Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4019, the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in commending the brave men and women who have liberated the Iraqi people. And I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to those families who have lost loved ones in battle. Did we do the right thing? I would say we did. Hundreds of mass graves containing the remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein have been found in Iraq. For those of my colleagues who have not seen it, I would urge them to get a copy of ``Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves,'' published by USAID. Let me quote from it: ``Rows of white bundles containing bones filled room after room. Families filed by searching for signs of those who had disappeared, some stolen during the night, others taken in daylight. Even small children were not spared the butchery. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies, their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.'' We have learned from survivors about Iraqi citizens being indiscriminately detained, men, women, children, the elderly, the blind, the aged, led to the edge of a swamp and executed one by one. Why? Just to let everybody know who was in charge. We know that Saddam's psychopath sons were as evil as their father. His eldest son Uday boasted that when it was his time to rule Iraq he would be even more brutal than Saddam. It was Uday who routinely had his thugs deliver women to him so he could rape them. It was he who was said to have fed a young woman to his attack dogs. It is he who reportedly abducted and violently raped a newlywed. After she committed suicide, he had her husband arrested and executed. Now, because of the bravery and sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces, Saddam is behind bars, Uday and Qusay are roasting in hell, and 25 million Iraqis are free. Did we do the right thing? I think we did.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this issue. I also want to commend and thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the principal sponsor of this bill, for her leadership. Sadly, recent studies in Maryland, North Carolina and New York City and Illinois indicate that homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant women in those parts of the country. Those homicides are often inspired by the desire to kill a woman's unborn child. Yet due to gaps in the Federal criminal law, an unborn child can be killed or injured during the commission of a violent Federal crime without any legal consequences. These gaps are appalling to the American people. Recent polls have shown that upwards of 80 percent of registered voters, including 69 percent of voters who consider themselves to be prochoice, believe that prosecutors should be able to separately charge the violent attacker of a pregnant woman that kills her unborn child. Yet today, for example, if a man stalks his pregnant wife across State lines and attacks her, injuring her but killing the unborn child, that man could not be prosecuted under Federal law for the loss of the baby's life. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act fills this glaring gap in Federal law with a simple expression of basic understanding, namely, that the loss of an unborn child to an act of violence deserves separate recognition under Federal law. This bill provides that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of crimes of violence already defined under Federal law, prosecutors can bring two charges, one on behalf of the mother, the other on behalf of the unborn victim. H.R. 1997 recognizes that the loss of an unborn child at any stage of development is a unique and separate loss both to society and to the mother who carried and loved that child. This bill, for the first time under Federal law, treats an unborn victim of violence as something more than a torn spleen or a bruised appendix or other physical injuries incurred during the course of a violent attack that might warrant enhanced penalties but not separate charges under Federal law now. H.R. 1997 treats such unborn victims with the respect and dignity under the law that their loving mothers and the American people rightfully demand for them. We must all ask ourselves, is an injury to an unborn child the same thing as a broken bone? If the answer is no, as I think we all know that it is, then the only appropriate response is to treat harm to an unborn victim as a distinct and separate offense under Federal law. This legislation has been called merely symbolic by its opponents, but I wonder how many women in America would view the loss of their unborn child through violent means as merely symbolic. Certainly not Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by her husband. She told the Subcommittee on the Constitution, referring to the substitute amendment which we will be dealing with later, ``Please don't tell me that my son was not a real murder victim,'' and, ``Please remember Zachariah's name and face'' when you vote on a substitute amendment that refuses to allow a separate charge for the killing of a wanted, unborn child. Shiwona Pace, whose unborn child Heaven Sashay was brutally murdered by three hired hitmen, has also testified that, ``It seems to me that any Congressman who votes for the `one-victim' amendment,'' in other words, the substitute, ``is really saying that nobody died that night. And that is a lie.'' Indeed, because unborn victims are distinct victims, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is also referred to as Laci and Conner's Law, for Laci and Conner Peterson, two recent victims of terrible violence. Opponents of the legislation before us today claim it will open the door to all manner of terrible imagined future legislation, but the only door this legislation opens is the door to a distinct room in the edifice of the Federal Code in which unborn victims of violence can be granted the distinct respect they are owed. Just as expecting mothers reserve space in their home for wanted and loved unborn children, we in Congress should reserve for unborn victims of violence a distinct place under the protective shield of criminal law by providing for a separate offense when they are violently killed or injured. The American people consider the murder of an unborn child distinctly offensive, and they demand that the murder of an unborn child be a distinct offense under Federal law, and I urge its passage.