Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to events beyond my control I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes. Had I been able to submit my votes, they would have been as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 297 on agreeing to the passage of H. Res. 264-- ``yes''.

Rollcall vote No. 298 on agreeing to the passage of H. Res. 177-- ``yes''.

Rollcall vote No. 299 on agreeing to the passage of H. Con. Res. 209--``yes''.

Rollcall vote No. 300 on agreeing to the passage of H.R. 2465-- ``yes''.

Mr. Speaker, today what we are talking about is ending the death tax. I believe it is morally wrong that we tax people on their death. They should not have to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the same day. I know a story of a couple, a man and a woman, who had two children who owned a small business. They passed away, unfortunately, and left that business to their children. Their children thought they would get this business, maybe get a little money. But instead to pay the death tax, they had to actually borrow money to sell that business. The Republican Party does not want to tax dead people. The Democrat Party does. That is the difference here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003. This bill permanently repeals the death tax and allows families to pass on businesses and farms to their families without the enormous, intrusive and burdensome

taxes they are often forced to incur. The IRS imposes rates of up to 60 percent of the value of a family business or farm when the owner passes away. To pay the tax man, many families are forced to liquidate assets and sell their businesses and farms though some have been in the family for generations.

The death tax is un-American, Mr. Speaker. Ask any small business owner. They know all too well that 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third. They will tell you that repealing the death tax would create jobs and grow our economy. It is good for small business owners, it is good for our economy and it is good for America.

Join me in voting for H.R. 8, the repeal of this burdensome tax on family-owned farms and businesses. It is morally wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for those very informative charts. I believe we need to stop the lawsuit lottery in this country.

Today I rise in support of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002. H.R. 1115 is a critical piece of legislation that can reform tort law and give reprieve to our beleaguered State and local courts that are suffering under the weight of frivolous lawsuits.

Statistics have shown that upwards of 93 percent of Americans believe tort reforms are needed. These statistics also show that 50 percent of all tort awards go towards lawyers' fees and their administrative costs. From these figures it is easy to discern that the American people demand tort reform and protection from lawyers who are looking out for their own interests rather than those of the plaintiffs they represent.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 seeks a balanced and sensible approach to address the worst class action abuses. It provides protections for consumers and assures fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims. The bill specifically discourages lawyers from forum shopping for courts most likely to approve a prospective class of plaintiffs and award large monetary decisions.

By curbing these abuses of the class action system, consumer costs will be driven down and these lawsuits will benefit plaintiffs they are intended to compensate. This sensible legislation will restore balance, fairness, and uniformity to our civil justice system. It

is a good step in the right direction in reforming tort law and will protect plaintiffs and consumers alike.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1115 to set a precedent of judicial fairness.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

It is true that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Dr. James McMahon, one of the founders of the partial-birth abortion method, in his June 15, 1995, testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, testified that in a series of about 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed, only 9 percent of those abortions were performed for maternal health reasons. Of that group, the most common reason given was depression.

It is clear many partial-birth abortion procedures occur for purely elective or frivolous reasons. He also cited that he performed partial- birth abortions on babies with no flaws whatsoever, even in the third trimester, many as late as 29 weeks, well into the seventh month of pregnancy.

No matter where we stand on the issue of life, most Americans agree that the brutal and horrific practice of partial-birth abortion must cease to exist. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 760 and to right the wrong that has existed for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 192 to amend the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to increase assistance for the poorest people in developing countries.

Microenterprise programs give poor borrowers the capacity to improve the quality of their lives and the futures of their children. It helps very poor people start or expand self-employment ventures and pull themselves out of poverty.

If we are looking for ways to achieve the Millennium Development goal of cutting the severe poverty of over 1 billion people in half by 2015, there is no more direct way than expanding access to Microenterprise. These programs are reaching over 25 million very poor borrowers--with an average family of five--that's over 125 million people touched by Microenterprise. It can have a crucial role to play in families and communities by providing additional income and the money used to obtain better food, housing and education.

Microenterprise is a powerful anti-poverty tool, and it is most powerful in the hands of the poorest people. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of H.R. 192 and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the comprehensive energy legislation before us today.

While the bill has many excellent provisions, I want to focus on just a few that I believe are particularly important.

Increasingly, our country is relying on natural gas to heat our homes, fuel industry, and to generate electricity. The good news is our country is blessed with vast reserves of natural gas, and additional reserves are nearby in Canada. Unfortunately, many of our existing producing reservoirs are declining. This means we must allow access to new reserves and encourage the building of the infrastructure necessary to get these reserves to market.

I am pleased that the bill contains several important provisions designed to do just that. For example, the bill directs the Secretary of Energy to undertake a program to demonstrate technologies for improving production techniques, particularly from unconventional natural gas reservoirs, such as tight sand formations and coal bed methane.

The bill also includes a number of tax provisions to encourage production and infrastructure development. For example, the bill extends the section 29 tax incentives so important to the development of unconventional gas reserves. It also provides royalty relief to encourage production in deeper offshore waters. It also sets a 7-year depreciation life for gathering lines and a 15-year life for distribution lines.

The bill also calls for improvements in the leasing process of the Department of the Interior. Much of the reserves remaining in the continental United States are located on Federal lands. These reserves can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner, but we must break through the bureaucracy and other barriers that delay or block making these lands available.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I applaud the work of the many committees involved in putting this package together. Enactment of comprehensive energy legislation will address a critical sector of our economy and our country's security. I appreciate the leadership of

Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boehlert, and others involved in putting this bill together and I hope that we can reach our goal of signing a comprehensive energy bill into law.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2003.

I am a cosponsor of this legislation for several reasons. First, I do not believe that licensed gun manufacturers and merchants should be held legally responsible for the unlawful use of their lawful products. Second, I feel this constitutes a violation of tort law, and could send a dangerous precedent for future lawsuits affecting many other industries to come.

Tort law rests upon a foundation of individual responsibility in which a product may not be defined as defective unless there is something wrong with the product, rather than with the product's user.

Today, this Congress has the opportunity to address frivolous lawsuits and protect a legal and law-abiding industry from legal excess. We should pass this legislation to end the effort to drive law- abiding firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers into bankruptcy under the crushing weight of illegitimate lawsuits.

Congress has a constitutional authority to protect the interstate commerce in firearms, a lawful and legal product. I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible legislation and set a precedent of legal business protection.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, a bill to ban all types of human cloning.

I believe human cloning is ethically and morally wrong. It is an unjust experiment whereby human beings are created and destroyed solely for the purpose of research. Human beings cannot be treated as material used for scientific research, and the cloning of human babies turns the natural procreation process into the simple manufacturing of human beings.

It has been determined that human cloning is entirely unsafe to practice on human beings. Most scientists agree that human cloning poses a serious risk of producing children who are stillborn, unhealthy, severely malformed, or disabled.

The fact is, in animal cloning trials, 95 to 98 percent of all cloning attempts have ended in failure, and almost all successfully cloned animals have genetic abnormalities. In fact, Dolly, the infamous cloned sheep, died this past Valentine's Day of a lung disease she acquired before she was even born, and lived only half of the normal life expectancy for a sheep. Why would we even consider for a moment that cloning is safe for humans?

I agree with President Bush when he stated no human life should be started or ended as an object of an experiment.

When debating this issue, we must ask the ethical question: Are we created in God's image, or are we created in our own? Today, this House has a unique opportunity to shut the door on this invasive procedure to women and an affront to humanity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Weldon bill, to set a precedent for morality and the sanctity of humanity.