Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pro-life. I do not apologize for it. I do not demonize people who hold a different view; but I would say respectfully to the previous speaker, to the gentlewoman, that this really is not a debate about a woman's right to choose or the right to life. It does not really find itself divided in that way. Survey after survey proves the point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying ban on partial-birth abortion because this is just an antiseptic term for a barbaric procedure. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democratic Senator, said, memorably, partial-birth abortion is ``near infanticide.''

We can have arguments about this bill, about its constitutionality. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Chabot) has gone to great lengths to improve this legislation, and we are confident that it is superior to the Nebraska bill that failed constitutional muster.

We can argue the medicine, and we can argue the facts; but the one thing that is inarguable is that this practice is inherently, morally wrong. What is not arguable is that the practice of delivering a newborn child alive, feet first, holding it in the birth canal squirming while the back of its head is stabbed with a suction device is evil. That, Mr. Speaker, is not arguable.

Today we will follow our colleagues at the other end of this building to take one more step to render that practice unlawful and make that which virtually every American knows in his heart to be evil and morally wrong also illegal in America.

Justice has always been defined in this Nation and every society by how they deal with the innocent and those who do them harm. Of the innocent and defenseless we are urged to do what we can for the least of these. Banning partial-birth abortion is the least we can do for the least of these.

Mr. Speaker, as the President arrived in Europe during this recent and historic journey, culminating, we hope, in progress today in the nation of Jordan, several days ago he was greeted with what can only be described as a hysterical European press attack on what were called the lies and distortions of this administration relative to its pronouncements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

After that hysteria in the European press, even some editorial pages in the United States have gone forward with similar recriminations and I thought that it would be useful tonight, Mr. Speaker, to rise and talk about the facts of weapons of mass destruction. I do so having literally just come this morning from a briefing by the Under Secretary for Arms Control for the United States Department of State, Mr. John Bolton, perhaps one of the most distinguished and informed leaders in our Nation, on the subject of arms control and weapons proliferation.

Mr. Bolton spoke before us today of the efforts within Iraq, the Iraq survey group, that he believed would bear fruit soon, in his words, in finding both evidence of a WMD program and also ultimately weapons of mass destruction themselves. He said that he believed that we would be soon finding weapons and the means of production in due course. But where comes his confidence, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps it comes with a brief recitation of the history of the region. People are very quick to forget, especially in the European press that seems to suggest that this idea of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was somehow invented out of whole cloth.

Many seem to forget that it was Iraq themselves, 18 April 1991, that provided an initial declaration required under U.N. resolution 687 declaring themselves, Iraq declared themselves in the possession of chemical weapons and materials and 53 al Hussein and Scud type long- range ballistic missiles. At that point in April of 1991, they denied the presence of any biological weapons. By May, Iraq submitted a revised declaration covering additional chemical weapons and a refinement of the missile declaration. And then after pressure from UNSCOM, Iraq admitted in August of 1991 that they had a biological research program for defensive military purposes.

According to UNSCOM estimates, Iraq acknowledged that they were in possession of 10,000 nerve gas warheads, 1,500 chemical weapons and 412 tons of chemical weapon agents. 1991. As Under Secretary Bolton said today, it has been the unchanged position throughout the Clinton administration and through the Bush administration that those weapons are unaccounted for to this day. Both administrations held, in Mr. Bolton's words as a representative of the State Department, precisely the same view of these weapons, that were not invented by some political spinmeister in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were admitted to by the regime in Baghdad, who went on year after year delaying inspections, denying their presence and refusing to prove their destruction, leading up to the 1998 expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors, resulting in President Clinton's attack on Iraq with cruise missiles. And President Clinton, of course, gave the reason at that time that he needed to ``attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological programs and their capacity to threaten their neighbors.''

And so I thought it important tonight, after hearing on the International Relations Committee, Mr. Speaker, from John Bolton, the Under Secretary of Arms Control, that there is confidence that the Iraq survey group at the State Department will bear fruit. We will continue to find evidence, like the mobile labs, like the unarmed aerial vehicles, we will continue to find evidence of a WMD program in Iraq.

That confidence arises not from the heart of the White House or the West Wing, but, rather, from the pronouncements of the regime in Iraq about their own possession a decade ago of hundreds of tons of chemical and biological agents. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, it is with equal amounts of profound pride and sympathy that I come to the floor this morning. I rise to honor a noble American . . . Lance Corporal Matthew R. Smith, a Marine Corps reservist from Anderson IN, who was killed Saturday, May 10, while serving his country in Kuwait. Lance Corporal Smith lost his life in a vehicle collision while running supply missions between Iraq and Kuwait. Lance Cpl. Smith was just 20 years old. He is survived by his father David, his mother Patricia, and by his brother Mason.