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This substitute amendment should be soundly defeated. The substitute amendment appears to operate as a mere sentence enhancement authorizing punishment in addition to any penalty imposed for the predicate offense. That is most unfortunate. No sentencing enhancement can adequately express society's disapproval for the distinct loss that occurs when a mother's unborn child is harmed or killed by a violent criminal. A loss that is both unique and uniquely offensive to both a loving expectant mother and to the vast majority of Americans warrants a unique and separate offense under the criminal law. H.R. 1997 provides for a separate offense. The substitute does not. Indeed, the witnesses we heard from in committee supporting H.R. 1997, this bill, have told us that they are not Republicans or Democrats, they are not lawyers, they are people who have lost unborn children to violence, and they want those children treated appropriately under the law. That is precisely what H.R. 1997 does. The substitute does not. Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of unborn victim, Conner Peterson, has written that ``the Lofgren proposal would enshrine in law the offensive concept that such crimes have only a single victim, the pregnant woman.'' Shiwona Pace, whose unborn child, Heaven, was brutally murdered by three hired hitmen, has said, ``It seems to me that any Congressman who votes for the one victim amendment is really saying that nobody died that night. And that is a lie.'' Those who focus this debate on penalties and abstract terms such as harm to a pregnancy rather than to an unborn child misunderstand the purposes of the criminal law. The criminal law does not exist only to punish criminals; it exists to lend dignity to victims, including unborn victims. It is an expression not only of society's disapproval of certain conduct, but of its recognition of the victims of such conduct and the manner in which such victims should be recognized. Creating a separate offense for harm to an unborn child forces all of us, including potential criminals, to consider the act of harming an unborn child as an independent evil. A Newsweek poll found that only 9 percent of those surveyed, less than one in 10 Americans, oppose a separate offense for killing an unborn child. Those 9 percent of Americans should be heard, of course; and they have been heard through this substitute amendment. But they must not win, as the law exists in large part to reflect America's overwhelmingly shared values, and those shared values support separate charges for the killing and injuring of wanted, unborn children. I ask, looking at this picture, this is Tracy Marciniak that we have talked about. This is her unborn child here, Zachariah. Tracy was attacked by her husband when she was 8 months pregnant with this child. Tracy survived her physical injuries. The child died that night. I ask you, this is the funeral of this child. There is Tracy holding her child. How many victims do we see in this photograph? I think it is clear, there are two victims in that photograph. This legislation that we are addressing here today recognizes two victims. The substitute amendment does not. The terminology in the substitute amendment is hopelessly confusing; and if adopted, it will almost certainly jeopardize any prosecution involving the injuring or killing of an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime. The substitute amendment provides an enhanced penalty for ``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury, including termination of the pregnancy.'' The amendment then authorizes greater punishment for an interruption that terminates the pregnancy than it does for a mere interruption of a pregnancy. What exactly is the difference between an interruption of a pregnancy and an interruption that terminates the pregnancy? The substitute does not say. Does any interruption of a pregnancy not necessarily result in a termination of the pregnancy? Or have the supporters of this amendment somehow succeeded in mastering the science of suspended animation? By defining an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy, the substitute is either science fiction or simply impossible for Federal prosecutors to decipher and apply. The substitute amendment is a moral failure in that it refuses to recognize that unborn children can be victims of violence. It is a drafting failure in that its ambiguous terminology would leave prosecutors at a loss as to how to administer it. And it is a constitutional failure in that it contains no exceptions for abortion- related conduct. The substitute should be soundly defeated. In my view, it all comes down and this entire debate is best summed up in a single photograph. Whether or not there are two victims in this photograph or only one is the issue that is at hand. The majority in this House, as we have had it here twice before and it has passed with pretty overwhelming numbers, the majority of us see the clear indication in this picture that there are two victims. The substitute amendment, and it is craftily worded, but ambiguous enough that prosecutors have indicated that successfully prosecuting an offense under the substitute is virtually impossible; but the people that support that particular substitute amendment are indicating in essence that there is only one victim here. I think common sense should prevail. There are two victims. I would strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the substitute amendment and pass the underlying bill.