Floor Statements

The bill before us today will open up the funding spigot for abortions in the District of Columbia. The Dornan amendment has, for years, helped to reduce abortions in D.C. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about abortion reduction, and the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that public funding for abortion increases the number of lives lost to abortion. Even the Guttmacher Institute has found that significantly more women choose abortion when the government subsidizes it. Unfortunately, the bill before us today will only serve to increase abortion.

The District of Columbia has a sordid history with abortion funding. In 1994, when the funding ban was lifted, D.C. took $1 million away from the Medical Charities Fund which was created to help AIDS patients to instead pay for abortions. And the District had to request additional funds to make up for the funds used on abortion. Then, when the funding ban was reinstated, the city disregarded the law and continued to fund abortion for two additional years.

The bill will again open the door for D.C. to abuse taxpayer dollars to expand abortion, and it completely disregards the views of the majority of Americans who do not support public funding for abortion.

The bill thrusts upon hardworking taxpayers the values of the Washington elite. Nearly 180 Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, made a simple and reasonable request: maintain existing pro-life policies in appropriations bills; and if you don't, allow us the opportunity to vote up or down.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee unilaterally acted to deny Members and, consequently, the constituents they represent, the opportunity even to vote on whether this bill should be used to expand public funding for abortion. Such actions are an offense to the democratic process, to the American taxpayers, and to the sanctity of human life.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate your overview and scheduling this hour over this so-called health reform and the abortion connection because this health care reform plan contains a hidden abortion mandate that the American people don't even realize is there.

It will mean that health care insurers will be forced to cover abortions. It will mean that taxpayer money will be used to subsidize abortions. Both a mandate and a subsidy against the moral objections of millions of pro-life Americans under the proposed health care reform bill which we're considering now in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I sit. And we began opening statements today. We will begin markup tomorrow. And it will continue next week for 3 more days.

Virtually under this bill every individual would be required to have health care that meets what they call minimum benefit standards.

Now, the bill does not design these minimum benefit standards, but instead it establishes a new government health board called the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. This committee is chaired by the Surgeon General and, in concert with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will issue binding decrees on what is and is not considered a minimum Federal benefit standard.

There is absolutely no doubt, as the gentleman from Louisiana stated, that this process will result in mandated coverage of abortion, along with Federal subsidies for such coverage, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion services.

When talking about health care reform, the gentleman mentioned President Obama himself stated that reproductive care is essential care, basic care. And Secretary Clinton just recently clarified that, ``Productive health includes access to abortion.''

History has demonstrated, as he pointed out, that unless abortion is explicitly excluded, administrative agencies and the courts will mandate it. We have seen this time and time again. The Federal Medicaid statute was silent on the issue of abortion, but the administration and the courts deemed abortion on demand to be mandated coverage. And, as a result, over 300,000 abortions a year were paid for with taxpayer funds before it was stopped.

In 1979, Congressman Henry Hyde asked the Indian Health Services where they found their authority to pay for abortions. They responded, ``We would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions.'' In both of these cases, explicit exclusions had to be added to ensure that taxpayers would not have to continue to pay for abortions.

And so every year when Labor and HHS that covers Medicaid is adopted, we have to adopt the Hyde amendment. It's an annual event.

Under this bill, any individual who does not have a plan that meets the minimum benefit standards, they will be forced to pay an additional 2\1/2\ percent penalty. Tax penalty. Any employer who does not provide coverage to his employees that meets these standards will pay up to an additional 8 percent tax penalty.

And so that means all premium payers and taxpayers in America who do not want a plan that pays for abortion will be penalized for it. In addition to mandating this coverage for abortion, the bill will also provide massive subsidies for abortion.

The bill both authorizes and appropriates funding for premium subsidies. So we won't have to appropriate money in the future if we pass this bill. And without explicit language to clarify that taxpayer dollars cannot and should not fund abortion, massive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharings will be used to pay for abortions against the moral objections of, as I have said, millions of pro-life Americans.

The issue here is simple: Americans should not be forced to have their tax dollars pay for abortion. And that's why I'm going to offer amendments in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the markup to eliminate the mandate, to eliminate the subsidies, and also to keep the bill from preempting State laws.

