Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, since May of 2003, more than 3 million new jobs have been created and Americans have gone back to work. We have had 22 straight months of job growth. Last month alone, more than 110,000 Americans found jobs.

Clearly, our economy's growth is as a result of the pro-growth agenda of the President and this Republican Congress. By focusing our efforts on allowing the American people to keep more of their own money and working to remove the negative economic effects of our legal system, the Republican Congress continues to show its commitment to America's economy and working families.

However, our work is not done. We need to get an energy bill signed into law. This would create 500,000 new jobs. We need to make the tax relief permanent and hold down government spending. Over the past 100 days, House Republicans have demonstrated that we are dedicated to promoting policies that better the economy. And for the sake of our families who are counting on us, I hope we can count on our friends in the Senate to follow our lead.

Mr. Speaker, if U.N. reform is the issue, then John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations. He supports a United Nations that is transparent and effective. He supports a U.N. that does not work against American interests. He supports a U.N. that respects the sovereign laws of member nations, and he supports the ability of the U.S. to act according to its own national interest.

The Senate Democrats do not agree with him. These senators support a U.N. that even works against American interests, a U.N. that is not accountable to member states. A classic tactic of people hiding their true agenda is do not debate the issue, attack the person.

Their cynical strategy has made the number one qualification for ambassador good manners, not experience. Because a partisan political operative accuses John Bolton of being rude to staff, he is not qualified.

Mr. Speaker, if being rude to staff disqualifies John Bolton, then probably half the Members of Congress would be disqualified as well. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Mr. Speaker, the combat medic badge was first awarded in 1945 to medics who served in combat while in or attached to a combat unit. As times changed, the role of the medic changed with them. In Vietnam, medics served in units, but some also flew in helicopter medical evacuation ambulance units, called medivacs.

DUSTOFF was the call sign that we gave this mission, and they saved nearly a million people during the Vietnam war by flying unarmed onto the battlefield to treat and save our wounded soldiers, most often under fire.

The average DUSTOFF medic treated nearly 2,000 troops in a 1-year tour. Currently, there is no unique way to honor these brave men and women. Although they flew in and out of combat every day, they are not eligible for the combat medic badge, because they were not attached to a combat unit; often the medivac unit was another unit.

And my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), has legislation to correct this by directing the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to develop the combat medivac badge. The badge will be awarded to anyone who has served in combat as a pilot or crew member of a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance since 1950.

I urge the body to pass this, give the DUSTOFF veterans the honor they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, a woman from my district came to Washington last month to tell Congress about how her daughter was taken to New Jersey for an abortion without her knowledge and she said, ``On February 16th, I sent my daughter to her bus stop with $2 of lunch money. I thought she was safe at school. She and her boyfriend had a prenatal class scheduled after school.''

So the mom knew about the 14-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Her daughter had chosen to keep the baby and was attending prenatal classes.

The mom continues, ``However, what really happened was that boyfriend and his family met with her down the road from the bus stop, called a taxi, they put the children on a train from Lancaster to Philadelphia. From there they took two subways to New Jersey. That is where his family met the children and took them to the abortion clinic. When my daughter started to cry and have second thoughts, they told her that they would leave her in New Jersey. They planned, paid for, coerced, harassed and threatened her into having the abortion. They left her alone during the abortion and went to eat lunch.''

From this incident let us be clear on what the law allows. A 14-year- old girl tells her mom she is pregnant. Mom says she will support her in whatever choice she makes. The daughter chooses to have the baby and begins to prepare for delivery, even chooses the names. Boyfriend's family bullies the girl into having an abortion and sends her to New Jersey. All this time the mother thinks she is sending her daughter to school. Instead, the boyfriend's family dropped this young girl in tears off at an abortion clinic and then went to eat lunch. Her unborn baby is killed and she is in counseling to this day.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would correct this problem. It would protect our children. No parent should be kept in the dark when it comes to a medical issue regarding their children. I urge support for the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, a woman from my district came to Washington last month to tell Congress about how her daughter was taken to New Jersey for an abortion without her knowledge. This mom knew about her 14-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Her daughter had chosen to keep the baby and was attending prenatal classes.

But the boyfriend's family, according to her testimony, ``planned, paid for, coerced, harassed, and threatened her into having an abortion. They left her alone during the abortion and went to eat lunch.''

About 80 percent of the public favors parental notification laws. Over 30 States have enacted such laws. As in the case of my constituent, these laws are often evaded by interstate transportation of minors, and it is often openly encouraged in advertising by abortion providers.

This week, the House will consider legislation that merely says that in States that protect a parent's right to know, taking a young girl across State lines will not keep the parent in the dark. The bill would make it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines to circumvent that State's abortion parental notification laws. In addition, the bill requires that in a State without parental notification, abortion providers are required to notify a parent.

I urge support of the bill.