Lance Corporal Smith was assigned to Detachment 1, Communications Company, Headquarters and Service Battalion, 4th Force Service Support Group based in Peru, IN, an outfit he had served selflessly and courageously since enlisting in June of 2001.

Lance Corporal Smith's father David said that his son had an intense love for the Corps, and his fellow Marines. Mr. Smith told the Indianapolis Star, ``How many people on this Earth die doing the job they know they were put here to do.'' His Aunt Vicki added, ``He died doing what he believed in.''

Lance Corporal Smith was a student of history--he was enrolled at Indiana University before he was called to active duty--an interest he vigorously embraced in his free time, in the classroom, and as a member of the Social Studies Academic Team. His school teachers recall a young man often expressing blunt, straight-forward and in-your-face viewpoints which they always found to be well researched and sophisticated for his age. He was also an accomplished athlete; he spent time during high school playing rugby and was active in other outdoor activities.

Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Smith joins the 137 other proud and distinguished Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice--these wonderful men and women gave their lives in defense of freedom, a freedom we all too often take for granted.

May God bless the family of Lance Corporal Smith during this difficult time, and may they experience the prayers and thanks of a grateful nation. May they rest upon the promise of Jeremiah 31:13, ``I will turn their mourning into gladness. I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.''

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

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great debate. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as someone trained in constitutional law, I find the passion that I hear on this floor today for the First Amendment truly inspiring, and I respect it immensely.

In fact, would that we had heard that same passion for protecting the free speech rights of Americans when last year this Congress adopted severe limitations on campaign speech in the so-called campaign finance reform legislation. But that is a battle for another branch of this government and another day.

I rise today, rather, Mr. Speaker, to try and express from my heart what I believe this amendment means to millions of patriotic Americans who support it, and I do so with a sincere heart, to speak to those millions of patriotic Americans who oppose it.

After surviving the bloodiest battlefield since Gettysburg, a squad of Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple task: to raise the American flag above the devastation below. When the flag was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his men, history records that a thunderous cheer rose from the troops on land and on sea, in foxholes and on stretchers. Hope returned to that field of battle when the American flag began flapping in the wind.

It is written, Mr. Speaker, that without a vision, the people perish. The flag was the vision that inspired and rallied our troops on Iwo Jima, and I would offer to you humbly today, the flag is still the vision for Americans who cherish those who stood ready to make the necessary sacrifices. It may well be why every single veterans group in America is scoring the vote in favor of the flag resolution today.

I would offer that by adopting this flag protection amendment, we will raise Old Glory again. We will raise her above the decisions of the judiciary that was both wrong on the law and on history. We will raise the flag above the cynicism of our times. We will say to my generation of Americans those most unwelcome of words, there are limits. Out of respect for those who serve beneath it and for those who died within the sight of it, we must say there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.

Let us raise the American flag to her Old Glory again.

Mr. Speaker, when America's farmers and ranchers found themselves devoid of a proper safety net while facing record low prices, they found an advocate in Larry Combest. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Larry utilized his trademark discipline to develop a balanced farm bill, seeking the input of countless producers.

His efforts resulted in a flexible farm policy that will provide stability to American agriculture producers for years to come. Larry's leadership and strong voice will be sorely missed not only by his constituents in West Texas, but by all of rural America.

Further, Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had the pleasure of working with Larry hold him in the highest regard not only as the visionary behind American farm policy, but also as a friend.

Larry and his lovely wife Sharon were among the first people to welcome my wife and me to Washington when I arrived for the 107th Congress. They extended neighborly compassion and sound guidance, the very things you'd expect from a West Texas couple. Karen and I are truly grateful for their friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Larry Combest the best in his coming retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with equal amounts of profound pride and sympathy that I come to the floor this morning. I rise to honor a noble American, Lance Corporal Matthew R. Smith, a Marine Corps reservist from Anderson, IN, killed Saturday, May 10, while serving his country in Kuwait. Lance Corporal Smith lost his life in a vehicle collision while running supply missions between Iraq and Kuwait. Lance Cpl. Smith was just 20 years old. He is survived by his father David, his mother Patricia, and by his brother Mason.

Lance Corporal Smith was assigned to Detachment 1, Communications Company, Headquarters and Service Battalion, 4th Force Service Support Group based in Peru, IN, an outfit he had served selflessly and courageously since enlisting in June of 2001.

Lance Corporal Smith's father David said that his son had an intense love for the Corps, and his fellow Marines. Mr. Smith told the Indianapolis Star, ``How many people on this Earth die doing the job they know they were put here to do.'' His Aunt Vicki added, ``He died doing what he believed in.''

