is our Nation's largest abortion provider. It receives one-third of its $1.1 billion from tax-paying Americans. For the sake of abortion, Planned Parenthood holds itself above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sex-trafficking.

Madam Chair, this hurts young girls in the process.

Four years of investigations show 17 Planned Parenthood clinics in 10 different States facilitating the sexual exploitation of women. In 2008, the Mona Lisa Project showed 10 Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, and Wisconsin ignoring mandatory reporting laws and finding ways to skirt parental consent laws, covering up sexual abuse so girls can get secret abortions.

I only wish this weren't true, but in my own hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, twice Cincinnati Planned Parenthood did just that. In one case, it was a father who brought his daughter to the abortion clinic. When she was taken into the room, she told the abortion provider it was he who raped her.

They did nothing. He is now in jail.

We have an ongoing case right now of a coach who took a young girl to the clinic, and said, I'm her guardian. When later the parents took her to the doctor and the doctor asked--When did she have this abortion?-- the parents were shocked.

He is now on trial.

So this isn't something that is out there of ``a wish come maybe.'' This is something that actually happened in my own city.

In 2011, seven Planned Parenthood clinics in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, and Washington, D.C., aided and abetted the sexual trafficking of children, helping actors posing as a pimp and a prostitute to ``manage'' an underage sex ring to get secret abortions, contraceptives, and STD testing to keep their commercial child rape business ``safe.''

Planned Parenthood called the behavior of a Richmond counselor, who coached the pimp and the prostitute on how to use judicial bypass to get secret abortions for their underage sex slaves, ``professional.''

Like former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson says, ``It's not a training problem; it's an ideology problem.''

Now, Planned Parenthood will tell you they are trying to prevent abortions, but last year alone, they performed 324,008 abortions and prevented 283,000. One in 10 Planned Parenthood clients receives an abortion. They are the largest provider of abortions in America.

America's taxpayers are asking us to be wise with their dollars. When you ask the question--should we be paying for abortions?--American taxpayers say ``no.''

Should we be providing America's largest abortion provider taxpayer funding to help keep its lights on so that on one side it can provide family planning services and on the other side provide abortions?

I believe the folks at the kitchen table in America are saying ``no.''

Tonight in this Chamber, at America's kitchen table, I am asking our Members to say no to this practice and support the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is the wrong way to go at our critical hour of need. Congress has consistently provided funding for the development of the alternative engine because Congress knows full well the benefits of competition in weapons acquisition and procurement.

Last session, we passed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, 411-0 in favor, and, in fact, our Senate colleagues agreed with 95-0. If there is such overwhelming bipartisan agreement in both Chambers on the need for competition in weapons systems acquisition, then why are we taking a vote to eliminate competition for the propulsion system that is going to power 95 percent of our tactical fighter fleet over the next 40 years?

Section 202 of the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act clearly states, ``The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures to ensure competition throughout the life cycle of such program.''

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Department of Defense's largest procurement program. The Department of Defense plan calls for acquiring nearly 2,500 Joint Strike Fighters. Hundreds of additional F-35s were expected to be purchased by U.S. allies. If the propulsion system that powers nearly 3,000 tactical jet fighters is not a major defense acquisition, then I'm not sure what qualifies.

Passing this amendment will hand Pratt & Whitney a $100 billion monopoly on a 30-year contract that has never been competitively bid. Proponents of this amendment will argue that Pratt & Whitney won the engine competition when Lockheed was awarded the contract to develop a Joint Strike Fighter. Not so fast.

Last May, Mr. John Roth, from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, and Mr. Mike Sullivan, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO, both testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs that the competition was done at the contractor level and that the engines were never actually competed.

The point of all this, Mr. Chair, is that the engine competition never occurred, and it is disingenuous to argue that Pratt & Whitney has already won. The fact is that providing funds for the competitive alternate engine will ultimately drive down costs, improve product quality and contractor responsiveness, drive technological innovation, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

History shows that competing engines can result in significant long- term savings. The ``Great Engine War'' saved the F16 program 21 percent in overall costs according to the 2007 GAO report. This represents $20 billion in savings for the lifetime of the Joint Strike Fighter Engine program.

Additionally, the alternative engine team represented by GE and Rolls-Royce offered the Department of Defense a fixed-priced contract. Their offer saves $1 billion in the first 5 years and puts cost overruns at the risk of the contractor. This is an unprecedented move in major defense acquisition.

Finally, providing for a competitive alternate engine will serve as a hedge against operational risk and ensure that a fighter that makes up 95 percent of our tactical fleet is not grounded due to engine failures.

Fully funding the alternative engine is not only prudent risk management, but an acknowledgment of the fundamental responsibility that Congress has to protect and provide the most reliable equipment to our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-guided amendment. It will not save taxpayers money in the long run. I'm not even sure it's really going to save them money in the short run.

I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I can't think of a single agency of the Federal Government that poses more threats to jobs in our economy than the Environmental Protection Agency. As chairwoman of the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee, I am especially alert to the threat the EPA poses to those charged with providing food and fiber for our Nation.

