Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, the question is really whether U.S. dollars are going to be funding forced abortions. U.S. dollars may be used for some other things as well, but this amendment is dealing the restrictions to make sure that there will be no forced abortions. So if we vote ``yes'' on the amendment, then what we are going to do is effectively maintain the current ban on U.S. taxpayers' dollars being used to force abortions.

I recall when this came up, it was really quite a number of years ago, but it was an unusual situation. A professor from Stanford University had gone to China and was absolutely amazed at what he saw in their delivery rooms, the fact that women were being forced to have abortions. Those were the better-equipped delivery rooms. The other delivery rooms had buckets full of water, and the unwanted children were simply drowned.

Now, China has had this policy for some time. The question is whether or not we want to coerce our taxpayer dollars, first of all, to go and, second of all, to kill these children.

Well, the end of the story was that the professor talked about this publicly. It upset Stanford because they had so many Chinese students. Stanford told the professor to be quiet. He refused to be quiet, and he lost his job. But the damage was done. The American people found out about coerced abortions.

So it is ironic, it seems to me, that in the name of choice, that we are forcing taxpayers to pay their money and forcing women to have abortions.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and have no part of any coercion whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for allowing me to take up the Advocacy improvement bill, H.R. 1772. I would also like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), for working with me on this important piece of legislation.

The Office of Advocacy is essential to the elimination of federally imposed regulations that just do not make sense. It is a government entity that exemplifies public service at its best and it is devoted to ensuring that small businesses are not encumbered by regulatory burdens that cost time and money and energy but achieve little, if anything.

The Office of Advocacy sometimes faces opposition from Federal regulatory entities that dislike having their regulations modified or questioned, and yet the office has been tireless and a key voice for small businessmen and women confronting these large agencies to prevent them from imposing unnecessary rules and regulations on small businesses and family owned companies.

The legislation before us today will give more power to the SBA's Office of Advocacy to do its vital work. H.R. 1772 will, among other things, give the Office of Advocacy its own source of funding through a line item in the Federal budget, thus giving the office a more permanent and autonomous role that makes it less susceptible to budgetary bullying from some of the folks in the executive branch that might have been offended.

Many colleagues of mine from both sides of the aisle frequently hear praises from constituents on the exemplary job of the Office of Advocacy. H.R. 1772 will ensure that that office is empowered and protected and given the tools that it needs to continue doing such a commendable job. As we strengthen the Office of Advocacy, the small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout the country will be better served. The real concerns of small business owners will be heard more clearly and addressed more readily as soon as this bill is signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal, of course, before us as we have heard is basically going to turn our overseas military medical facilities into abortion clinics. The point has been made that we allow abortions in 50 States, but it is also clear that we only allow abortions in one out of 10 hospitals. Yet with this particular amendment, we are going to force our military hospitals to perform these abortions. This was tried before in 1993 to 1996 under President Clinton's policies, and it was rather unsuccessful.

First of all, it was very hard to find obstetricians and gynecologists stationed overseas who wanted to perform the abortions in the first place. Very, very few abortions were actually conducted. Part of that is because there are laws against abortion in many foreign countries, and so even there we would not be able to do the abortion.

Now there is the idea, or the inference, that there is some necessity for these abortions in military hospitals. But the necessity does not exist. This is something that can be done as an elective procedure. It can be done by people coming to our country.

I would urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) the majority of my colleagues and I rejected a proposal by one of the Committee's members to permit abortions on military bases overseas.

This proposal would have turned our overseas military bases into abortion clinics. This would not only be wrong, but would also be a prime example of wasteful spending for political gain.

The proposed amendment to the Armed Services authorization bill would have changed a Department of Defense (DoD) policy that has been in place since 1996, and before that, from 1988 to 1993, which prohibits using DoD funds for abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

The amendment follows the same flawed logic as President Clinton's executive order which overturned this policy in 1993 and allowed abortions to take place at military medical facilities. During the years that the executive order was in place, the DoD was not only unsuccessful in identifying obstetricians and gynecologists stationed overseas who would perform abortions, but the number of abortions actually provided during those years was very small.

