Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come here today in support of the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration at Commerce. We in the Ninth District of North Carolina have had great success with the programs from EDA. Most importantly, EDA helped my district come together and formulate a comprehensive economic development plan for the next decade. This was the first time all of the economic development officials, business leaders, and community developers came to one place and really discussed where they saw our counties going and what was needed to ensure economic success.

Our area has been hit extremely hard by job losses, particularly in the manufacturing and textile sectors. The help that the EDA has provided and will continue to provide has given my district a vision for the future and a way for each citizen to become involved in its community. I thank the EDA for their help and assistance and commend them for the important work they do in districts like mine all around the country.

If the EDA is given the resources provided in this bill, it will result in the creation of approximately 623,314 jobs and the leveraging of $46.4 billion in private-sector investments over 5 years. With job challenges facing all of our districts every day, how can we not support a bill that will result in this many jobs being created?

I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I want to say that I fully support our troops. I am so proud of the job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are sacrificing greatly overseas so we don't have to fight the war on terror here on our shores. To bring this conflict to a successful conclusion, $65.2 billion of this supplemental request is essential to help provide every resource our men and women need.

That being said, I work for the people of the 9th District of North Carolina and they cannot understand why the remaining $21.6 billion of the Iraq Supplemental may not be given in the form of a loan. Iraq contains the second largest oil reserve in the world and will have an astonishing $5 billion surplus at the end of this year--all this, while we have record deficits in our own country. For decades to come, America's children will be paying for this reconstruction grant on behalf of the Iraqi children. That is unconscionable! Again, that country has the great wealth of oil. They can pay us back.

The majority of this bill will provide for our troops and that is good. It was my strong desire to have the opportunity to debate and vote on the defense money and the Iraq reconstruction money of this supplemental in separate bills. However, we don't have clean bills in this House; so we don't have that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward in good form.

I supported going into Iraq. In fact, I served on the President's working group for Iraq, and I think it was the right thing to do. I believe it was still the right thing to do, and I support our troops, the men and women in uniform over there giving their all for us. There is no question about that. I want them to see that they have all the resources that they need at this difficult time in their lives to protect themselves and to protect us. And we need to remember, we are over there fighting so we do not have to be fighting here on our own shores.

But I come from a district where there has been a great deal of hardship lately, a lot of job loss, and my people, frankly, do not understand why this cannot be a loan instead of a grant. A lot of them say to me that this just does not make any sense. Iraq has all that oil. I think it has the second largest oil reserves in the world. They are going to be running a surplus in their oil reserves very soon, I think by the end of next year. So if they would pay for part of their reconstruction, they buy into the process, and literally they have a commitment there to help with their own freedom.

I work for the people of the Ninth District of North Carolina, and they feel very strongly about that, and I feel very strongly that I would like to see this be a loan as well. That is why I support the Pence amendment. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, so we could express our opinions and the thoughts of our people at home. I do support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule to provide for the customary 1 hour of consideration for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Conference Report of 2003.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 3 and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

This conference report makes it illegal in the United States for a physician to perform a partial-birth abortion. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see this conference report reach the floor of the House of Representatives. I have been waiting for this day to come since 1995.

I am sure that President Bush is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put an end to this horrific act of human violence by signing this legislation into law. Finally, we have a President in the White House who will not veto this monumental legislation.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda for passing this important legislation. I must say, as a mother and a grandmother, it is astonishing to me that this horrible practice is even remotely legal in America today, and as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it is practiced all too often in there country.

Partial-birth abortion is the procedure where a pregnant woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over a 3-day period. On the third day, her child is pulled, feet first, through the birth canal until his or her entire body, except for the head, is outside the womb. The head is held inside the womb by the woman's cervix, and while the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body and just a few inches from a completed birth, the abortionist inserts scissors into the base of the baby's skull, and the scissors are opened, creating a hole in the baby's head. The skull is either then crushed with instruments or a suction catheter is inserted into the hole and the baby's brain is suctioned out. Since the head is now small enough to slip through the mother's cervix, the now lifeless body is pulled the rest of the way out of its mother and the baby's corpse is discarded, usually as medical waste.

The vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Congressional findings have shown that the procedure is not medically necessary and actually poses a significant threat to the mother's health and her future fertility.

This conference report would also punish those who perform the procedure with fines and prison terms of up to 2 years. Husbands or parents of women younger than 18 would be able to sue for damages.

Although language banning this procedure was struck down in the past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to address the Court's concerns. The five-justice majority in Stenberg v. Carhart thought that Nebraska's definition of partial-birth abortion was vague and could be construed to cover not only abortions in which the baby is mostly delivered alive before being killed, but also the more common ``dilation and evacuation,'' D & E method. The conference report defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which ``the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the naval is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.''

