Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition of the rule for the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that shortchanges health care for our nation's veterans. The bill is $2.1 billion below the GOP House Budget Resolution and $3.3 billion below the veterans' consensus budget.

The Rules Committee created a rule for the VA/HUD bill that does not allow two amendments. The first seeks to add $1.8 billion for veterans' health care, in order to fulfill the promise of the Republican budget. The second blocks an amendment by Representative Edwards of Texas to increase veterans' spending for VA medical by $2.2 billion--to meet the funding promises in the GOP budget resolution, taking into account the costs of offsetting the enrollment fees and drug co-payments from the President's budget.

As it stands now, the VA/HUD bill provides $25.2 billion for veterans' health care--$1.8 billion less than was promised in the budget resolution House Republicans passed earlier this year (H. Con. Res. 95). Its increase from last year is $1.4 billion, which does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled. It is plain to me that the VA-HUD Appropriations bill will not meet veterans' needs.

My question is: when does the hypocrisy stop? When will Republicans realize that they can't pay lip-service to men and women who have shed blood on the battlefield for the very freedoms they enjoy? Since his inauguration, President Bush has championed the cause of the veteran, and along with the House Majority, he has continually failed to put his money where his mouth is. We are fighting two wars under his Administration, creating thousands of new veterans--soldiers looking to come home and start their life with the help of the government they just defended. That same government has said, ``Thanks for your sacrifice; sorry we can't do the same.'' No matter how many aircraft carriers you land on, Mr. President, that does not shrink waiting lines at VA clinics!

The Republican Party has provided a terrific show for veterans this year. Initially, the President's budget requests underfund the VA, and the House Budget Resolution approves funding levels below that of the President's. Then, the Appropriations Committee allocates $1.8 billion less than the House Budget Resolution, and the Rules Committee approves a rule that bars amendments seeking to fill those funding gaps. All the while, they spin patriotism and ``support the troops'' rhetoric to further their political agenda.

This show has gone on long enough, and I think it is time this circus and its elephants left town.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. Since 1965, Head Start has profoundly improved the lives of more than 20 million children, and their families. The legislation before us undermines the very structure of the Head Start program and its ability to continue to improve the lives of low-income children who deserve a chance to succeed.

This bill establishes an eight state, block grant program that would provide funds to cash-strapped states that have neither the experience nor the commitment to run a Head Start program. These state run Head Start programs would not be required to meet Head Start performance standards that ensure a quality, comprehensive program that focuses on: health, education, and family and community development.

One of the most valuable parts of the Head Start program is the commitment to families and communities. The ``federal to local'' organization of Head Start has allowed each program to address the particular needs of their locality. Through this tailored approach, Head Start teaches and encourages parents to become more involved and committed to their children's continuing education. The result is that Head Start has been able to improve the long-term outlook for many children. Studies show that by the spring of their kindergarten year, Head Start students show substantial progress in word knowledge, letter recognition, math skills, and writing skills in comparison to national norms. In addition, Head Start students are less likely to be held back a grade, or require special education. Rather, they are more likely to graduate from high school and college, than their peers who did not enjoy the benefits of Head Start. There is no evidence to show that state-run Head Start programs could replicate these successes or the invaluable community focus.

In order to continue to help more low-income children overcome the disadvantage of poverty, Head Start must receive adequate funding. Currently, Head Start is capable of serving only: 60 percent of eligible children, and 19 percent of migrant children; while Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible children. Rather than jeopardizing the quality programming of Head Start by ceding control to states that are inexperienced in managing Head Start programs, we need to catch more at risk children who are slipping through the cracks.

In addition to making irresponsible structural changes, H.R. 2210 repeals longstanding civil rights protections for the employees of Head Start programs that are operated through faith based organizations. Under this legislation, faith based organizations could legally discriminate, on the basis of religion, in the hiring of their Head Start employees. Many Head Start programs are admirably operated by faith-based organizations, however, that does not give them the right to discriminate if they accept Federal funds. The only consideration in hiring Head Start teachers should be to secure the best possible educator for these children who so desperately need quality instruction. It is shameful to think that educational qualifications could be overshadowed by religious affiliation.