This bill is basically an end run to establish FOCA--Freedom of Choice Act. All the pro-life community knows what that is. This bill would preempt all State laws that would interfere with this bill and access to abortion.

We should not be forced to be unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses this law to mainstream the destruction of human life into Americans' health care industry. Health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life. Abortion is not health care. And this bill seeks to establish that.

The majority of Americans, as was pointed out, do not support public funding for abortion, use of their taxpayers dollars for abortion, and they should not have this abortion coverage forcefully thrust upon them.

And so with that, I thank the gentleman for scheduling this hour. It's very important that we alert the public as to what is coming down the pike in the next couple of weeks so they can get involved and express their views to their Members so that they reflect their views here on the floor.

They know, in response to the gentleman, they know that if the bill is silent on the issue of abortion, they will control who's appointed to the Benefits Advisory Committee. And they have expressed their intent, from the President on down to all the organizations who have lobbied for this health care bill, that they intend that abortion will be a basic essential service.

And so they're relying on that advisory committee, on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the courts, on the administrators to guarantee that this will be provided. Friends, this is the big battle for our time. This is the greatest civil rights issue of our generation. And if we lose this battle, it's over.

Now is the time for all citizens to weigh in if they don't want their tax dollars used to set up this massive abortion scheme that's coming through this bill.

I want just to highlight something that the gentleman from Iowa said. I think this is really a good way to explain it.

When does a baby's life have value?

Now, we know no one in this Congress would kill a 1-month-old baby or a 2-week-old baby, but if you could make life a line and put that dividing line at birth, what makes a baby that is 2 weeks old any more valuable than a baby who is 2 weeks before birth? What makes a 1-month- old baby any more valuable than one who is a month before birth? What makes a 3-month-old baby more valuable than a 3-month premature baby? If you go back on that line, when on that line does this baby's life begin to have value?

Those of us who hold the sanctity of life, I think, would believe that, from the moment of conception, as a little embryo, that that small, tiny human being has value. We know that its blood type is different than its mother's. It couldn't receive a blood transfusion from its mother. It probably couldn't receive a skin graft from its mother. In fact, by about 9 to 10 weeks, 11 weeks, which is when most abortions are done, that little baby has its fingerprints that are completely unique from any other individual's ever born. It has dream patterns on its brain waves. It sucks its thumb. If you put a light intrautero, it will hold up its hand and will turn its head. It feels pain. It is a little, unique individual in a little life support system that is not very big, but it is certainly just as valuable as any other baby. That's why we speak up for these little ones who can't speak for themselves.

They are subject to the most gruesome, horrific procedure known to mankind. I remember the chairwoman of the Feminists for Life speaking to a group of us. She said abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind and that abortion always has two victims--one dead, one wounded. One is the baby and one is the mother. She said an abortion breaks a woman's heart, and there are a lot of people who have suffered from this, and we need to do something about that.

I thought your illustration was really right on. It's a good way of illustrating why we're speaking up tonight for these little unborn children and for their moms.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the $787 billion so- called stimulus bill, the White House promised to set up a Web site where people could go to learn how the money was being spent. Recovery.gov has since been criticized for how long it took to get going and how forthcoming it has been with the information people need; yet it seems doubtful that what critics had in mind was an $18 million overhaul. That's exactly what this administration is planning.

The General Services Administration, the agency that manages Federal Government property, announced Wednesday that $18 million in additional stimulus funds is being spent to redesign the recovery.gov Web site. A cost estimate from www.designquote.net makes the $18 million figure even more outrageous. According to the site, the top-end estimate for a premium Web design from a professional firm flush with all of the bells and whistles comes out at $192,740.

One has to wonder what the other $17,807,260 in taxpayer money will be used for.

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to see a so-called ``public option'' as a part of any health care reform plan. The key question for any public health option is, would this plan be subsidized with taxpayer money? If not, then the public option would simply be a nonprofit insurance business which anyone could create now. But if taxpayer money will subsidize this option, and I believe it will, the public option will only serve to crowd out other choices.