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery evening of November 29, 2003, the Elder High School football team won their second consecutive state championship--joining an elite group in Ohio high school football history. With their 31-7 victory over Lakewood St. Edward, the Elder Panthers, under the guidance of Coach Doug Ramsey, became just the fourth school ever to win back-to-back Division I championships. While last year's championship run was epitomized by hard-fought, closely-contested victories, this year's Panther team dominated the playoffs. The dynamic leadership of quarterback Rob Florian and the sensational running of Bradley Glatthaar--including an Ohio Division 1 championship game record 252 rushing yards--spearheaded the offense, while Elder's swarming defense held opposing teams to just seven points in four of the five playoff games. And, as always, thousands of Elder faithful traveled across the state braving the cold to support the Panthers throughout the playoffs. The hard work and sacrifice of the young men at Elder have brought pride and honor to Price Hill and our entire community. Football fans throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers on their back- to-back championships and share in their celebration. Mr. Speaker, to appropriately honor these young men and coaches, I'd like to submit for the Record the roster of the 2003 Elder Panthers and a copy of their schedule and game results. Elder High School, 2003 Ohio High School State Football Champions, Final Record: 14-1 Regular Season Game 1: August 21, 2003, Elder 33--Winton Woods 14 Game 2: August 30, 2003, Indianapolis Warren Central 45-- Elder 20 Game 3: September 5, 2003, Elder 50--Western Hills 8 Game 4: September 12, 2003, Elder 17--Indianapolis Bishop Chatard 16 Game 5: September 19, 2003, Elder 42--LaSalle 7 Game 6: September 26, 2003, Elder 49--Covington Catholic 21 Game 7: October 3, 2003, Elder 21--Moeller 20 Game 8: October 10, 2003, Elder 28--St. Xavier 7 Game 9: October 17, 2003, Elder 21--Indianapolis Cathedral 7 Game 10: October 24, 2003, Elder 24--Oak Hills 21 playoffs Round 1: November l, 2003, Elder 28--Anderson 7 Round 2: November 8, 2003, Elder 33--Clayton Northmont 7 Regional Championship: November 15, 2003, Elder 24--Colerain 23 State Semi-Final: November 22, 2003, Elder 31--Dublin Scioto 7 State Championship: November 29, 2003, Elder 31--Lakewood St. Edward 7 2003 Elder Panthers Varsity Football Roster head coach Doug Ramsey. assistant coaches Ken Lanzillotta; Ray Heidorn; Mike Kraemer; Craig James; Tim Schira; Matt Eisele; and Pat Good. Seniors No. 34 Eric Andriacco; No. 54 Steve Baum; No. 58 Kenny Berling; No. 26 Ryan Brinck; No. 20 Michael Brown; No. 50 Dave Bullock; No. 68 Alec Burkhart; No. 23 Mark Byrne; No. 5 Charlie Coffaro; No. 71 Justin Crone; No. 29 Brett Currin; No. 12 Rob Florian; No. 84 Kurt Gindling; No. 11 Bradley Glatthaar; No. 99 Alex Harbin. No. 97 Steve Haverkos; No. 70 Chris Heaton; No. 82 Nick Klaserner; No. 7 Dan Kraft; No. 48 Joe Lind; No. 47 Pat Lysaght; No. 53 Corey McKenna; No. 60 Mike Meese; No. 92 Tim Mercurio; No. 30 Drew Metz; No. 72 Mark Naltner; No. 28 Alex Niehaus; No. 21 Billy Phelan; No. 31 Seth Priestle. No. 65 Nick Rellar; No. 2 Jake Richmond; No. 91 Tony Stegeman; No. 88 Ian Steidel; No. 9 Mike Stoecklin; No. 45 Tim Teague; No. 24 John Tiemeier; No. 90 Matt Umberg; No. 10 Jeff Vogel; No. 16 Eric Welch; No. 74 John Wellbrock; No. 87 Mike Windt; No. 75 Eric Wood; and No. 94 Mike Zielasko. juniors No. 52 Steve Anevski; No. 6 Brian Bailey; No. 41 Guy Beck; No. 18 Matt Bengel; No. 57 Nick Berning; No. 38 Joe Broerman; No. 13 Craig Carey; No. 89 Kevin Crowley; No. 14 Andrew Curtis; No. 95 Andrew Dinkelacker; No. 76 Alex Duwel; No. 33 Tim Dwyer; No. 66 Phil Ernst; No. 37 Eric Harrison; No. 36 Alex Havlin; No. 78 Josh Hubert. No. 39. D.J. Hueneman; No. 15 R.J. Jameson; No. 43 Reid Jordan; No. 96 Eric Kenkel; No. 44 Bradley Kenny; No. 51 Chris Koopman; No. 42 Nick Kuchey; No. 67 Mark Menninger; No. 69 John Meyer; No. 32 Robert Nusekabel; No. 22 Billy O'Conner; No. 8 Mike Priore; No. 17 Andrew Putz; No. 46 Zack Qunell; No. 77 Brandon Rainier. No. 3 Jeremy Richmond; No. 93 Jake Rieth; No. 73 Scott Roth; No. 19 Parker Smith; No. 98 Jared Sommerkamp; No. 86 Louis Sprague; No. 27 Rickey Stautberg; No. 79 Ben Studt; No. 62 Joe Super; No. 1 Pat Van Oflen; No. 61 Kurt Weil; No. 25 J.T. Westerfield; No. 40 Ben Widolff; No. 4 Nick Williams; and No. 81 Ben Wittwer. sophomores No. 35 Adam Baum and No. 49 Gerald Walker. managers T.J. Weil and Andy Brunsman.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, on the blustery evening of November 29, 2003, the Elder High School football team won their second consecutive Ohio State championship under the guidance of Coach Doug Ramsey, becoming just the fourth school ever to win back-to-back Division I championships. While last year's championship run was epitomized by hard-fought, closely-contested victories, this year's Panther team dominated the playoffs, except for the very close one-point win over a very tough Coleraw High School team. The dynamic leadership of quarterback Rob Florian and the sensational running of Bradley Glatthaar spearheaded the offense, while Elder's swarming defense held opposing teams to just seven points in four of the five playoff games. As always, thousands of Elder faithful traveled across the State, braving the cold, to support the Panthers throughout the playoffs. Mr. Speaker, the hard work and sacrifice of the young men at Elder have brought pride and honor to Price Hill and to our entire community. Football fans throughout the Cincinnati area congratulate the Panthers and share in their celebration. Way to go, Elder Panthers. And from a LaSalle Lancer, it might be a tough thing to do, but we are real proud of you, Elder. God bless you.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to recognize the achievement of an exceptional group of young women in my Cincinnati congressional district, the St. Ursula Bulldogs volleyball team. St. Ursula battled Ursuline Academy, another outstanding Cincinnati school, for Ohio's State volleyball championship. St. Ursula emerged victorious, capping off an undefeated season. With 29 wins and zero losses. St. Ursula was also declared national champion. The victory marked St. Ursula's eighth State volleyball title, making it the only Ohio school to accomplish this feat in history. Mr. Speaker, these are two excellent schools academically as well as in sports. They have faced each other three straight years for the State title. They are shining examples of what can be accomplished with hard work, perseverance, and teamwork. It gives me great pleasure, especially since my niece, Maria, is a student at St. Ursula, to acknowledge in the United States Congress the success and achievement of these exceptional young women and their coaches, St. Ursula's Julie Perry and Ursuline's Amie Meyer. Congratulations.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 302.