Some of my colleagues argue for this amendment based on a perceived ``necessity'' for safe abortions at overseas military bases. However, this ``necessity'' does not exist. Even if this amendment were to have been adopted, DoD policy would still prohibit military doctors from performing abortions in those countries where abortion is restricted or not permitted.

Also, in most overseas locations where legal abortions are not available, military beneficiaries have the option of using space- available travel to return to the U.S. or travel to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion just as do other service personnel and their family members who desire other elective procedures.

This amendment would also go against the DoD's official position on this policy. The Department opposes changing the policy for a number of reasons. First, it would involve the military in performing abortions for family planning purposes. Also, a change is not needed and is not considered to be necessary to protect the health of women in or affiliated with the armed forces overseas. Lastly, this change would create an assumption that practitioners adequately familiar with and willing to perform abortion services are available in overseas military facilities, which may not be true.

This amendment not only violates the spirit of the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions, but it also would encourage a very dangerous precedent of providing federal funds for elective procedures. The non-elective exemptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk are already in place and no further expansion is needed. Consequently, the use of tax-payer dollars for an elective procedure will only lead to a slippery slope of fiscal irresponsibility and soaring healthcare costs.

The House has defeated this amendment every year since 1996, and we defeated it again last evening in the Armed Services Committee. We have done so for the sound reasons I mentioned above, and I applaud my HASC colleagues for their good judgment and unwillingness to diminish the sanctity of life at the nation's overseas military bases.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.

The promise of nanotechnology is great. As research in nanotechnology continues, we will seek breakthrough advances affecting a broad field of scientific and commercial endeavor.

In my own State of Missouri, several academic institutions are engaged in nanotechnology research. At the University of Missouri- Rolla, a large group of faculty members from diverse fields are actively researching several aspects of nanoscience and engineering that primarily focus on micropower, nanostructured materials and nanosensors. Since the early 90s, the chemistry and physics departments at Washington University in St. Louis have collaborated in making various nanowires and nanotubes that might ultimately be incorporated into nanoelectronic devices.

Nanotechnology research has the potential to create revolutionary products in the field of electronics, pharmaceuticals and military defense. It is an important investment in the future of America's economy, and I applaud Chairman Boehlert and the professional staff of the Science Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all serve here with the same purpose. Each of us in our own hearts would like somehow to make the world a better place and we have before us an amendment, and the technology of this amendment is very straightforward. It is very simple. Abstinence is the only tool we have that works 100 percent. So it is not a matter of whether we like the morality of abstinence or not. The fact is that technology-wise it works. It is the only thing that is 100 percent effective. We are only talking about one third of the money. So we could pass a law here to repeal the law of gravity, but it would not do us much good. The scientific fact is a flat fact that abstinence works, and that is why we have to use the very best tool with at least a portion of this money to deal with this serious crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks and for a moment to talk about something that is so much a pattern of America's history.

If we go back to the early days of our system of republics, we go back to the time in 1774 when there was a day of fasting and prayer that was called by the Virginia House of Burgesses. That was where Patrick Henry, of course, made his famous speech.

But I think perhaps historically one of the more amazing incidents occurred the next year, 1775, where the Governor of Connecticut called his State to a time of fasting and prayer for the people of Boston and the people of Massachusetts. He coincidentally called that time of fasting and prayer for the month of April on the 18th day. As it turned out, that was the exact day that the Redcoats left Boston in search of John Hancock and the weapons that they thought were being stored in Concord, Massachusetts, and the War of Independence began.

That continues along. In fact, we had FDR, even going back to World War II time, talking about the fact that this is a war, really defending the idea that everybody should have equal rights because God gives them those equal rights. That was FDR making that comment in World War II. So we have a long history of a Nation that, when we get into an armed conflict, to turn to God and to ask His support and to humble ourselves before Him.