There are so many examples of actions undertaken by this President's EPA that defy sound science, good judgment, and will only result in putting America's farmers and ranchers out of business.

For example, the EPA has proposed a zero-risk standard on pesticide spray drift. The EPA is proposing a standard that even it admits is unachievable. This proposed standard leaves our agricultural producers vulnerable to enormous compliance costs and untold numbers of potential lawsuits.

Another example, the EPA has withdrawn a proposed exemption for milk from the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program. This move puts the livelihoods of our dairy farmers in jeopardy because they could face enormous compliance costs. Under this regulation, milk would be treated as if it were motor oil, thereby necessitating dairy farmers across the country to comply with costly, burdensome rules designed to control storage of toxic substances. As far as I can tell, the agency's only stated reason for withdrawing this proposed exemption is that it was initiated under the Bush administration. Yet more than 2 years later, our dairy farmers are still in limbo.

Another example of the EPA's disconnect with science at the expense of the economy is the agency's unprecedented multiyear, multimillion- dollar re-reevaluation of a popular herbicide. Only 2 years earlier, the agency completed a 12-year review of 6,000 scientific studies and concluded that the product is safe. I suppose the logic for this re- reevaluation is that with trillions of dollars deficits we face, we have the money to burn on pet causes of radical environmental groups.

As if the agency didn't have enough on its plate, we see that they have issued a draft pesticide registration notice entitled, ``False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' Note that the EPA is now attempting to regulate not the safety of the product but the name of the product and even the name of the company that manufacturers it. This notice threatens to undermine the very investment in our economy that this President spoke about 2 weeks ago in this very Chamber.

The President's EPA is threatening a potential loss of approximately $2.5 billion in brand equity for U.S. businesses.

I could go on and on, Madam Speaker, but the point of this is that the EPA is getting into areas where it doesn't belong, costing American farmers, American businesses, and good old Americans more money than they can afford.

Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening remarks, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

I do not, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from the great State of Alaska (Mr. Young).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American voter spoke loud and clear in November. They said they are tired of business as usual in Washington. They want less government intrusion and more freedom to prosper. This resolution begins that journey. It ensures freedom from government overregulation.

The buck stops here in this Chamber. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee alone, in this committee there are overregulations in every mode of transportation and in every area of infrastructure.

Specifically, our committee is going to look at a recent rulemaking by the National Mediation Board; arbitrary revocation of environmental permits by the EPA; new hours of service regulations for truckers by DOT; costly implementation of positive train control by DOT; the overly broad lithium battery rule; an extremely burdensome EPA rule to comply with the Cotton Council versus the EPA decisions; EPA's regulation of leaded general aviation fuel and airport de-icing fluid; EPA's expanded regulations of storm water discharge; and EPA's jurisdiction grab while they claim to implement the Clean Water Act.

An issue of particular concern to me and others are the actions taken over by the National Mediation Board.

Mr. Speaker, under the current administration, unelected and unaccountable political appointees at the National Mediation Board have been bullying hardworking airline employees. As many of us know, Delta Airlines merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008. Northwest employees were represented by unions and traditionally most Delta employees were not. To complete the merger, employees have to decide whether they will elect union representation or not.

Beginning in 2008, Delta repeatedly urged the unions to seek elections so that the issue could be resolved one way or another. The only way to start that process was for the employees who wanted a union to call for an election. Many of the merged Delta working groups had already made their decision about representation. Pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, and meteorologists had all chosen, and the mediation board affirmed those decisions promptly.

In August of 2009, everything was in place to allow votes to proceed for the remaining work groups. The mediation board, however, dragged its feet and did not act on these requests, despite receiving and acting on three other requests from three other employee groups at other airlines in the intervening time.

The reason became clear in September of 2009, when the AFL-CIO asked the mediation board to change the rules in the middle of the merger. With no consultation or transparency, the mediation board rushed through new rules which makes it much easier to join a union. The new rule does so by only requiring a majority of those voting--not the majority of the work group, as required under the Railway Labor Act--to decide whether or not employees would be represented by a union. This meant that if, of a workforce of 20,000 people, only 1,000 people voted and 501 wanted a union, the entire 20,000 would be then represented.

At the same time, the new rule, while making it easier for unions to gain a foothold among employees who might not want them, didn't provide any mechanism for decertifying the union. In other words, the mediation board made it easier to get the union in and nearly impossible to get it kicked out.

With these new rules proposed, the unions which represented Northwest employees withdrew their request for votes while they waited for the new, easier rules to be finalized. The rules change was then finalized. They refiled for elections under the easier rule, and the mediation board promptly acted on those requests.

So what the unions wanted and got was the chance to have their vote under the new, more favorable rules. It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, of how much the mediation board is mediating on behalf of workers as opposed to coordinating with special interests.

If the mediation board were reasonable, it would have allowed Delta and Northwest flight attendants and airport workers to decide whether or not

they wanted union representation as soon as the unions filed. The NMB let three other airline elections go forward under the old rules but not Delta.