The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the court will not reject it, it also draws attention to the violence of partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be. We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome constitutional barriers, and I am confident it will survive judicial review.

This is a historic day for the American people. A civilized society cannot tolerate the barbaric nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Mr. Speaker, the public wants this bill in overwhelming numbers, believing in their hearts that we as a Nation are better than this. We are a better people. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

(Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have about five more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I just have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

We have had a lot of debate this morning on this issue, and we will have a lot more debate on this issue as we go through the actual bill and not just the rule; and I hope the American people can see what we are talking about. I still find it very hard to believe as a mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother that anybody could allow this horrific procedure to happen to their child.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and to vote in favor of the underlying legislation so it can finally be passed into law and signed by our President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted no on rollcall vote 498, the Ney of Ohio amendment to H.R. 2622. I should have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to give fitting praise to Mother Teresa's impeccable legacy of generosity and selflessness on the occasion of her beatification by Pope John Paul II. Reflecting on her Christ-like attitude and example of loving charity, I share feelings of awe and deep respect with so many others who can't help but venerate this heroic woman.

I had the great honor of attending Mother Teresa's funeral in Calcutta, her adopted home and base of her own order, Missionaries of Charity. Representing the U.S. Congress on this occasion, I was once again humbled by her devotion to some of the world's most destitute citizens. Not only did this ``angel of mercy'' ease the physical horrors of so many hopeless people, she treated them as God's own children, leaving a global impression with her hands-on determination.

While Mother Teresa's impact was always felt by the impoverished in India, her inspirational spirit infused charitable objectives and even public policy on an international scale. She aided victims of war and tragedy in every circumstance, from those dying of AIDS in New York to the desperate in Beirut and Palestine. Ever-mindful of the sanctity of even unborn human life, the good nun is known for asserting that ``a child is a gift from God. If you do not want him, give him to me.'' As Pope John Paul II prepares to beatify this truly virtuous woman, I pray that her fearless displays of unconditional love and charity may forever encourage us all.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes due to a personal matter that kept me at home. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

September 3, 2003

Rollcall vote 460, on H.Res. 350, congratulating Lance Armstrong for winning the 2003 Tour de France, I would have vote ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 461, on H.R. 2309, the J. Stephen Horn Post Office Building Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 462, on H.R. 1533, to amend the securities laws to permit church pension plans to be invested in collective trusts, I would have voted ``yes.''

September 4, 2003

Rollcall vote 465, on the motion to table the motion to reconsider on H. Res. 351, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 469, on the Petri of Wisconsin amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 470, on the Tancredo of Colorado amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 471, on the Hastings of Florida amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 472, on the Hooley of Oregon amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 473, on the Kennedy of Minnesota amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 474, on the Jackson-Lee of Texas amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 475, on the Cooper of Tennessee amendment to H.R. 2989, I would have voted ``no.''

September 5, 2003

Rollcall vote 476, on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 477, on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1308, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 478, on the Tom Davis of Virginia amendment to H.R. 2765, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 479, on the Norton of the District of Columbia amendment to H.R. 2765, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 480, on the Hefley of Colorado amendment to H.R. 2765, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

July 24, 2003: Rollcall vote 443, on the motion to recommit on H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, I would have voted ``no''; and Rollcall vote 446, on the motion to instruct conferees on the Tax Relief, Simplification and Equity Act, I would have vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to exhaustion, I mistakenly voted on rollcall vote 445. I should have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 436, on passage of H.R. 2738, the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: July 14, 2003, Rollcall vote 354, on agreeing to the Rehberg Amendment, I would have voted no. Rollcall vote 355, on agreeing to the Blumenauer Amendment, I would have voted no. Rollcall vote 356, on agreeing to the Hefley Amendment, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 357, on agreeing to the Ackerman Amendment, I would have voted no. Rollcall vote 358, on passage of H.R. 2673, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 359, on Motion to Instruct Conferees, I would have voted no. July 15, 2003, Rollcall vote 360, on agreeing to H. Res. 316, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 361, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended, H.R. 2330, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 310 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 2211, Ready to Teach Act of 2003. This is a very fair rule. We made five out of the eight amendments offered in order, and four of them are Democrat amendments. The Ready to Teach Act seeks to meet the call of the No Child Left Behind Act to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. It makes improvements to the Higher Education Act that will increase the quality of our Nation's teacher preparation programs.

I would like to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his work on the Ready to Teach Act. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, for their continuing efforts to improve all aspects of our country's higher education system.

As we work to place highly qualified teachers in education classrooms across the Nation, I am particularly pleased that this legislation allows for

innovative programs that provide alternative options to the traditional teacher training programs. The key to producing highly qualified teachers is not the path by which they travel, but the destination they reach. Teachers trained through innovative options, or certified through alternative means, will still be held to the same standards of accountability and quality, but will not be constrained by artificial requirements that could place barriers between highly qualified individuals and the classrooms where they are desperately needed. In my community we run into this every day because of people who are qualified and have had years of experience in an area, but yet cannot get into the classroom.