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 302) expressing the sense of Congress welcoming President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan to the United States on October 31, 2003.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who has been a tireless leader for speaking out on behalf of the people of Cuba.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this issue. And I might add that I had the opportunity just to get back last night from a trip to Baghdad and Turkey and Jordan as well, and traveling with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is like travel basically in a seminar and listening to him talk about the situation. One learns a great deal, not only in committee but traveling with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and I want to thank him for his leadership and for educating many of us who were with him. I also wanted to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), who is also a fellow co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, for offering this resolution, as well as my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who are also founding co-chairs of the caucus. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for H. Con. Res. 302, a resolution warmly welcoming the visit to the United States of Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian. I call upon all Members to join in supporting a resolution which affirms the American values of democracy and human rights, for there is no place in the world providing a clearer example of respect for these values than that of Taiwan. President Chen was inaugurated after fair and free elections where the people of Taiwan, despite high-handed pressure from the outside, exercised their free choice in selecting their leadership. Taiwan stands out as a shining example, a beacon of these democratic values which reaches across the strait to the people of mainland China. It is also fitting and proper that the Congress should welcome the visit of the leader of this flourishing democracy, a testament to the fact that Chinese culture is not inherently inconsistent with democratic values. The International League of Human Rights, which will present President Chen a human rights awards for its efforts in promoting tolerance, democracy and human rights, fully recognizes the fact that Taiwan and its democratically elected leader are sterling examples for not only Asia but for the entire world. I note that despite his busy New York schedule, President Chen will take time to visit a memorial to mourn the passing of the former first lady of China and Taiwan, Madam Chiang Kai-shek, who died in Manhattan last week at the venerable age of 105 years old. Madam Chiang's passing reminds us again of the long and enduring ties between the freedom-loving people of the United States and the freedom- loving people of Taiwan. Madam Chiang was the first Asian woman to address a joint session of this Congress during the World War II era when we were united in the ultimately successful struggle against international fascism during that war. She returned to the Congress in 1995 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of that historic conflict. We in the Congress join President Chen and the people of Taiwan in mourning Madam Chiang's passing. Finally, I do not want to miss the opportunity provided by President Chen's visit to thank him and the people of Taiwan for their steadfast support for the campaign against international terrorism, the prevention of the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the reconstruction of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent interdiction by Taiwan port authorities of chemical cargo bound for North Korea is but one example of their continued support in the war against international terrorism. With the passage of this resolution, the House warmly welcomes President Chen Shui-bian and congratulates him on receiving the Human Rights Award. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is the chief cosponsor of this concurrent resolution, and we introduced it on March 20 of this year, recognizing the 350th anniversary of Jewish communal life here in North America and encouraging all Americans to celebrate September, 2004, as American Jewish History Month in recognition of the occasion. An identical resolution was introduced in the other body by Senator Voinovich and Senator DeWine. Since 1654 when Jewish refugees from Brazil established America's first Jewish community in what is now New York City, millions of Jewish immigrants have come to America and have helped shape our American culture. House Concurrent Resolution 106 recognizes the many contributions of the American Jewish community to this great Nation's civic, social, economic, and cultural life. The resolution also notes that American Jews have fought valiantly for the United States in every one of our Nation's military struggles, from the American Revolution to Operation Enduring Freedom. The Library of Congress, the National Archives and Records Administration, the American Jewish Historical Society, and the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives have formed the Commission for Commemorating 350 Years of American Jewish History to mark this historic milestone. The commission is designating September, 2004, as American Jewish History Month. This resolution commends the commission for its efforts and supports the designation of an American Jewish History Month. Finally, Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 106 urges all Americans to share in this commemoration so as to have a greater appreciation of the role of the American Jewish community in helping to defend and further the liberties and freedoms of all Americans. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the Committee on Government Reform and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I again want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 69 cosponsors of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember George James Singer, Jr. George proudly served our Nation in World War II in the Army's 38th Division of the 147th Infantry. He served on the island of Tonga for most of his service from January 1941 to May 1943. The recessional at his funeral mass was ``Ah Weh, Ah Weh'', a song that he learned while stationed in Tonga and loved to sing at family gatherings. Born in 1917, George lived a full life. After devoting his life to his country, George returned home to Cincinnati, OH, where he settled down with the love of his life, his wife, Marjorie (nee Sturwold). A few years later, they had a daughter, Gayle. George worked most of his life at the Cincinnati Post-Times Star newspaper. Everyone who knew George, knew him to be a kind and gentle man. He loved to play golf and loved traveling around the world with his beloved wife, Marjorie. Marjorie passed away a few years ago and life was never the same for George. This country owes George our appreciation for defending our freedom. America is grateful for his service. I offer my condolences to Gayle, his daughter, her husband, Bob, and George's two granddaughters, Amy and Katie. America lost another hero on September 9, 2003. Our Nation's loss is most certainly heaven's gain.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important issue. It has been almost a decade since the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion escaped the shadowy corners of the abortion clinics and was revealed to the public. In the years that followed, we have seen an overwhelming majority of the American people, many in the medical community, and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers at all levels of government push for an end to this barbaric procedure. In fact, the first initiative in Congress to ban partial birth abortions started with a small group of us back in 1995. When I first learned that these horrific acts were occurring, I thought for sure that they would be outlawed at least by the time we celebrated the new millennium. Yet Presidential vetoes, confounding court decisions, and tenacious partial birth abortion advocates have maintained this particularly troubling form of abortion in this country. We stand here today, having overcome many obstacles, with a strong bipartisan majority in the House ready to stop a procedure that is akin to infanticide, with a President willing to stand up for the culture of life in America, with constitutional legislation that should satisfy any unbiased and open-minded court. Of course, we will still hear vocal protests on the floor today and in the courts once this bill becomes law. Contrary to the claims of partial birth abortion advocates, however, this barbaric procedure has never been embraced by the mainstream medical community and remains untested, unproven, and absolutely dangerous. The most common assertion that a partial birth abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother is simply inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority. Virtually all evidence, including information we obtained at extensive legislative hearings, demonstrates that partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. In fact, according to the American Medical Association, and I quote, ``There is no consensus among obstetricians about its use;'' and, ``It is not in the medical textbooks.'' Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures, has testified that he had ``very serious reservations about this procedure,'' and he would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' Those who continue to espouse the view that partial-birth abortion may be the most appropriate abortion procedure for some women in some circumstances have failed to identify such circumstances. Most in the mainstream medical community continue to view partial-birth abortion as nothing more than an experimental procedure, the safety and efficacy of which has never been confirmed. The American Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote to me earlier this year and stated ``partial-birth abortion has no medical indications. We can conceive of no circumstance in which it would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother.'' Clearly, women deserve better than this. Partial-birth abortion is also brutal and inhumane to the nearly-born infant. Virtually all of the infants subjected to this procedure are alive and feel excruciating pain. In fact, the infant's perception of painful stimuli at this stage of development is more intense than that of newborn infants and older children. In testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Brenda Pratt Schaefer, a registered nurse, captured the true horror of partial-birth abortion. Ms. Schaefer observed Dr. Martin Haskell, who first introduced this rogue procedure to the abortion community over 10 years ago, use the partial-birth abortion procedure on at least three different babies. Describing what she saw performed on a child who was 26\1/2\ weeks along, she testified, ``Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal, then delivered together the baby's body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life.'' That is what this nurse said when she saw this happen. I ask my colleagues in the House to quickly approve our conference report so we may send this important legislation to the President. Every day that we delay is another day that an unborn baby boy suffers unconscionably. Every day that we delay is another day that a baby girl's life is brutally ended. Every day that we delay is another day that we continue to live this national tragedy.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, in honor of her 100th birthday, I would like to take a moment to recognize Angela Marie Daria Carpinello of Cincinnati, Ohio. Angela was born in Cincinnati on September 28, 1903. She was the second of 14 children. She had nine brothers and five sisters. The family was raised in downtown Cincinnati. Angela's father was born in Letino, Italy and worked for the City of Cincinnati until he was accepted as a US Citizen at which point he began to work for the local phone company. Angela met her husband, Nicola Carpinello in Cincinnati. Nicola worked at the Courthouse. Nick served in World War One and received a Silver Star and Purple Heart for his service to his country. Nick and Angela purchased a home in Price Hill, a neighborhood of Cincinnati. While Nick worked at the Courthouse, Angela was busy raising her family. She loved to cook, clean, and care for her family and others around her. Angela and ``Nick'' were married for 52 years. They have three children--Anthony, Malvina, and Evelyn. From these three children