That actually, though, if we think about it logically, is very consistent with the very purpose and cause of what America has always been about. If we really think about what is it that is the glue that defines America, what holds us together as a people, it is that belief that there is a God who grants to all of us certain basic and unalienable rights, the right to life, the light to liberty, the right to pursue the dream that God puts into everybody's heart. So we do not believe that that is just an American right, but that is something that is for all people everywhere, and it is that belief that has propelled our soldiers onto the battlefield and made us to stand strong in the face against many different types of tyrants, just as we are even at this day.

So it is with these thoughts and these sentiments that we once again turn back to our traditions and to our history and ask and implore the Almighty God to watch over us, to remind us of our faults and places where we need to change our ways but also to strengthen us and to encourage us and help us to prevail because we do know, in fact, it is true that all people everywhere should have life and liberty and be allowed to pursue the dreams of their own hearts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative budget resolution proposed by the Republican Study Committee.

I think sometimes we get into the details of these budgets and take a look at it just on a year-to-year basis, but I think it might be helpful for us to step back just a little bit, to step back to a time when I was only 2 years old. What was the tax burden on the average family in the year 1950? In 1950, you have a mom and a dad and 2 kids, and dad would go out and earn a dollar bill. Out of that dollar bill, 3 pennies of it would go for direct State, Federal, and local taxes.

Now, about 4 years ago, what happened? Mom and dad and 2 kids. Dad goes out to earn a dollar. Now we go from 3 cents to 38 cents tax on that average American family. That average American family is paying more in taxes than they are for what they pay for food and clothing and shelter combined.

In one generation we have come a long way in the growth of big government, and at a time when State and local governments and families all across the country are tightening their belts, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same thing.

The Republican Study Committee budget freezes total discretionary spending for 1 year. That is not too unreasonable considering it grew 9 percent this last year.

One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, my constituents sent me here was to take a look at the idea of reducing not only the size, but the scope of Federal Government, and that is the debate we should be having. It is important to get rid of wasteful spending, but it is even more important that we take a look at actually reducing the scope of some of the things that we are trying to do.

When we are talking more tax on a family than 38 percent, more than they pay for food, clothing, and shelter, we are not talking about a safety net anymore, we are talking about excessive government.

Mr. Speaker, on February 28th the St. Louis area lost one of its leading physicians and a committed advocate of the sacredness of human life, Dr. Jerry Shen.

Dr. Shen was a Harvard-trained pediatrician, a pioneer in the field of adolescent medicine whose commitment to the young people of my great home state of Missouri was legendary. But that commitment had roots not in the Show-Me state but in Dr. Shen's native land of China.

When the Communists seized power in China, Dr. Shen and his family were on the last boat out and traveled on expired passports. He and his family had faith that God would take care of them, and in His great mercy, He did.

Dr. Shen was someone whose medical knowledge and Catholic faith animated his belief that human personhood should be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. He was instrumental in founding the Missouri Right-to-Life movement, which regularly has one of the largest delegations to

the annual March for Life in January here in our nation's capital.

As a former board member of Missouri Right-to-Life, I knew the work of Dr. Shen well and admired it greatly.

Dr. Shen was a man of action. He admired Mother Theresa's work and told his family he was going to convince her to bring her Sisters of Charity to St. Louis to work with the poor. Many in the community were doubtful but Dr. Shen moved forward and today, the Sisters are in the City of St. Louis. In fact, a full row of the Sisters were at Dr. Shen's funeral mass.

Dr. Shen's funeral mass was about ``Choosing Life,'' a text taken from Deuteronomy 30:5-12. Archbishop Justin Rigali of the Diocese of St. Louis quoted the Apostle Paul in referring to Dr. Shen, noting that he had ``fought the good fight, finished the race, kept the faith.''