A public option will not save any money; it will compete and undermine private plans. And I'm afraid many companies will end up dumping employees under the public plan. A public option is nothing more than a back door to government-owned health care which will ultimately result in rationed care and bureaucrats in charge of your health care choices.

Madam Speaker, like all of us, I believe we should work to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere, and we should be good stewards of this Earth and its resources. However, I don't believe this bill will accomplish a dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas emissions; yet I do believe it will have a crippling effect on our economy for years.

No matter how you doctor or tailor it, it is a tax, a national energy tax that will hurt each and every household. It will destroy sectors of our economy and cause job losses at an unprecedented rate.

Here is a chart that shows the jobs losses in thousands of jobs here, nearly 2 million jobs, 2012; 2035, over 2 million jobs a year. We should be protecting our environment through innovation, through entrepreneurship and cooperation, but this bill tries to cut carbon emissions through punishment taxation, heavy hand of government, and litigation.

The bill as originally introduced, analyzed by the PUC, a bipartisan group in Pennsylvania, said it would cost Pennsylvanians 66,000 jobs by the year 2020.

I urge my colleagues to consider just how irresponsible it is to move legislation that is going to cost so many jobs, so much damage to our economy, and yet it is anticipated to slow temperature increases by only two-tenths of 1 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. There is a better way.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when policy makers are doing everything they can to reduce smoking in our society, one area of smoking prevention remains unchallenged: Smoking in the movies.

Studies have shown that viewing smoking in the movies normalizes smoking among youth. It glamorizes smoking through the attractiveness of the actors and characters who smoke. These attitude changes lead to smoking experimentation, which in turn leads to harmful and addictive habits.

Tobacco is still depicted in three-quarters of youth-rated movies and 90 percent of R-rated movies. Movies targeting impressionable youth should be the last place for gratuitous smoking images.

Dartmouth Medical School found that up to one-half of the youth smoking initiation is explained by exposure to smoking in the movies in their studies.

Parents should know they are exposing their kids to glamorized depictions of smoking when they allow them to see youth-related movies by the rating system.

Madam Speaker, in a couple of weeks the House is going to consider the cap-and-trade legislation that has enormous implications for our economy. This 926-page bill, as introduced and considered by the committee, has 50 pages on lightbulbs and two sentences on nuclear power.

Recently, I saw a Rasmussen poll of likely voters that indicates 30 percent of likely voters have no idea what cap-and-trade means. Twenty- nine percent of them also thought it was some sort of Wall Street regulation, and 17 percent thought it had to something to do with health care. Only 24 percent had any idea of what it was.

Cap-and-trade puts a cap or a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, carbon dioxide. When you breath in, that is oxygen. When you breathe out, that is carbon dioxide, CO2.

According to this legislation, CO2 is pollution. According to the bill, if foreign countries don't cap emissions, their goods can be hit with tariffs which they call ``border adjustments.'' The loss of jobs that will go overseas as a result of this bill is being called ``leakage.''

Breathing as pollution, border adjustments, leakage--this bill is a massive, bureaucratic, regulatory taxation scheme on energy, linguistic obfuscation to cover up the harmful impacts it will have on our economy.

Mr. Speaker, during a speech last week at Beijing University in China, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was laughed at when he attempted to assure students that the Chinese government could continue to safely invest in American debt. The largest holder of our national debt is now openly laughing at our financial situation. At the same time, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was here on Capitol Hill calling for fiscal restraint. Every dollar spent by the government is taken from the people in taxes or borrowed against future generations.

Our Nation's fiscal responsibility is so lacking that a developing nation snickers at the mention of sound investment in our debt. Traveling the world, begging creditor nations to allow us to continue our spending binge is not the kind of international engagement we need. Our economy will turn around because of the ingenuity of the American people, not because of out-of-control, irresponsible government spending and borrowing.

Thank you, Jean. I really want to commend the lady from Ohio for her leadership and for the Pro-Life Women's Caucus for having this Special Order.

You know, there are really no more eloquent voices for women and children than pro-life women. You're not only eloquent; you're elegant. I want to thank you for your wonderful statements on the issue of life and of women and of the unborn child.