come the pride of Angela's life--her 24 grandchildren, 48 great- grandchildren, and seven great great grandchildren. To her family Angela is known as ``Minnie''. And, thankfully, Minnie is able to remember everyone's birthday, anniversary, and other special occasion. She has been truly blessed. Angela often shares stories from her youth with her family. Her favorite stories include memories of the Great Flood of 1937, shopping at Shillito's with her oldest grandsons, going to God's Bible School with her siblings for Thanksgiving during the lean years, and her trip to Rhode Island to meet her husband's sister. Angela had a few weaknesses in her life--stopping at bakeries, jewelry stores, and shopping at Gidding Jenny's. She was always well- dressed, treating herself to one new outfit per year. Angela made sure that she and Nick were always in style. In Angela's 100 years, so much has happened, cars, buses, planes, mass communication, computers, the internet, fast food and she has taken advantage of them all. During the course of her life, Angela has traveled to Rhode Island and Florida. Thank you, Angela, for your contributions over the past 100 years. From the United States House of Representatives, we would like to wish you a very happy 100th birthday and may God Bless you with many more.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today appalled that an extremist minority in the other body has forced Miguel Estrada, an excellent and well-qualified attorney, to withdraw his name as a candidate for nomination to the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee and as cochairman of the Working Group on Judicial Accountability, I have been actively following the fight over the President's nominations, and I am shocked by the obstructionism that has taken place. Prohibiting an up-or-down vote on this outstanding nominee is not only a disservice to Miguel Estrada, it is a disservice to the American people. In a time of rampant Federal judicial vacancies, the partisan politics employed by the minority in the other body is nothing short of an outrage and it has to stop.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today Members were honored to be joined by a bipartisan delegation of colleagues from the legislative branch of Taiwan, one of the world's most vibrant democracies. In an event hosted by the Congressional Taiwan Caucus here in the Capitol, President Wang and leaders from the Defense and Foreign Affairs committees of the Legislative Yuan briefed Members on important security, economic and health issues of mutual concern. I greatly welcome such direct exchanges and look forward to more such opportunities in the future. I commend to my colleagues' attention the impressively candid observations of the leadership of Taiwan's delegation: Prepared Remarks, Honorable Wang Jin-Pyng, President Legislative Yuan Members of the Congressional Leadership, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Taiwan Caucus of the United States Congress, it is a distinct privilege and honor to be here in this cradle of democracy with you today. On behalf of the members of my traveling party of fellow Parliamentarians from your brother democracy in Taipei, permit me to thank you for your time, your interest, and your enduring friendship. This building, targeted by terrorists, is revered by all citizens of Taiwan. It stands as a beacon for our national cause, for those who believe in the right of all people on this planet to choose their own form of government. On behalf of the freely elected President of Taiwan, I bring you greetings. President Chen Shui Bian has asked me to express to you his personal appreciation for the strong support shown by this Caucus--by this entire Congress--for building a strong Taiwan. He particularly asked me to thank you for supporting our efforts to maintain a robust defense. By approving sales of appropriate arms to Taiwan, you aid our ability to deter attack and to provide security for peoples throughout our region. By increasing confidence in our self-defense capabilities, you have helped provide stability in Asia. Taiwan is moving forward deliberately to secure the resources for our prudent defense procurement program. We deeply appreciate your continued support and that of the Bush Administration. As President of the Legislative Yuan, the `congress' in Taiwan, I am honored to represent some twenty three million citizens. On their behalf, I thank you for the support of this Congress--support that has time and again proven essential if we are to continue to live in an open, free and democratic society. Please continue this support--which has brought political liberty, economic freedom and a vigorous (I can assure you!), a vigorous and energetic free press for Taiwan! In our Legislative Yuan we have four major parties and one independent group. You will be `shocked' to know we sometimes quarrel, we shout, we argue, we debate into the night. But on matters concerning the mutual interests of the free people of Taiwan and the United States, we--like you--stand firmly united. I pledge that we will continue to do all in our power to strengthen US-Taiwan ties and to advance mutual economic, diplomatic and security interests. On two issues in particular I want to ask your help. Both concern our cousins across the Taiwan Strait, the People's Republic of China. The people of Taiwan earnestly hope for a dialogue with the authorities in Beijing. We want to discuss matters of health. We want to discuss trade, security, transportation, improving people-to-people exchanges. We have many issues of common interest to explore with the PRC. There is much we can learn from each other. There is much we can accomplish together. The peoples of the entire region desire peace and security, but there must be a mutual willingness for dialogue. So we ask our friends in the United States to use your important relationship with the authorities in Beijing. Encourage them to engage us in a dialogue unburdened by preconditions. It can only advance the interests of all concerned. The second issue where we ask your help is in the area of health and Taiwan's international human rights. Taiwan has weathered a terrible scourge in recent months as SARS swept the region. Lives have been lost. Livelihoods have been threatened. Commerce has been disrupted. People throughout the