There can be few higher epitaphs than that. Dr. Shen did, indeed, fight faithfully and well for the right to life that our Declaration of Independence affirms is intrinsic to all of us. For that, he deserves the thanks of a grateful nation. He certainly has mine.

Mr. Speaker, at present there are more than 400 Chinese missiles targeted on Taiwan. It is estimated that roughly 50 more are being added each year. Moreover, China has devised strategies to destroy Taiwan's political, financial, military, communications and production centers within days. What is even more menacing is that China has reiterated that it will use force against Taiwan if Taiwan refuses to accept China's ``one country, two systems'' unification formula.

China's intimidation of Taiwan is unworthy of its status as a major world power. China must not ignore Taiwan President Chen Shui-bians' repeated pleas for resumption of cross-strait dialogue. If war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, China, Taiwan and the rest of the countries in the Asian-Pacific will all suffer irreparable economic and political damage.

Our friends and allies in Europe regard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait as critical to everyone's interests in Asia. On September 5, 2002, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on China to remove its missiles along Taiwan's coast. Last October, the Czech Parliament also passed a similar resolution calling on China to remove its missiles from the Taiwan Strait.

The United States believes that a military clash in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. A peaceful dialogue between China and Taiwan must resume now. It is my hope that Beijing will begin dismantling the missiles currently targeting Taiwan and pursue a peaceful resolution of current tensions with Taiwan. I support efforts of the U.S. State Department to this important end.

In the meantime, while we advocate the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, we must continue to sell arms to Taiwan to help Taiwan protect itself, under the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act. Our commitment to defend Taiwan is, and must remain, strong and unequivocal.

Mr. Speaker, I stayed in St. Louis to attend my pastor's visitation on March 11th and was absent for recorded votes.

Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted as follows on the following bills under suspension of the rules: H.R. 441--``yes''; H. Con. Res. 77--``yes''; H. Res. 19--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I, in earlier days in my life, used to go out to junkyards sometimes to find parts for my sports car, go out with some wrenches, and we would take off a transmission or an alternator or something like that. And of course, there is nothing wrong with finding spare parts in a junkyard.

But what we have before us in this debate is the serious possibility that if we do not direct science properly, that we could end up in some sort of a brave new world which none of us want to find ourselves in, a world in which parts of human beings are like parts in a junkyard. And that may sound a little bit like a science fiction novel or something like that, but the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 will ensure that human beings are not treated like old junk cars in some parking lot.

Therapeutic cloning pledges unique cures for hundreds of illnesses; yet, this is an empty promise. It has never produced a single cure in animal models nor has it produced any cures in human clinical trials. In fact, James Thompson, the scientist who discovered embryonic stem cells, said in reference to therapeutic cloning, ``The poor availability of human oocytes, the low efficiency of the nuclear transfer procedure and the long population-doubling time of human embryonic stem cells make it difficult to envision this becoming a routine clinical procedure.''

Opening the door to therapeutic cloning will only result in a slippery slope of unscrupulous science and unenforceable law.

On the other hand, adult stem cells have produced promising medical results. These stem cells do not require the cloning or destruction of human embryos and have been successful in many human applications without the growth of tumors, which is a key defect in the use of cloned embryos.

Last year, in fact, researchers at the University of Minnesota announced that they had made a discovery involving an adult human stem cell that has the potential to develop into many different types of cells in the human body. What that means is it now seems entirely possible and reasonable that cells from one of our own, our own body, can then be coaxed into replacement of organs or tissues that exactly match our own body that it was taken from.

Using adult stem cells, for example, a man named Dean Grimm of Charlotte, Iowa, regained his sight after having been blind due to a chemical accident in 1983. His physician implanted adult stem cells and also three new corneas. Now after being blind so many years he can see, and his sons say that since his dad has regained his sight, he and his siblings cannot get away with a lot of stuff.

A ban on therapeutic cloning will not restrict science, but it will deter the perversion of scientific research. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule for H.R. 534.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7 I am not recorded. I would have voted ``yea.''