John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. What we call the lame duck session.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague from Maryland for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene next Monday at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider a number of measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by tomorrow afternoon. For the balance of the week, the House will consider on Tuesday H.R. 1956, the business activity tax bill from the Judiciary Committee. On Wednesday morning at 11 there will be a joint meeting of Congress to receive His Excellency Mr. Maliki, Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq. Also on Wednesday we will consider H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act from the International Relations Committee. On Thursday, we will consider H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, and possibly H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act from the Committee on Government Reform. At this point, Friday is still up in the air. Our goal is to finish on Thursday. It is not a commitment but it is my goal, and I am hopeful that we will be able to meet it. It really will depend on the number of conference reports that may or may not be completed and whether we can fit those in during the week, if they come inside, like the gentleman understands. I am hopeful that the Voc Ed conference report can be brought up. As the gentleman knows, we have been working on the pension conference. There is no agreement as yet, but I think we are moving toward one, and I am hopeful. But we will see. I also have an announcement about September votes, which is a change in the calendar. There will be no votes on Tuesday, September 5. I anticipate that we will consider H.R. 503, to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. We expect that to be considered that first week we are back, and I just wanted Members to be aware of it.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. BOEHNER. It is very definite.

Mr. BOEHNER. We are gone September 29. We will be back on November 13.

Mr. BOEHNER. The only question is who will be lame.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but I think the gentleman from Maryland understands that I am not the chairman of the conference. I don't decide when we meet, who meets or what room we meet in. I have expressed the gentleman's concerns, and hopefully we will have all of the Members together very soon.

Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding. There are a number of issues related to that bill. I think it is doubtful that it will be up next week. I am hopeful that we will be able to consider it in September.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield, the other body is chairing this conference, and the gentleman has been on a number of conferences over the years and understands this process, that the body who chairs the the conference makes those decisions.

Mr. BOEHNER. We are continuing to have conversations about that issue, but no decisions as of yet. If there is, I will make sure that everyone is notified.

Mr. BOEHNER. If the gentleman would yield, I will be happy to make that suggestion to Mr. McKeon and Mr. Thomas.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may in order at any time on Wednesday, July 26, 2006, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Excellency Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of the underlying bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this question.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The President today used the veto authority for the first time in his Presidency. Yesterday Congress sent him two bills relating to emerging medical research involving the use of so-called stem cells. Today the President signed one of those bills while vetoing a second. A third bill was supported by a majority of House Members last night, but did not capture the necessary two-thirds vote to be passed under the suspension of the rules. The bill signed into law by the President today is a positive step forward, and I remain hopeful that we can reconsider the other measure at some point in the future. Our colleagues, Roscoe Bartlett, Phil Gingrey, Nathan Deal, and Dave Weldon, deserve great credit for their hard work on these two measures. Their work brings new hope in the struggle to find cures that have eluded medical researchers for decades as they search for ways to defeat serious disease. The President's decision to veto the legislation offered by my friend from Delaware Mr. Castle should come as no surprise to anyone. More than a year ago President Bush warned the bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line, the President said, would be a great mistake. As the President also noted a year ago, there really is no such thing as a ``spare embryo.'' Every man and woman in this Chamber began life as an embryo identical to those destroyed through the process known as embryonic stem cell research. The embryos at issue in this debate are fully capable of growing and being born as healthy babies with loving parents. The notion that embryonic stem cell research relies on ``spare embryos'' that have no value beyond the possibilities for medical research is tragically and deceptively wrong. Many opponents of the President's decision today are driven by a passion for the preservation of human life and the desire to see developments of cures to chronic diseases. I have great respect for their commitment to this goal, and I think it is a goal that we all share. The passion for the preservation of human life is incomplete if that passion does not extend to the most vulnerable form of human life. It is wrong to force Americans to allow their tax dollars to subsidize medical research that depends on this destruction of human embryos. The Congress sent the President a bill that would expand the use of Federal tax dollars for this practice, and the President rightly used his veto power to reject it. Because the vetoed bill originated in the House, the Constitution gives us the duty of receiving the President's veto message and initiating any legislative response. Having now been notified of the President's action, the House will now immediately consider the question of whether to override the President's veto, which would require a two-thirds vote, or to sustain it. For the reasons I have just articulated, I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the motion to override. No just society should condone the destruction of innocent life, even in the name of medical research. The President was right to veto this bill. It would be wrong for this House to overrule the President's decision by voting to override. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.