Lance Corporal Smith was a student of history--he was enrolled at Indiana University before he was called to active duty--an interest he vigorously embraced in his free time, in the classroom, and as a member of the Social Studies Academic Team. His school teachers recall a young man often expressing blunt, straight-forward and in-your-face viewpoints which they always found to be well researched and sophisticated for his age. He was also an accomplished athlete; he spent time during high school playing rugby and was active in other outdoor activities.

Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Smith joins the 137 other proud and distinguished Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice--these wonderful men and women gave their lives in defense of freedom, a freedom we all too often take for granted.

May God bless the family of Lance Corporal Smith during this difficult time, and may they experience the prayers and thanks of a grateful nation. May they rest upon the promise of Jeremiah 31:13, ``I will turn their mourning into gladness.I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.''

Mr. Speaker, it's been almost three months since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve the Triennial Review decision and still no written order has been issued by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the Triennial Review offered the FCC the unique opportunity to boost the Nation's economy and not only save jobs--but create jobs as well. The Commission, however, responded to the challenge by issuing a ruling that is contradictory--largely deregulating broadband on one hand while, on the other, continuing the enormous regulatory burden of requiring large local phone companies to lease their lines at below cost rates to competitors. While I applaud the Commission's deregulatory view on broadband, the lack of common sense in requiring one company to literally subsidize its competitors is beyond comprehension.

In conclusion, the FCC has succeeded in creating uncertainty in the marketplace, and uncertainty on Wall Street typically converts to financial disaster. The order that is now being written at the FCC will consist of several hundred pages of regulatory detail. I urge the Commission and its staff to finish its work on the Triennial Review order as quickly as possible so we can begin the tedious legal process of examining these details. Let us not forget that the jobs of thousands of hard-working men and women, and the renewed health of our Nation's economy, are at stake and deserve more than to be held captive by the red tape of the Federal bureaucracy.

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

I oppose the Sanchez amendment. This is one of the nights in my life that I regret that I am not a woman. I am just another white, middle- aged Republican rising to speak on the issue of abortion. But I know I speak tonight for millions of American women who cherish the right to life, who believe that abortion, as I do, is morally wrong and choose not to see their taxpayer dollars, directly or indirectly, subsidize or promote abortion at home or abroad.

It truly is what we are about tonight. For while I oppose abortion, and we have heard passionate eloquence on the pro-life message, I oppose the Sanchez amendment because it is morally wrong to force millions of American men and women who oppose abortion at home to finance it abroad. Now the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) seems to acknowledge this sensitivity and the fact that surveys show the overwhelming majority of Americans, even if they support the right to an abortion, do not believe that taxpayer money should be used to fund it.

In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) just said, in correcting my colleague from Arizona, that no public funds will be used specifically for abortion, but what is obvious to anyone who would understand this process is that while perhaps the act is not funded by the taxpayer, the hospital is, the search for a physician is, the infrastructure where the act would be conducted is. Therefore, taxpayer dollars will indirectly fund abortion at military bases overseas. This is in violation of a basic principle that you do not force millions of Americans who find the procedure of abortion morally wrong to pay for it with their tax dollars in a coercive manner.

If it is wrong to fund abortions directly with taxpayer dollars, it is wrong to do it indirectly as well. So I rise in opposition to the Sanchez amendment because we ought not to do indirectly what we would not be willing to do on this floor directly. America should continue, our military bases should continue, in the disposition of American taxpayer resources to choose life.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I had the profound honor of being the first Hoosier to welcome President George W. Bush to the great State of Indiana on his very first visit there.

As the President trod the sawdust of the Indiana State Fair Grounds, he was greeted with ovation after ovation from a State full of conservative,

profamily Hoosiers that appreciate his leadership at home and abroad.

But we were especially grateful that the President addressed his message to the issue of jobs. Ever since the last year of the Clinton administration, the economy of the State of Indiana has been in steep decline, with manufacturing jobs exiting the State, exiting the country. President Bush came and said he was in Indiana to talk about jobs. He extolled the leadership of this Chamber last week and called on all of Congress to pass his Jobs and Growth Act, and so do I this day.

We were grateful to welcome President Bush to Indiana, but more grateful still for his focus, putting out-of-work Americans back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite what the economists tell us America is in recession. My districts in eastern Indiana has seen job loss since the final days of the Clinton administration and that economic collapse has gone forwards unabated. The time for another pro-growth tax cut is now. The Jobs and Growth Act is such a measure.

Now, we have heard already this morning, Mr. Speaker, that cutting taxes on capital gains and dividends is nothing more than a tax cut for the rich. But as a Pittsburg pipefitter said of the same cut in capital gains taxes advanced by President Reagan 20 years ago, ``It may be a tax cut for the rich but I ain't never been hired by a poor man.''