world have suffered from the PRC's cover-up of the SARS epidemic. At the same time the leaders in Beijing prevented Taiwan from receiving support from WHO, and other countries, by insisting that all assistance had to be approved and channeled through the PRC. Although the PRC could not handle its own problems with SARS it had the audacity to claim it was helping Taiwan, which did not receive anything. Throughout this time, Taiwan has been seeking to participate in the programs of the World Health Organization. Not as a member state--we recognize that nomenclature would offend some in Beijing--but simply as an observer. Yet the stubborn rejection of our effort by the PRC--their international arm-twisting, bullying and threatening trade partners--has been shameful, a clear violation of Taiwan's international human rights. It is a crystal clear example for all to see of how a dictatorship places power politics above the interests of people--people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait who have suffered. Advice and support from the WHO did not arrive in time because of the PRC's interference. Health should not be a political issue used for gain and punishment. It is a life and death people issue and those who are chosen to govern must look to the people's interests first. The fact is the SARS crisis will pass. But other health and economic challenges of an interdependent world will surely confront us. Taiwan can make its own contributions to the world's fight against disease, but it cannot be treated as a pariah. The time for the people of Taiwan to secure the benefits of international organizations, especially one as important as the WHO, has surely come. Taiwan's international human rights demand that its people should not be prevented from participating in international organizations and programs that will further their health and welfare and that of the world at large. Under the landmark Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. has pledged to work to benefit the welfare and human rights of the free people of Taiwan. I call upon you and your colleagues to hold hearings--consistent with this legislative requirement-on how the U.S. can advance Taiwan's health, human rights and security by pressing for Taiwan's inclusion in appropriate international organizations. We hope the American belief in fair play will encourage you to reach out to other friends and allies and urge their support for Taiwan's place in the community of international organizations. Dear Friends, let me close with a personal note. I have been honored by my colleagues and placed in a position of leadership in our national legislature. I have been honored by my president and asked to convey a message to our most important allies. Today, I have even been honored to work in that arsenal of democracy where the fighting forces of freedom are captained, the Pentagon. But it is a signal honor of my career to be with you here today in the United States Capitol, truly the people's house, where the beacon of liberty shines forth for all around the globe to see. Thank you so very much. May God bless you, and God bless the American people.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for proposing this good legislation. As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I welcome this opportunity to address some of the criticism that we have heard about this legislation, that it would diminish State court authority or otherwise offend basic federalism principles. Opponents of this bill have suggested that removing a lawsuit filed in State court to Federal court deprives the State court of its right to decide matters of State law, but all State law-based actions do not presumptively belong in State court. Federal diversity jurisdiction, established by the Framers of the Constitution, allows State law-based claims to be moved from local courts to Federal courts to ensure that all parties will be able to litigate on a level playing field and to ensure that interstate commerce interests will be protected. Additionally, the expansion of diversity included in the Class Action Fairness Act is consistent with current diversity law, since it allows Federal courts to hear large cases which have interstate implications. By nature, class actions fulfill these requirements. Mr. Chairman, in most State law-based class actions, the proposed classes encompass residents of multiple States. Therefore, the trial court, regardless of whether it is a State or a Federal court, must interpret and apply the laws of multiple jurisdictions. It is far more appropriate for a Federal court to interpret the laws of various States as opposed to having one State court dictate the substantive laws of others States. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the Greenwood- Hoyer substitute is not a real ban at all. It is a giant loophole that allows partial-birth abortions and third-trimester abortions on demand. The substitute contains no definition of ``viable.'' It imposes no objective criteria that would bind an abortionist. An abortionist has unconstrained discretion to define and declare whether or not any given child is deemed to be viable. If Members vote for this substitute, they might as well vote against the ban on partial-birth abortion. Why do so many Members want to ban this horrific procedure? I have never seen one. I would venture to say nobody in this room has probably seen one before, but one person did. Brenda Schaefer who was a registered nurse for Dr. Martin Haskell, the physician in Dayton, Ohio, who is credited with developing this horrible practice. She describes it as follows: ``Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal, and then he delivered the baby's body and the arms, everything except the head. The doctor kept the head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is falling. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby moved in the pan. I asked another nurse, and she said it was just reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life.'' That is what Brenda Schaefer witnessed with her own eyes, and that is why so many of us want to pass this today, and pass it in a form that will really mean something; and that means passing it without this phony ban, without this substitute. Mr. Speaker, if Members vote for this substitute, they might as well vote against the bill.