Abortion is an exploitation of women and children. I remember hearing a few years ago the President of Feminists for Life, Frederica Mathewes-Green, when she spoke to the Congressional Life Forum. She said abortion breaks a woman's heart. She said there are always two victims with an abortion. One is the baby. The other is the mother. One is dead. One is wounded. We should keep that in mind as we talk about this issue.

I am very sad to see this administration act so quickly in going towards promoting abortion policies. Three days after the President was inaugurated, on Friday evening at about 5:30, he issued an order overturning the Mexico City Policy. Mexico City was started by President Reagan, and it has been in our policy for many years. He overturned Mexico City. By eliminating the Mexico City Policy, what that does is permits all of the family planning funds that go to international organizations to go to organizations that promote and provide abortions. He has given them that money. Not only did he overturn Mexico City, but in the omnibus bill, he raised the amount of money this year to $545 million to go to these international organizations that promote and provide abortions. It's a tragedy. He is becoming known by many in the pro-life community as the ``abortion President.'' It's very unfortunate. It's very sad.

The next thing he did shortly after that was to issue an executive order overturning the Federal ban that President Bush had put on the stem cell policies, expanding the use of taxpayer funds for the use of destroying embryos so that they could harvest the stem cells and use them for experimentation. Not only did he do that, but he issued an order to discourage adult stem cell research. Now, we all know, having followed this for many years, that for the last 25 years, they've done research on mice and, for the last 12 or 13 years, on humans. The only thing that has worked as far as treating humans are adult stem cells. There are something like 73 successful treatments and several protocols using adult stem cells, but there is nothing using embryonic stem cells, which kills the tiniest of human beings, the human embryo.

Then he proposed a rule shortly after that to remove the critical regulations that were put in place to protect the right of conscience of health care workers so that now health care workers--doctors, nurses, those in health care--can be compelled against their consciences to provide abortion services, which are referrals and providing abortion services. This is another promotion, if you will, of abortion.

Then, in the omnibus bill, they removed the provisions that would have prevented funds from going to the UNFPA--the groups in China that promote abortion and that force abortion and sterilization. They now are eligible to get those funds for that practice.

I remember a few weeks ago that Harry Wu, the great human rights activist from China, who spent 19 years in their laogai, in the gulag there, presented testimony before the Human Rights Caucus. He said, in China, having a baby is not a human right. He said, if you have a second pregnancy, they will forcibly abort that woman. They will forcibly sterilize her. They will find her and tear down her house and sometimes imprison her. We are putting taxpayer funds into organizations that promote and provide that kind of service in China? It is really a terrible thing that American taxpayers, who have consciences against their funds being used for these things, are now seeing this administration open the floodgates for these kinds of provisions in our country and around the world.

Now, in this budget, in the Obama budget, he has included a loophole that will allow taxpayer funds for abortions in the District of Columbia.

The best way to reduce abortion is to limit taxpayer funding for abortion. There has been a lot of talk about abortion reduction, and the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that public funding for abortion increases the number of unborn babies lost to abortion. Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the arm of Planned Parenthood, routinely issues reports showing that, when public funding is not available, 30 percent fewer women in the covered population have abortions. That means 30 percent of babies whose mothers receive government-subsidized health care survive because of an abortion funding restriction. So undermining commonsense policies like the restriction on taxpayer funding for abortion flies in the face of the President's claims that he is working to reduce abortion in America. It is very unfortunate.

I just want to commend the pro-life women for this Special Order tonight. They have an understanding like no one else on this issue, and it is so heartening to hear their eloquent testimony and their voices on behalf of women and children here in our country and around the world. So thank you. Thanks to the gentlelady for inviting me down. I really commend you for your Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, a recent news story highlights political appointees at the Justice Department running roughshod over both their civil counterparts and the law itself.

In November, members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense stood in paramilitary uniforms, one of them wielding a nightstick, and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place. The facts are not in question. You can see the video on YouTube. Career lawyers at the Justice Department rightly pursued the case in order to bring charges. They even obtained an affidavit from a prominent civil rights activist who was present and described it as ``the most blatant form of voter intimidation'' that he had seen, including the voting rights crisis he was a part of in Mississippi in the 1960s. The civil suit filed claimed the individuals engaged in ``coercion, threats and intimidation, racial threats and insults, and menacing and intimidating gestures.''