In my home State of California, over 100,000 children and their families participate in Head Start and Early Head Start programs annually. These programs have dramatically improved school readiness, health, and family relationships of participating children. I am unwilling to support H.R. 2210 and its unproven provisions that threaten the established success of the Head Start Program. I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation.

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

I am one of the cosponsors of this, and I would like to first point out that the last statement you heard by your distinguished chairman is not about the amendment. This amendment does not legalize marijuana. I repeat, it does not legalize marijuana.

It is a very straightforward amendment. It removes the Federal interference from local law, from local affairs where States have adopted through their legislative process or initiative process, a limited use of marijuana for medical purposes only. And in most cases, in all the cases I know, it has to be dispensed by a doctor.

And the reason this amendment passed in California is because the elderly community, oftentimes suffering from pain, felt this was a remedy for pain. And the voters of California said, you should not deny this as long as it is being used in the medical arena. That is all this amendment does.

It says, Federal Government, get off the back of those States that have used their legal process to have a limited use of marijuana for medical purposes. And those States are Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The States of Hawaii and Maryland have also passed the laws through their legislatures.

This is not about legalization of marijuana. This is just saying, Federal Government, where those States have adopted those laws, just stay off their backs. The attorneys general of these States, the law enforcement in these communities, they support these operations.

I know, because in Santa Cruz County they were very, very upset and petitioned when the Federal Government came in and did a raid. It upset everybody.

So this process of not allowing States to go forward, I think, is wrong. This amendment provides States with voter-given authority to promulgate regulations to control the limited, limited, limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is an amendment about States' rights. It is about the sacredness of the electoral process and the sanctity of the citizens' votes. It is about treating people as if they have instructed their government to do so.

That is all this amendment does. A very narrow, limiting amendment. Please adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I did not come to the floor to speak on this amendment, but after hearing the debate I must rise. Because this is not a debate about farming versus the environment. This is a debate about economics versus economics. It is about coastal economics, where the majority of the population of the people in California live, versus interior economics. It is an issue that cries outs for a solution to both parties.

There is not a win-win here. Without this amendment, you have a win- lose.

You have the entire tourism industry which is dependent on where this stream comes into the ocean which is dependent on that fish coming into the stream. There is an economic survival, both in the tourism and the fisherman there versus the farmers.

Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops that we grow in the United States. Certainly the farmers through best management practices can do with less water. We do that in our area all the time. We are always struggling to have it.

What this problem cries out for is a solution for a win-win. In order to do that, somebody has to give up something.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for this great piece of legislation that is coming before us. I want to express my particular appreciation for the inclusion of the Peace Corps Expansion Act in this bill.

Five of us now serving in the United States House of Representatives are returned Peace Corps volunteers, and we very much appreciate the work of this committee to strengthen the Peace Corps. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.

The Peace Corps was, for me, a life-challenging experience, a life- changing experience as well as challenging. The Peace Corps Expansion Act will help offer this unique experience to more Americans than ever before. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished ranking member about an amendment that I offered that was not made in order for this rule. My understanding is that the gentleman has had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the amendment, known as the Winning The Peace Act of 2003 that seeks to strengthen U.S. capabilities in responding to the challenges of postconflict reconstruction.

The framework for the amendment is the result of my work and that of my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), on the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Commission.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I look forward to working both with the chairman and the ranking member on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ruth Hunter, a courageous activist who has spent her life doing what she felt was right, if not always popular. She works tirelessly to right both global and local wrongs, encompassing the community spirit of Santa Cruz County that sees inequality as everyone's problem.

Ruth first caught the activist bug while visiting the Soviet Union in 1985. Over the next 2 decades she traveled across war-ravaged

and impoverished lands from Central America to Africa and the Middle East to document the suffering of people caught in the middle of global conflicts. She has protested the United States' involvement in some of these conflicts, not fearing arrest because she was advocating for what she believed was a greater cause. These selfless acts are an inspiration to anyone who wishes justice not just for their countrymen, but for all the people of the world.

Throughout her travels, Ruth wrote about the places and people she visited, but it was not until the early 1990s that she made a career of her love of writing. Inspired by stories from the members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Ruth began publishing her work in La Gazette as a monthly columnist. It was these women's stories that also became the basis for her book, What a Life: Heroines Sung and Unsung.