Teaching is an honorable profession, and we need to attract and keep good, qualified teachers. This needs to be an attractive job so more people will enter the profession as well. H.R. 2211 continues the current law structure and authorizes three types of teacher training grants that each play a unique yet critical role in the education of tomorrow's teachers. Forty-five percent of the funds would be directed toward State grants, which must be used to reform teacher preparation requirements and ensure that current and future teachers are highly qualified. Forty-five percent of the funds would be directed toward partnership grants, which allow effective partners to join together, combining their strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers to achieve success where it matters most, in the classroom. Ten percent of the funds would be directed toward teacher recruitment grants, which will help bring these high-quality individuals into the teaching programs and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into the classroom.

H.R. 2211 also directs the Secretary of Education to give priority to applicants that will place an emphasis on recruiting minorities into the teaching profession.

The Ready to Teach Act of 2003 will improve the quality and accountability of our Nation's teacher preparation programs. I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation so that we can ensure that our children are receiving a world-class education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has done an excellent job with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I feel that this is a very fair rule, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

June 24, 2003, Rollcall vote 307, on agreeing to the Filner amendment, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 2559, the Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act.

The United States military is clearly the best in the world. The young men and women in our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard are thoroughly dedicated and patriotic professionals, the best our Nation has to offer. We are asking a lot from our military today. Our personnel on active duty know that they may well be deployed overseas and, perhaps, on dangerous missions. So we want to provide them a quality of life for themselves and their families that will allow them to serve, knowing that their families will be taken care of with good housing and good health care.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2559 recognizes the dedication and commitment of our troops by providing for their most basic needs: improved military facilities, including the previously mentioned housing and medical facilities.

Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to the men and women of our Armed Services. We must ensure a reasonable quality of life to recruit and retain the best and brightest for America's fighting forces. Most importantly, we must do it all, everything in our power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American military so this Nation will be ever vigilant, ever prepared, so much more important now than it has been in the past.

This bill provides nearly $1.2 billion for barracks, and $176 million for hospitals and medical facilities for our troops and their families. It also provides $2.7 billion to operate and maintain existing housing units, and $1.2 billion for new housing units, much, much needed.

Military families also have a tremendous need for quality child care, especially single parents and families in which one or both parents may face lengthy deployment. To help meet this need, the bill provides $16 million for child development centers. H.R. 2559 is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that this Nation recognizes their services and their sacrifice. It is a means by which we meet our commitment to providing

them a decent quality of life so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all voluntary armed services and the families that support them.

While our men and women in uniform have swiftly dispatched our enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and professional challenges here at home. We must do more to take care of those who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms, and for the families who support them in their efforts. And I am really glad we are getting this done before we head home for the July 4th work break.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the conference report.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified closed rule for the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003. This rule makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). While I personally oppose this amendment, the Committee on Rules is allowing for fair and open debate on this amendment.

H.R. 760 makes it illegal in the United States for a physician to perform a partial-birth abortion. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it finally reach the floor of the House of Representatives. I also believe that President Bush deserves the opportunity to put an end to this horrific act of human violence by signing this legislation into law. I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda for passing this important legislation.

I must tell my colleagues as a mother and grandmother, it is astonishing to me that this is still even legal in the United States today, but it is. And as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it is practiced all too often in this country.

Partial-birth abortion is a procedure where a pregnant woman's cervix is forcefully dilated over a 3-day time period, and the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers.

Although language banning this procedure has been struck down in the past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to address the Court's concerns. The five-Justice majority in Stenberg v. Carhart thought that Nebraska's definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' was vague and could be construed to cover not only abortions in which the baby is mostly delivered alive before being killed, but also the more common dilation and evacuation, or D&E method.

H.R. 760 defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which ``the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.''

The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the Court will not reject it; it also draws attention to the violence of partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be. I am pleased that we are bringing this to the floor again today.

We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome constitutional barriers; and I am confident that it will survive judicial review.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want this bill in overwhelming numbers, believing in their hearts that we as a Nation are better than this. We are a better people. To that end I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put into the record something that is stated in a recent New York Times article, because we keep hearing that these are babies that have extreme abnormalities. And I quote from the article, ``One aspect of the debate has changed. When it began, some opponents of the ban said the targeted form of abortion was used only when a fetus had extreme abnormalities or a mother's health was endangered by pregnancy. Now both sides acknowledge that abortions done late in the second trimester, no matter how they are conducted, are most often performed to end healthy pregnancies because the woman arrived relatively late to her decision to abort.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.