Madam Speaker, Senate Democrats are blocking votes on qualified judicial nominees. Each of these nominees would receive the majority support of most Senators in a vote. So it was interesting when Democrats say exposing these obstructionist tactics is un-American, in the words of one Senator.

The fact is Democrats oppose these judges because they support judges who say the Ten Commandments, the Pledge, and prayer in public are illegal. They support judges who have no fear of legislating from the bench. They oppose judges who share the same values as most of America. But they do not want people to know that. They would rather keep that all under wraps.

But there is a growing voice in this country that is calling them out. Senate Democrats and their liberal allies at the ACLU and People for the American Way have declared people of faith ineligible to serve on the Federal bench. This strategy represents the worst that our Nation's leaders have to offer, using religious conviction as an excuse for obstructionism in the Senate. It is all part of a cynical campaign of obstructionism.

Mr. Speaker, John Bolton is the President's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N. The Senate has not yet voted on his nomination. A few Members are holding up that vote so they can explore his treatment of lower-level staffers.

Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen are two of the President's nominees to be Federal judges. The Senate has not yet voted on their nominations. A few Democrats have promised to hold up these votes so they can prove a political point.

What do these three have in common, I mean, other than being victims of the Senate's partisan machinations? They are all highly qualified. They would all do a great job. They would all receive the support of a majority of Senators. They are all nominated for jobs that are currently vacant. That is right; the jobs the President has asked these people to do are not being done.

That is not the President's fault. That is not Bill Frist's fault. Some Democrats paid a political price for obstructionism last November. It seems that some of them are still slow learners.

Mr. Speaker, energy powers the tools and the machines we need to live and our economy needs to grow; but when energy supplies are tight, families face higher prices and our economy faces a deteriorating energy infrastructure.

In recent years, this has caused home heating bills to skyrocket and force many U.S. manufacturers to slow production, lay off workers, and even go out of business.

This week, the House will debate and vote on a national energy policy. Again, if this sounds familiar, that is because we have gone through this process several times already only to have a few Senators stall this long overdue legislation.

The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 is very comprehensive. We should not let the opponents of change stop us from enacting a sensible, progressive energy policy for America. We need it and America's families need it.

Madam Speaker, last year, former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives, five copies of an ``after-action'' memo on the 2000 millennium terror plot, to be precise. He later destroyed, he cut up, three of the copies that contained handwritten notes from administration officials. Then, he lied about it to Federal investigators. The memo was severely critical of the Clinton administration's handling of the incident.

Recently, we learned that Mr. Berger made a deal with Federal officials, and the deal was not 5 years in prison instead of 10. No, he gets a slap on the wrist in exchange for admitting he lied.

So let us just make sure we have the score right here. Martha Stewart tells a lie about a stock sale; she goes to prison. Sandy Berger lies about stealing and destroying national security documents; he gets a slap on the wrist. So send the person who lied about money to jail, but go easy on the person who lied about stolen and destroyed classified documents who tried to cover up the public record on an issue of life and death and national security.

Justice? Sorry to say, not this time.

Mr. Speaker, the President signed into law a bill ordering courts to take a new look, a de novo look, at the Terri Schiavo case. In legal terms, this means that a court must approach a case as if they have no prior knowledge of the facts. In a death penalty case, a de novo order reopens the entire case, and the judge issues a stay on the execution.

Instead, in Terri's case, they took a cursory look at the case, did not issue a stay and affirmed her death sentence.

The problem here is not Congress; it is the courts. These judges abandoned Terri's humanity on a technicality, and they blatantly ignored the law that Congress passed.

Since when do judges get to ignore the laws of the land? The fact is that they have been doing it for a long time, in ways that should concern both sides of the aisle in this body.

When judges are viewed as above the law, as immune from accountability, we have ceased to be ruled by the consent of the governed, the people. We need to get courts under control before we slip further towards a Nation ruled by judicial fiat.

The problem is that though judges are the arbiters of legal disputes, they have become lawmakers just like us. We do not live in a land governed by judges. We live in a land governed by the people; and if we continue to ignore that, we have only ourselves to blame.

Mr. Speaker, in America we do not let people starve an animal to death. We do not let them starve prisoners to death. But that is what some would do to Terri Schiavo.

This is about the rights of a disabled person. Terri Schiavo is not brain dead or comatose or unconscious. She is not terminally ill, she is not dying, she is not on artificial life support. All she needs is a feeding tube to eat. But so do many disabled people.

Terri has a brain injury, but otherwise she is healthy. Seven years after the injury, her husband suddenly remembered Terri's wishes about life and death. Her estranged husband has not allowed her any therapy or treatments or rehabilitation in more than a decade since he won the malpractice award, even though many doctors believe that they would help her condition. In fact, she was speaking some words before her treatment stopped. She may not even need the help of a feeding tube if given therapy. Doctors who have seen her certify that she can swallow.