Ruth's passion for her work stems from the fun she has while doing good deeds. I know her personally as my Cuban dancing partner, and her friends warmly refer to her as the Queen of Mojitos! And through her good spirit and love for humanity, she continues to amaze us all by choosing to stand up and fight when so many people are content to sit down.

Mr. Speaker, Ruth Hunter continues her work in activism and writing, even on her eighty-seventh birthday, and I wish to take this opportunity to honor her and to congratulate her for being an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum. This local hands-on museum is still in its early stages of development, yet it is a bright treasure in our community. The Museum strives to provide a place for children to explore, create and discover in a safe and nurturing environment. I am proud to honor this valuable local resource.

One of the many goals of the Children's Learning Museum is to foster children's imagination and creative potential through programs in music, science, literacy, art, peace, unity and esteem. Some of these programs include the creation of a book entitled Louden Nelson: From Slavery to Philanthropy, only recently released. This book follows the history of the life of a freed slave, Mr. Louden Nelson, who was an advocate for children's education and donated much of his land for the creation and strengthening of the schools in Santa Cruz. Additionally, they have started an annual drumming circle in which parents and children gather with the community to learn drumming techniques and raise funds for the museum. The Children's Learning Museum also joined in the September 11th Peace and Unity Project by creating one out of the four peace-themed murals that were sent to the United Nations in the tragic wake of the events of September 11th. The Children's Learning Museum is planning many more events that create an inclusive community and encourage adults and children to learn from each other.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum's annual Mayor's Breakfast in Santa Cruz County. There, I joined the mayor of Santa Cruz, my dear friend Emily Reilly, as well as the Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent, Alan Pagano, in stressing the important of hands-on learning for children so they may access their full learning capability. The guests were also treated to Mexican folkloric dances by local school children, and a dramatic reading of Louden Nelson: From Slavery to Philanthropy was performed by the very talented Billie Harris. Most of all, however, was a feeling that the dedicated staff and volunteers who are working to expand the programs and offerings of the museum are a committed group: committed to education, committed to the community, and committed to the children. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the good work of the Santa Cruz Children's Learning Museum, and thank them for the chance to be a part of their annual Mayor's Breakfast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in the Capital of this country to pay tribute to one of California's most beloved public servants: Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard B. Iglehart, who passed away in Istanbul on July 2 while attending a State Department-sponsored conference. He was just 60 years old. He was a friend, a brother, a colleague, and he leaves behind so many wonderful people. He is survived by his beloved wife Judith Iglehart; his son, Matthew Iglehart; his stepsons, Christopher and Scott; his sister Barbara; his brother-in-law Hans; Alan Iglehart, a brother; six nephews and nieces, aunts and cousins, and his former wife, Dee Iglehart.

I met Dick in Santa Clara Law School. Before that, he had gone to Piedmont High School and UC Berkeley where he was a Beta and played rugby. He served in the Army in Germany as an officer in the 3rd Armored Cavalry. After graduating, he went to Santa Clara Law School where I met him.

He ended up being a career prosecutor who became the chief assistant district attorney in Alameda and also in San Franciso Counties. He became the chief assistant for the criminal division in the California attorney general's office under Attorney General John van de Camp. Dick also served as the counsel to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. He was a California district attorneys association lobbyist and was an Assembly Fellow.

He worked unceasingly to rid California and the Nation of assault weapons. He was instrumental in helping pass legislation lowering the penalties on marijuana possession. He changed the laws, making it easier for child sexual assault victims to testify in court. He was an expert on sentencing procedures, the California three strikes laws, Proposition 36, and serial killers, and an early champion for using DNA as a testing in criminal trials.

He taught at Hastings, and he also gave courses for continuing education of the bar. He lectured at the FBI Academy, Berkley Center for Study of Law and Society, and he often spoke at the local high schools.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is in the district that Dick is from so she can also pay tribute. While she is coming to the microphone, I will say that while we are here on the floor there is a memorial service in her district at Piedmont at the Piedmont Community Church.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. We would like to say to the family, we love you, Dick. We will see you around and give a hug to our friends in heaven, and we will keep the torch burning.