President Kennedy was probably a bit more eloquent when he defended his cuts in the capital gains tax. He said, ``A rising tide lifts all ships.''

Now that the war is behind us, America needs the tide of our economy to

rise again. Let us put politics aside, speed tax relief to working families, small businesses and family farms. Let us pass the Jobs and Growth Act today.

Mr. Speaker, America stands with Israel. This weekend as the Secretary of State begins a key phase of negotiations in the road map for peace, I am confident he will remember this core value of the American people. America is not a neutral party in the negotiations in the Middle East. We are not, nor do we aspire to be, an honest broker. America stands with Israel.

In this vein yesterday in the Committee on International Relations, we adopted the Lantos amendment to the State Department authorization bill demanding a Palestinian first approach to concessions. The Palestinian Authority must first recognize Israel's right to exist, hunt down terrorists and dismantle terrorist infrastructure before Israel can be expected to make any concessions on the path to peace.

I pray for the peace of Jerusalem and I pray that Prime Minister Abbas and his Cabinet will defeat the terrorists within their midst and choose life for their people in that war-torn region.

Mr. Speaker, it is written, if you owe taxes, pay taxes. No law-abiding American anywhere would argue the point. But one of my predecessors in this Chamber, Jack Kemp, also famously said, what you tax you get less of, what you subsidize you get more of.

Today in America as our economy continues to list under the strain of overtaxation and overregulation for the past decade, we are taxing capital gains and investment in savings; and eastern Indiana, that I serve here in Washington, is getting less for it.

Families, small businesses and family farms are hurting as jobs evaporate in communities across eastern Indiana. Many in this town are playing politics, demagoguing the President's drive to pass additional tax relief and put Americans back to work; but it is time to set politics aside. We need to bring real tax relief on income inheritance, marriage, savings and investment in America. We need to turn this economy around. Our recovery is stalled. Our Nation is impatient. It is time we heed the President's call for economic renewal and pass the tax relief package now.

Mr. Speaker, there is an epidemic of AIDS and HIV in Africa. It is heartbreaking to report this pandemic affecting 42 million souls, 8,500 deaths every day, and entire villages without a single adult.

Earlier this week we heard the President describe a compassionate vision of moral obligation for the American people addressing this crisis that would bring not only $15 billion, but would put a priority on the values of the American people, namely, abstinence and faithfulness to marriage, over condom distribution.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, unless the House amends the bill today and adopts the Hyde-Pitts amendment that specifies that 33 percent of the prevention money will be spent on abstinence and monogamy programs first over and above condom distribution, the global AIDS bill will not reflect the values of the American people or the vision of the President of the United States of America.

The timeless values of abstinence and marital faithfulness before condom distribution are the cure for what ails the families of Africa. It is important that we not just send them money, but we must send them values that work.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts in crafting this HIV/AIDS relief bill.

I have, as the gentleman knows personally, the utmost respect for him and for his distinguished career and leadership of this committee in particular. I appreciate him granting me this colloquy.

Many of us have learned, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of foreign countries that actually use abortion as a means of preventing mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS. It is my hope that the distinguished chairman would today confirm that in carrying out this foreign assistance program, that it is the policy of the United States that abortion is not prevention of or treatment of mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in Congress we talk. It is what we do. But in Africa at this very hour, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) just said with passion, there are Catholic Relief workers and Christian missionaries in medical missions elbow deep in a crisis that has struck 42 million souls and rising, the

AIDS pandemic. Only by passing the Smith amendment will we make certain that not only those who would be willing to come to the aid of people, but the overwhelming majority of those who are thanklessly, and without the klieg lights of publicity or public support, are coming to their aid at this very hour.

Only by creating a conscience exception for faith-based organizations to say that they can accept some of this $15 billion that will avalanche from Washington, D.C. into Africa without violating their own moral conscience, will we ensure that those who do the work continue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pitts amendment, and along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, whom I have labored with on other issues and will labor still, I was there in the East Room of the White House when the President of the United States described a compelling and compassionate vision for addressing this pandemic AIDS crisis in Africa. The President insisted that we not just send billions of dollars to Africa, but we send values that work; and he encouraged us in this Congress to put a priority on the values of abstinence and monogamy before condom distribution in that room. In fact, in a statement of administration policy, Mr. Chairman, the administration said they, quote, ``support additional provisions that would prioritize the abstinence component of the ABC approach which has been successfully implemented in Uganda.''

The administration supports the Pitts amendment; and those who would embrace this vision of abstinence and endorsement of faithfulness in marriage and then condom distribution must, and by all means should, support the Pitts amendment to this bill.