Mr. Speaker, this woman needs help, not a death sentence. She needs the warmth of a family that cares for her. She needs the help of doctors who want to treat her, instead of recommending that she die. But her family is not even allowed to help her because of a judge's ruling, a judge who in 5 years has not even bothered to visit her once to see for himself that Terri is not comatose, that she is not unconscious, that she is not in a vegetative state.

If prisoners on Death Row are guaranteed Federal review of their cases, Terri Schiavo deserves at least as much consideration. The 14th amendment of the Constitution says: ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' This means Florida may not starve Terri to death unless every legal recourse to prevent it has been taken.

This is a constitutional right. Terri's life is valuable. She deserves a right to live. The disability community is horrified at what is happening to Terri, and so are millions of Americans. I urge every one of my colleagues to have compassion on this disabled woman and allow a Federal court to review the facts and her constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, last night when H.R. 1332 was passed by the House this Chamber did a good thing. It offered to the disabled an opportunity to live and it reaffirmed our culture's desire to value the right to life of each and every member of it regardless of disability.

This bill gives Terri Schiavo a right to appeal the ruling of the Florida State courts in Federal court, and it will allow her to challenge the ruling that she is to starve to death.

The bill applies only to medically incapacitated patients, not to convicted criminals. And it is further evidence that the disabled have a place in our culture, that life has a place in our culture.

I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for taking the lead and I thank the House leadership for expediting action on it. Now the Senate must do the same. Terri deserves to live.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a flier from the Web site terrisfight.org:

``Terri Schiavo is sentenced to die of starvation by the Florida courts, however:

``Terri responds to verbal, auditory and digital stimuli.

``Terri breaths normally on her own.

``Terri smiles, tries to talk to her family and friends and will move her limbs on command.

``Terri is not in a coma. She is reactive and has sleeping and wakeful periods.

``Terri is not a burden. Her parents, brother and sister have offered to care for her in a safe environment and she has a fund so is not a burden to anyone, taxpayers included.

``Terri's condition can improve with proper treatment.

``Don't let the Florida courts starve this innocent woman to death. Terri's time is running out.''

Congress can and must act this week. We cannot allow the execution of this disabled young woman.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an age where some take life for granted. Today, some would stand by and let Terri Schiavo starve to death. They do not believe her life is worth saving. But listen to a quote from her attorney who visited with her.

``When her mother was close to her, Terri's whole face lit up. She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she stopped, Terri started vocalizing. The vocalizations seemed to be a pattern, not merely random or reflexive at all. There is definitely a pattern of Terri having a conversation with her mother as best she can manage.''

Terri Schiavo is alive. She responds to people. She breathes on her own. Her heart beats on its own. All she needs is a feeding tube.

If we allow a judge to order her to die, what are we saying about life? Those with disabilities, even severe disabilities, have a right to life, just like everyone else in this Chamber.

We need to save Terri Schiavo and pass legislation immediately to save her life.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, under current law, when an urbanized area exceeds 200,000 in population, the transit system serving the area not only receives less Federal transit funding, but also loses their flexibility to use Federal transit funds to meet unique local transit needs.

The 2000 Census was the first census carried out under this law, and we are now seeing the consequences of this law, which uses an arbitrary and outdated threshold that was really first established and used in the 1950s.

Today it is hurting our Nation's most thriving communities. Fifty-two small transit systems across the Nation and the communities they serve face a financial crisis that they are not equipped to handle. That means more than 11 million people across the country will have their public transit service affected.

These systems will have to cut routes and raise fares in the hope of making ends meet. But for most, even that will not be enough. This will hurt passengers who rely on transit, workers who need to get to their jobs, elderly who need to get to the grocery store or pharmacy and, in my district, particularly the Amish, who rely on transit because it is against their religion to owns cars.

We need to give these transit systems time to find alternative funding solutions at the State and local levels. My

amendment allows these small transit systems, only 52 of them, to have flexibility in using 50 percent of their Federal transit funds through the year 2007 and then reduces that 25 percent for 2008 and 2009.

This is the least we can do for these systems that are servicing some of the healthiest growing communities across the country.

Two systems in my districts, Red Rose Transit and BARTA in Reading are facing a financial crisis because of this law. We should not punish healthy systems in growing communities.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's support for holding these systems harmless over the past couple of years. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding this year and the transportation programs throughout the country, these small systems have not been able to find local solutions. We need more time, and I urge Members to support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the extensions we have had are only 6 months at a time. We have had a couple of those. We would like to extend to the end of the authorization period.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, again, this is not asking for more money; it is flexibility, and it is a phased-down flexibility to soften the blow on the small transit system and provide them more time to find alternative solutions to the funding crises they face. There are some 52 systems, many represented by Members from the other side of the aisle.

I urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification, it is my understanding that what is in TEA-LU only extends the flexibility to 2005. What mine does is just extends it to end of the authorization.