I would hope that the mediation board is watching out for workers' rights and not just union dues. Nothing appears to have been done to enhance worker rights and protections, and many feel that their rights are being trampled on by the very agency that is supposed to be looking out for them.

Despite the rule change, Mr. Speaker, when votes were eventually held late last year, a majority of the employees in fact voted not to join the union. The unions now have filed a complaint with the mediation board, asserting that Delta interfered with these elections and asking for new elections under--guess what?--another new set of rules. The National Mediation Board has not yet responded, but there are rightfully concerns with how it will proceed based on its past behavior.

It should be up to the employees and no one else to decide whether or not they will have a union--not the company and certainly not the Federal Government. Forcing employees to unionize through regulation is not why the National Mediation Board exists.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have my last speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say I look forward to working with the gentleman from West Virginia and all in this House to make our America a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 12, I missed the vote due to travel delays while returning from my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Thank you so much for those kind words from my friend from New Jersey.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about abortion, we think of this as a 40-year-old movement. We think about 1973 and Roe v. Wade, and that that was the catalyst to move this movement forward. We think about people like Barbara and Jack Wilke from Cincinnati, Ohio, pioneers and leaders who actually coined the phrase, right to life.

Mr. Speaker, we forget that this is not a 21st century issue. This is a centuries-old issue.

You know, it was actually the suffragists, those women over 150 years ago, who talked about women's rights, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to speak, the right to run for public office, who also talked about the right to life.

To these women, the very concept of feminism demanded that the basic human rights be extended to everyone without exception, including the unborn. And feminism meant rejecting the use of force to control or destroy one another, particularly among the most vulnerable and defenseless of the population.

So to suffragists, the act of abortion was much more than harm imposed upon a woman and her child. It was a frontal assault on womanhood and feminism, and an insult to the philosophical underpinnings of their cause.

And how do we know this? Well you know, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is look at their writings. All we have to do is look at people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and ``The Revolution.'' They both wrote extensively about abortion, calling it infanticide and child murder.

Susan B. Anthony also wrote, ``Guilty? Yes. No matter the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering from the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits abortion. It will burden her conscience in life; it will burden her soul in death.''

Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for President, stated similarly that ``Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.''

Sarah Norton, who first challenged Cornell University to admit women, also pondered whether there would ever come a time when ``the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.''

And Alice Paul. We all remember Alice Paul, the author of the Equal Rights Amendment. Mr. Speaker, it may surprise you. She stated abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

You know, I could talk all night about this, but we have women's history month in March, and I hope that I can be invited back again to speak more on the history of women and the human rights pro-life movement, because it's not just about human rights for one individual, it's about human rights for all individuals, the unborn, the born, and the elderly.

So I thank my colleague from New Jersey for hosting this forum tonight. I really appreciate his leadership in the pro-life movement, and we are going to

continue to forge ahead until everyone in America has the right to life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor our colleague Gabby Giffords and to mourn the loss of those that died in Tucson on Saturday, and to also pray for those who have been affected by this great tragedy, and to applaud the courage of those who risked their own lives so that others might live, and to thank the first responders and the

health care professionals whose quick action and work saved their lives.

You know, Madam Speaker, nobody ever thought Saturday would happen, especially Gabby. She was just out there doing her job. And when you think of the 20 families, and the community and the Nation, and how we have been affected by this act of violence, you think of the little girl that went there to meet her Congresswoman who never came home. You think about the person that took her, that wonderful neighbor who now will always think about what if I hadn't done this, what if I hadn't said would you like to come?

Madam Speaker, there are so many people affected by this tragedy. And no one can ever understand the mind of a person that would do this random act of violence. But we as a Nation can come together. We can recognize the courage of those that helped stop him. We can recognize the courage of those that are fighting for their lives, especially our Gabby. We can pray especially that this Nation will never again see that kind of tragedy.

And most importantly, Madam Speaker, we as a Nation--and I know people have said to me, well, what can we do? We as a Nation can pray. Get down on our knees every morning and every night. Pray for Gabby. Pray for her family. Pray for those folks that are suffering in the hospital. Pray for those moms and those dads and those brothers and those sisters and those aunts and those uncles and those grandparents that will never touch the family members again. Pray for Gabby's staff. Mourn the loss of her staffer. Mourn the loss of all six who perished. But most importantly, to pray that the folks that have been affected can have the courage to go on.

You know, we had a prayer service. And Cantor Leon Sher wrote a beautiful song. And at the end of the song he says:

We pray for healing of the people,

We pray for healing of the land.

And peace for every race and nation,

Every child, every woman, every man.

I don't think any words can sum up what we need to do here now today. So let us pray for Gabby that she comes back and she fights for what she believes in.

I welcome her spirited debate and her smile and her Pollyanna point of view. But let us hope that all of those that have been touched by this tragedy can heal and heal in a short run. Thank you. God bless this country, and God bless all in it.