Christine Pelosi said Dick taught us to put a human face on the criminal justice system for terrified and traumatized victims and witnesses, while understanding that today's defendants could well be yesterday's or tomorrow's victims. Dick had the legal acumen, rock- solid integrity, and sense of humor that helped us address those sad realities, and to manage the pressure to succeed as prosecutors and grow as legal professionals. But Dick was more than just a boss ``he was a great big bear of a man who always stuck up for us young prosecutors, particularly the women, when judges of opponents tried to rough us up. Having his confidence in us made us all the more able to successfully prosecute the tough cases.''

Attorney Michael Weiss said: ``He asked me if I had ever thought about being a prosecutor. I told him that I had briefly entertained the idea. He told me that he had spent nearly his entire career in law as a prosecutor and that he couldn't remember a day when he didn't look forward to going to work.'' ``My days working for Dick were some of my best. And to this day, his words continued to inspire me: to find a quality in my work that makes it something I look forward to, everyday.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a new piece of legislation--the ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003''. I am pleased to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle--Representative Wolf of Virginia, Representative Hoeffel of Pennsylvania, Representative Leach of Iowa, and Representative Wexler of Florida--as original cosponsors of the bill.

The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' creates a much-needed institutional framework to deal with post-conflict situations, such as those the U.S. currently faces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The principle components of the bill are as follows:

Creation of Director of Reconstruction Positions to provide a point person in the U.S. government to coordinate operations in post-conflict scenarios.

Creation of a FEMA-like office within USAID to manage a database and serve as a clearinghouse for post-conflict reconstruction experts, and to provide support for post-conflict operations.

Creation of a NATO unit to respond to post-conflict scenarios, and authorization of the President to make a U.S. contribution of personnel to the unit.

Establishment of a U.S. post-conflict training center, building on existing training programs in the country. `

Creation of a Civilian Police Reserve to train and deploy American police officers interested in serving overseas in post-conflict environments.

Creation of a ``Security Development Fund''--$300 million in a drawdown account to provide resources to cover immediate and unforeseen costs in declared post-conflict situations, and potential U.S. contributions to multilateral operations.

The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' is designed to fill a vacuum in U.S. foreign policy. It creates institutional mechanisms where only adhoc arrangements exist. It establishes a permanent source of funding instead of relying on the Congressional appropriations calendar, or emergency supplemental bills. Equally important, the bill lays the groundwork, through training and education, for a new cadre of post- conflict experts, both civilians and military, in the governmental and non-governmental sectors.

The United States has faced post-conflict situations in the past--in the 1940s in Germany and Japan, and more recently in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, to name a few. We, along with our allies--countries and multilateral institutions--have observed and learned much in recent history. While it is true that no two situations are identical, it can be said there are always common challenges. The ``Winning the Peace Act of 2003'' addresses those challenges and will strengthen the capacity of the United States to pursue its foreign policy objectives in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Clinica Mariposa, Planed Parenthood of Watsonville, CA. During a time when healthcare services are continually becoming more expensive, and information on reproductive health is becoming more restricted, Planned Parenthood provides invaluable services and resources to the Watsonville community. For nearly thirty years, Clinica Mariposa has offered education, outreach, and medical services to an ever-growing population that depends on these affordable services.

Since the establishment of Planned Parenthood services in Watsonville in 1974, there has been a demonstrated commitment to affordability, cultural sensitivity, confidentiality, and high medical standards. All of these things contribute to the achievement of Planned Parenthood's goal of ``every child, a wanted child, every family a healthy family.''

It is frightening that in a country based on opportunity and equality, there are so many people who are without healthcare. Planned Parenthood has become a crucial part of the local healthcare network that provides a broad range of affordable services. Over the years, the growing health needs of the Watsonville community have been answered by Planned Parenthood and their ever-expanding services and facilities. By utilizing community-based satellites at farm labor camps and community agencies in addition to the Penny Lane location, Planned Parenthood fills a special role serving low-income residents regardless of their insurance status.

In an atmosphere where the constitutionally established right to reproductive choice is being threatened, and access to comprehensive sex education is being limited, the presence and services of Planned Parenthood are critical now more than ever. The presence of Planned Parenthood in Watsonville has ensured that residents have the full spectrum of choices and opportunities regarding their health. In addition, through school based education programs, Planned Parenthood has worked to reduce unintended teen pregnancies by giving young people the information and skills they need to make healthy choices.