Yet now political appointees have stepped in to order the suit dropped. Apparently this Justice Department has no problem with voter intimidation or politicization of justice.

Madam Speaker, 20 years ago today the brutal massacre of peaceful student demonstrators occurred in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, by the People's Liberation Army. Hundreds, perhaps thousands were shot, killed or wounded, including being run over by tanks. The extraordinary image of a man standing unarmed in front of a row of Chinese tanks has become one of the most famous photos of the 21st century and will forever be ingrained in our memories. That man represents thousands of others thirsting for freedom, thousands who were arrested and detained. Some of those are still in labor camps today.

This week we pause to remember the lives of those who were tragically lost in the massacre and imprisoned in the gulag. We honor their courage and their stand for freedom. China has made significant progress towards economic reform, but political reform is still needed to ensure the fundamental rights of the people, such as freedom of religion, expression and assembly.

The Chinese Government continues to intimidate reporters, block Web sites, jam broadcasts and censor the Internet. We look forward to a day when the people of China are truly free. That day will surely come.

Madam Speaker, the Associated Press issued an analysis this week that describes what many have known all along: The $787 billion economic stimulus plan isn't getting to the people who need it most.

For those who knew the Federal Government would not be able to effectively and efficiently distribute the money, this comes as no surprise.

The May 11 story says: ``Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.''

The story continues: ``The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs. Many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.''

The Democrat spokesman for the House Transportation Committee said, ``I think the Administration oversold the transportation aspect of this. It was sold as the heart and soul of the package, and it really just isn't.''

That's the understatement of the year.

Mr. Speaker, the President's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is truly from the radical fringe, which is why her confirmation is running into so much trouble in the Senate.

That person is Dawn Johnsen, a former attorney for one of the Nation's largest and most radical abortion groups. Ms. Johnsen's own quotes speak for her radical views. She equated pregnancy to slavery. She said that laws restricting a woman's ``abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude.'' She's likened pregnant mothers to ``no more than fetal containers.'' And she claims that abortion is ``a relief'' rather than the traumatic experience it truly is for women.

Her appointment is a slap in the face to fair-minded Americans. And now Senator Reid has indicated he does not have the votes to bring her nomination to the Senate floor. The President should take a cue from the Senate and withdraw this mistaken nomination, a nomination that runs counter to the values of the American people.

Madam Speaker, in 1994, the EPA enacted a regulation requiring additives derived from renewable sources for our Nation's fuel supplies. This policy caused problems as corn ethanol pushed up food prices and turned out to be far less beneficial for the environment than originally thought, with some studies even concluding ethanol may be worse for the environment than gasoline.

Now, over a decade later, the EPA has ruled that Congress tasked it with regulating greenhouse gases when it passed the Clean Air Act. Without action by Congress, regulations are soon to follow. This fact is being held over our heads by some who claim it is better to let Congress regulate emissions than unelected bureaucrats. This is a false choice. The act was never intended to regulate carbon, and we can pass legislation to make that clear.

Congress should stop unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from hurting our economy further through draconian emissions regulations without doing harm itself. There is a better way.

Madam Speaker, last week, the Congressional Human Rights Commission met with defectors from North Korea and we heard firsthand how the people of North Korea continue to suffer terribly at the hands of the cruel dictatorship there.

It is vital that the international community and the United States take more specific, deliberate action aimed at helping the suffering people of North Korea. There are numerous reports of the suffering going on inside North Korea; prison camps, severe torture, slave labor, forced abortions, and almost certain death for those who have tried to escape and have been forced to return.

The U.S. Congress passed the North Korea Human Rights Act to provide a stronger foundation for the U.S. to help the North Korean people. Unfortunately, that act has not been implemented to the fullest extent possible.

The North Korean people need to hear the message that they are not alone, that they are not forgotten, and that there are many in the United States and around the world who deeply care about their plight and are working to help them.

We look forward to the day when we can visit a free North Korea and see the people living with human rights and dignity.