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Partial-birth abortion is the termination of the life of a living baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the womb. The procedure is violent, it is gruesome, it is horrific, it is barbaric, it is infanticide. Proponents of this procedure will tell you a different story today. They want you to believe it is about politics or ideology. They will do anything to divert attention from the cold, hard facts about partial- birth abortion. I want to remind everybody that we have seen these same tactics for many years and that the misinformation touted by the abortion lobby was exposed as blatant propaganda back in 1997. We might recall that the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted that he, quote, ``lied through his teeth when he stated that partial-birth abortions were rarely performed.'' He went on to say that the procedure is most often performed on healthy mothers who are about 5 months pregnant with healthy fetuses. So as we debate this compassionate bill today, I ask that you remember the truth: Partial-birth abortion remains an untested, unproven and dangerous procedure that has never been embraced by the mainstream medical community. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this legislation in more detail. Two years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban which was similar, but not identical, to bans passed by previous Congresses. To address the constitutional concerns raised by the majority in Stenberg, our legislation differs from previous proposals in two areas. First, the bill contains a new, more precise definition of the prohibited procedure that, as expert medical testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution indicated, clearly distinguishes it from more commonly performed abortion procedures. Opponents of this legislation claim that doctors will be confused by the definition of partial-birth abortion. Despite the assertions of the abortionists who defend this procedure, the new definition provides physicians anatomical guideposts so that there will be no confusion about which procedure is prohibited. Second, our legislation addresses the Stenberg majority's opinion that the Nebraska ban placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The Stenberg court based its conclusion on the trial court's factual findings regarding the relative health and safety benefits of partial-birth abortions, findings which were highly disputed. Under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the clearly erroneous standard. Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings, findings that the Supreme Court consistently relies upon and accords great deference, and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence. That is exactly what we have done in this legislation. The first section of our legislation contains Congress' extensive factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during congressional hearings, partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to women's health, is never medically indicated, and is outside standard medical care. In fact, the district court's factual findings in Stenberg are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority regarding the safety and medical necessity of partial-birth abortion. According to the American Medical Association, ``There is no consensus among obstetricians about its use, it has never been subject to even a minimal amount of normal medical practice development, and it is not in the medical textbooks.'' In addition, no controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted, nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Leading proponents of partial-birth abortion also acknowledge that it poses additional health risks because of the many difficulties required in that particular procedure. It has even been called a rogue procedure. Partial-birth abortion is truly a national tragedy. Fortunately, the American people and the President recognize the horrors of partial- birth abortion and are waiting for Congress to again take action. On March 13, 2003, the other body passed virtually identical legislation by a 64 to 33 vote. I urge my colleagues to support our bill and help end this barbaric and inhumane practice once and for all in this country. It is now time for us to pass this legislation. I feel confident that we will do so today.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the allegation that this is about politics. This is about protecting innocent, unborn, little human beings who cannot defend themselves, and so, under this Supreme Court decision, it is necessary for Congress to take action. We believe that this bill does pass constitutional muster. We have also heard that these are generally seriously flawed pregnancies. We have heard earlier this afternoon time and time again that these were rare, and that they were done basically because there was a baby that was in jeopardy. The New York Times in a recent article dated April 22, not exactly a bastion of conservative newspapers, said, ``One aspect of the debate about partial-birth abortion has changed. When it began, some opponents of the ban,'' in other words, those on the other side of the aisle who are in favor of continuing to allow it in this country, ``said the targeted form of abortion was used only when a fetus had extreme abnormalities or the 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 on healthy pregnancies.'' So there are some times when these are pregnancies that are in jeopardy, but overall the statistics now show that these are healthy mothers, that these are healthy babies. That is the bulk of the partial-birth abortions that are performed in this country. It is not about politics. It is about protecting those innocent human lives. And we have already heard the other side, again, who clearly stated in their own words, they were lying through their teeth when they indicated that these abortions are rare. Most of the experts say there are anywhere from 2,200 to 5,000 of these performed in this country every single year. These are lives that have a right to be born and they are destroyed. It is exactly as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) said, this is murder, is what it amounts to. We need to protect these babies.