The exceptional services that Planned Parenthood offers would be impossible without the dedication of the staff, the generosity of their many supporters, and the support of community leaders. I applaud the hard work of all those who have devoted their time and energy to the cause of affordable, high quality healthcare at the Watsonville Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294, condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel, expressing solidarity with the Israeli people, and calling on the Palestinian Authority to take immediate and effective steps to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank and Gaza. I also rise today to express my solidarity with all those who support the efforts towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps. I wish to echo her reservations about this bill. The introduction of this resolution should have provided us the opportunity to restate the United States' commitment to peace, and our commitment to the President's roadmap, which lays out responsibilities for both the Israelis and the Palestinians in the pursuit of peace. The roadmap, like any negotiated plan, is imperfect. But it is supported by the President, it is supported by Israel, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority. It is the best plan that we have right now.

Having said that, I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the plight of innocent Palestinians who have been caught in a cycle of terrorist attacks and government reprisals. It also recognizes the aspiration of Palestinians to create their own state, which will live in peace and prosperity with its neighbor Israel.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, with the Administration and with the communities in the Middle East to foster a true and lasting peace in the Middle East. I believe that peace must be the ultimate goal of the United States policy towards the region. Peace is in the national interest of Israel, the future security of a Palestinian state, and in the national security interest of the American government and its people.

Mr. Speaker, on June 17, I signed onto the discharge petition H.R. 303, and I rise today to express my continued support of the efforts to release this bill from committee. Concurrent receipt is an issue that warrants the attention of this House, the Senate and the President of the United States.

Currently, veterans who have served our country nobly and suffered a service-connected disability receive a retirement check reduced by the amount of their disability compensation. With that reduction, the disability compensation becomes negated as it simply fills the hole left by the federal government in the veterans' retirement checks. American men and women who served in our Armed Services need not be slighted anymore after putting their lives in harm's way for the survival of this great democracy. This discharge petition will draw out those that believe the codes of valor and honor outrank fiscal tightfistedness.

By releasing H.R. 303 from committee and allowing debate on the bill, we can begin to address the issue of concurrent receipt. The bill was introduced with bipartisan support, but the discharge petition lacks that same support. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that there are bills introduced everyday that are never intended to reach the House floor. This should not be one of those bills. This should not be one of those issues.

In these times when we ask so much of our military community, the women and men of our Armed Forces need our help. The rising costs of prescription drugs and VA enrollment fees and a struggling economy only hamper the efforts of our veterans trying to continue their lives in the nation they spent their careers defending. Disabled veterans have paid their price, and I would urge this body to not make them pay twice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 80th birthday of the legendary Bert Muhly. Bert is the quintessential professorial type of guy: articulate, caring and wonderful in his style and manner. It is safe to say that Santa Cruz, California would not be the Santa Cruz it is without the Herculean efforts and goodwill of Bert.

His fingerprints are all around Santa Cruz. As a member of the Santa Cruz City Council, his activities have included the following: member of the State Democratic Central Committee; Co-chair of the California 16th Senatorial District Committee; and Santa Cruz County Chair. He has also contributed to presidential, gubernatorial and congressional campaigns, such as those of yours truly.

Bert and his family are well-fed people because they host more issue- oriented, potluck dinners than any other family I know. He always has a place for you at his table to talk about issues such as global warming, social injustice, globalization and corporate imperialism. I don't believe that anyone in Santa Cruz County has housed, clothed and fed more Democrats than Bert, and on his birthday, that total will only continue to rise.

Bert is the personification of the phrase ``think globally, act locally.'' He believes firmly in the effectiveness of petitioning government when a citizen wants to register a complaint with local elected officials. He has made Santa Cruz a sanctuary for the establishment of sanctuaries and has filed more petitions to the local, State and Federal governments than is humanly imaginable. They probably had to build an extra wing onto the Library of Congress simply to accommodate his prodigious works. While a voluminous petitioner, Bert is also a fantastic and extensive speaker. When Bert was mayor of Santa Cruz, the clerk of the city council changed the meeting's ``minutes'' to ``hours.'' A humble man, he always downplays the fact that he was mayor by saying that ``half the people on Pacific Avenue Mall are former mayors.''

But his efforts have never been confined to Santa Cruz, and he has accumulated a generous amount of frequent flyer miles traveling back and forth from Central and South America. Bert has not been elected governor of California yet, but he certainly is a viable candidate in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Colombia. He has devoted an enormous amount of time spreading his own and America's goodwill to the impoverished and less fortunate, and without a doubt, he has changed the lives of many.

An incredible wit and humor, Bert has been the smiles and strength behind the voice of the good fight in Santa Cruz for many years, and he has taken that fight to other countries. On behalf of this House, I wish Bert Muhly a happy birthday: a scholar, a father, a husband, a visionary, a friend and always young at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I have long been a strong advocate that tax policy ought to be consistent with good land use policy. Inheritance tax is neither. California has seen the break-up of agricultural real estate holdings, and the dissolution of small businesses to pay inheritance taxes. Although repeal of the tax at this time is not good fiscal policy, we have no choice with this up or down vote but to support good land policy. Agricultural land should not be subdivided merely for tax purposes.

It has been argued that the repeal of the estate tax will only benefit a few Americans. This is certainly not the case for Californians. The estate tax affects the lives of many of my constituents, whether they are families trying to hold onto their farms, small businesses working to keep their doors open, or children protecting the legacy of their parents.

Having said this, I regret that the repeal of the estate tax comes at a time when the Republican-led Congress is driving this country further and further into debt. Republicans in Washington have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus, left by the Clinton administration, into a $3.6 trillion deficit, a total loss of $9 trillion for Americans and their families.

I also regret that the Republican-dominated House does not allow Democrats to offer sensible, bi-partisan alternatives. I, like other Democratic Californians, support an alternative where family farms and businesses would be subject to capital gains tax if they decided to sell their farm or business. I am confident that we could have agreed on a sensible compromise, such as this one, if the Republican leadership had allowed members a full and open debate.

In the final analysis, however, repealing the estate tax will help family farms stay in the family. It will help California maintain a policy of sensible growth and curb the sprawl that comes with subdivision of property. It will help small businesses stay afloat and survive the passing of generations. Nevertheless, we should all keep in mind that if we are concerned for future generations, we should be very wary about increasing the public debt. We need to act in a fiscally responsible way if we want to leave a prosperous future for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the ongoing campaign to undermine the constitutionally established right to privacy, which threatens women's access to safe and comprehensive reproductive healthcare. The latest attack on these rights is H.R. 760, The Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The proponents of this legislation have consistently used vague language and shock tactics in an attempt to undermine the basic

tenets of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart.

In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Roe v. Wade, which gave women a constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The Court allows a state to ban abortions after fetal viability (the point at which a fetus may survive independent of a woman, but not independent of technology), but only if the state provides exceptions for the protection of a woman's life and health. In 2000, in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortions because it did not contain an exception for the protection of the health of the woman, and utilized a vague definition of which procedures would be banned.

Disregarding 30 years of established Supreme Court precedent, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 contains the same flaws as the ban ruled unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart.

H.R. 760 fails to provide an exception to protect the health of the mother. Rather, this legislation presumes that the authors' findings overrule those of the Supreme Court. The very text of this bill audaciously promotes ignoring the Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart.

The definition of the banned procedure in H.R. 760 is vague and could be interpreted to prohibit some of the safest and most common abortion procedures that are used before viability during the 2nd trimester. This legislation could have been written using precise, medical terms, and exemptions for procedures that are used pre-viability. However, the bill's unclear definition reveals the broad anti-choice agenda that this bill promotes.

The Supreme Court's decisions have clearly, and correctly protected a woman's right to make personal, and sometimes difficult decisions regarding her reproductive health. In addition to a legal obligation established by the Supreme Court, we have a moral and ethical obligation to protect the health of the mother. Every woman deserves the honest, accurate, professional advice of her doctor, a right that is endangered by H.R. 760. There is no place for Congress in the very private relationship between doctor and patient.

Furthermore, this ban is opposed by many groups of healthcare professionals who take their responsibility to preserve the health of their patients very seriously. These organizations include: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association (ANA), and the California Medical Association (CMA).

Let me assure you that I grappled with the issue of partial birth abortion and determined that this procedure should be used only when medically necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. My decision to oppose legislation banning this procedure was based on my personal conversations with one of my constituents who faced this terrible situation and relied on the medical judgment of her doctor to make the only medically sound decision that preserved her ability to have children in the future.

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 760 and vote against this harmful and unconstitutional legislation.