Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC today because I was participating at a conference hosted by the International Justice Mission (IJM). As a result, I was not able to vote today. Had I been able to vote, I would have recorded the following: On rollcall vote No. 12, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 13, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 14, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 25, I missed Rollcall Vote No. 407 to designate September 11th as Patriot Day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I often rise in this House and speak about securing America's future. After the attacks of September 11, these words have taken on a whole new meaning. Securing America's future involves everything from strengthening our military and economy to educating our children. As we face this time of trial, we are reminded of the roots of our great nation and we are keenly aware of the values we hold dear. We are aware that freedom is not free, that liberty comes at a price, that the sacrifices of our founders and countless Americans have helped secure our present freedoms. Too many have fought too hard for too long for the principles of this nation to abandon them now. So I rise today to wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res. 248, introduced by my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Brown. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that public schools may display the words ``God Bless America'' as an expression of support for the nation. It should shame every Member of Congress that a vote is even necessary to allow school children to ask God to bless our country. This is America--the land of the free. ``God'' is not a banned word. Yet there are some who would tell our children that they cannot use that word as it might offend others. Our schoolchildren deserve the right to pray, to assemble, and to freely acknowledge God. As we educate our children on the principles of this nation, let us not forget that this nation was founded upon an acknowledgment of Almighty God as the giver of life and liberty. Mr. Speaker, in the past I have brought before the House of Representatives a proposal to help schools stand up for their students' freedom of religious expression and counter the chilling effect that misinformation and lawsuits can have on our schools. I will introduce this Student Freedom of Religious Expression language again, and hope my colleagues will support the measure. Right now, in my home District, there is a high school student petitioning for the right to pray in school. I support him and believe he has that right. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that schoolchildren must leave their religious beliefs outside the schoolhouse door. I challenge the schoolchildren and educators across this nation to be thankful for the liberties this nation grants them, carry that thankfulness in their hearts, and be free to express their thanks and supplication to God at any hour of the day. Mr. Speaker, let no one rob us of the right to ask blessings from God on our great nation. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and close by saying Let Freedom Ring and God Bless America.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention a poem written by one of my constituents, Amy Farley. Amy is one of the many youth in our nation who are struggling to deal with the tragedy surrounding the September 11 attacks. As the children of today are our nation's brightest hope for the future, we should reach out to console them and encourage them to express themselves as they cope with these unfamiliar times. I would like to commend Amy and her effort to honor and remember the events of September 11, 2001 by highlighting the poem she submitted to Mauldin High School: A Poem of Tribute . . . . and Warning (By Amy Farley, Age 16, Junior at Mauldin High School) For the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers, For the colleagues, friends, children, and lovers, For the three brave men of flight 93, For the 200 fighters under Trade Center debris. For Father Michael, the FDNY chaplain For the thousands who will never see our flag again For the students who ran, their lives in danger For our president who acts with quiet anger For astronauts who see dust and fire from space For each battered, broken, and bloody face For the Muslims who have been beaten by racists For the FBI, as they search for the terrorists For all of America as they watch in horror, For Britain, as she watches her crippled daughter For France, as they stand in a moment of silence For the UN, who condemns such acts of violence For Iraqis, who have never known freedom For the Afghanistans, trusting the men that lead them For the women there who live in fright, For the young men coerced by bin Laden to fight For the Pentagon, once thought impenetrable For those trapped in crevices rendered unreachable For the thousands of innocents maimed or killed, For the pain and suffering New Yorkers feel For the rescuers, convinced that hell's not this bad, For the children at home without moms and dads For the people who have to clean up the mess, For the volunteers who do just as much for less For those so hurt that they can't see the light For the tables with empty seats tonight, For those who eventually have to go back For those who saw the sky turn black. For all the world, because we've all been affected Because of the attack that could not be deflected We pray for you all, and hold you near As our hearts ache and our eyes tear Because of a few violent people out there Who just by chance caught the US unaware The whole world has been turned upside down And now, nothing seems it will ever be sound So hear this, world, countrymen and foes America will not be disrupted by those Who attack viciously in the broad daylight We will not surrender this terrible fight We will punish who did these heinous crimes We will scrape together our nickels and dimes So know that we will stand together, With liberty and justice for all . . . . FOREVER.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and I are introducing the BRIDGE Act of 2001. BRIDGE is short for Business-Retained Income During Growth and Expansion. This is bill number H.R. 3062. I am introducing the bill on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart). We are confident many other Members will join us in cosponsoring this very timely and bipartisan bill. This bill is the result of extensive discussions with Members, staff, and business trade groups, hearings before the Committee on Small Business, as well as the vital input of Tatum CFO Partners, a national financial services firm. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Toomey) in scheduling the hearings on access to capital for small and growing businesses, and their support of the bill, as well as the support of the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and other members of the Committee on Small Business, as well as members of the Committee on Ways and Means, who have joined us as original sponsors of this bill. Based on extensive experience in providing chief financial officers for emerging growth companies, Tatum CFO has helped bring awareness to the problems small businesses and medium-sized businesses face during high-growth periods, and they have been instrumental in helping to design this legislative solution. Currently, a number of business trade groups are supporting the BRIDGE Act, including the Council of Growing Companies, the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, Small Business Survival Committee, and Small Business Legislative Council. These groups represent thousands of small and emerging growth businesses. The BRIDGE Act is designed to address two significant financial problems for fast-growing entrepreneurial businesses. First, fast- growing companies quickly outstrip capital financing based on the entrepreneur's personal credit, and they soon face what is called a capital funding gap, when their business financing needs grow between $250,000 and $1 million. This bill bridges that gap until a company reaches 10 million in sales, a size that is significant enough to readily attract external financing at an affordable rate. Second, fast-growing companies on accrual accounting may be profitable for tax purposes but face an increasing negative cash flow as the company expends its cash to keep up with growth. The faster the rate of sales growth, the more the company faces a negative cash flow under accrual accounting. Most importantly, the Bridge Act would benefit the vital entrepreneurial segment of our economy which has provided most of the net new jobs in this country over the last decade as well as during the current economy as much larger firms downsize. The Bridge Act would allow a firm growing by 10 percent or more and with sales of 10 million or less to defer, not deduct, up to $250,000 in Federal income tax liability for 2 years and to pay the deferred tax over the following 4-year period. Interest would be paid to the government at the Federal underpayment rate during the entire deferral period. The tax-deferred amount would be deposited in a trust account at a bank and/or other financial institution and could be used as collateral for business loans. The Bridge Act would sunset after 2005 to allow a review by Congress and a study by the General Accounting Office. In summary, the Bridge Act would allow growing entrepreneurial businesses to retain a portion of their Federal income tax liability for a limited period, payable with interest during a critical time when outside financing is extremely difficult and costly to obtain. The bill would provide additional needed capital to be reinvested in the firm's continued growth. This added capital source would help to create a potential of up to 641,000 new jobs during the first 3 years thus helping to reinvigorate our economy. I have attached to this statement a table showing how the new job projections are derived as well as the estimated revenue effect of the bill. The joint tax committee staff estimates that the bill with the 2005 sunset would result in a temporary revenue loss during the first 4 years, followed by a revenue pick-up during the next 6 years for a net revenue gain of over a billion dollars for the 10-year period. Mr. Speaker, the Bridge Act is a bipartisan proposal that would have a significant economic job tax revenue multiplier effect which is needed in the current economic situation. The bill is very timely and needs to be passed this year in order to have the most impact on the down economy and the capital markets. In my statement, I am including a summary explanation of the Bridge Act and the economic reasons for the bill as well as the table showing the projected new jobs and estimated revenue effect. Summary and Reasons for the Bridge Act Bridge Act Summary: The Bridge Act would allow a deferral of up to $250,000 in Federal income tax for two years, with payment over a 4-year installment period, and with interest paid on the deferral at the Federal rate. Businesses that grow at least 10% in gross receipts above the prior 2-year average would be eligible if they are on accrual accounting for tax purposes and have $10 million or less in gross receipts. The deferred amounts would be placed in a trust account at a bank or other qualified intermediary, for use as collateral for a business loan. the deferral would sunset after 2005, with a GAO study (in consultation with the Treasury and the IRS). Capital Needs of Growing Entrepreneurial Businesses: The Bridge Act would provide an efficient source of critically needed capital funding for entrepreneurial businesses to keep investing and growing. Capital funding in the range of $250,000 to about $1,000,000 is very difficult and costly to obtain for growing businesses. Limited capital availability limits the ability of the business to keep expanding sales and employment. A rapidly growing company can grow itself out of cash, unless it can obtain outside financing. The temporary tax deferral would allow the entrepreneur to utilize the funds in the business until it can grow large enough to obtain financing from more traditional sources. Employment and Economic Growth: By providing needed capital to keep expanding the business, the Bridge Act would assist the entrepreneurial sector (the ``emerging growth companies'') that has created most of the net new jobs in the U.S. economy in the past decade. A Cognetics, Inc. study, Who's Creating Jobs? 1999 (David Birch, Jan Gundersen, Anne Haggerty, William Parson), indicates that 85% of the new jobs for 1994-1998 were created by companies with 100 or fewer employees. There are indications that these rapidly growing companies are the only ones that are generating net new job growth in the current economic situation. The bill would help to reinvigorate the economy by offsetting employment cutbacks elsewhere in the economy. The Bridge Act would provide critically needed capital for these companies, which could help create over 600,000 new jobs during the first three years, based on sample data from financial statements of profitable firms with $10 million in sales or less (database sample provided by Dr. Michael Camp, Economist and Vice President of Research, the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Kansas City, MO) (see attached Table). A recent study by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship (High-Growth Companies: Mapping America's Landscape, July 2001) reports that rapidly growing companies (15% or more growth per year in their Census survey for 1992- 1997) are in all industry sectors and in all Labor Market Areas in every State in the United States. For State data, see web at: www.ncoe.org/lma Timing of Income Tax Liability for Growing Small Businesses: Because of the microeconomics of rapid growth, an expanding business on accrual accounting that is experiencing increased revenues and book (accrued) profits can also be simultaneously experiencing negative cash flow due to reinvestment of the cash to fund the growth. When a growing business, with negative cash flow, has to come up with immediate cash to pay an accrued tax liability, this can have a severe adverse financial effect on the firm's ability to survive until it receives more cash inflow. The bill would allow the realignment of the timing of the tax payment until the entity can more readily obtain the necessary capital to pay the tax, which would be payable in installments over four years after a 2-year deferral (all with interest).

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, on September 24, 2001, 1 missed rollcall vote No. 349 and rollcall vote No. 350 due to a delay in my flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 717 and ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 65.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I often rise on the floor of the House and speak of securing America's future. As yesterday's events show, there is much work to be done. Yesterday, we suffered the worst terrorist assault on American soil in the history of our country. The horror that was perpetrated by assailants as yet unidentified, has resulted in untold death and destruction. Regular people, with children, and parents, and brothers and sisters went to work yesterday never suspecting that they would be the victims of catastrophic brutality committed by enemies they never knew. I am deeply saddened for those who lost loved ones, and I know that we will do absolutely everything possible to rescue those still alive but trapped in the rubble. Yesterday we saw evil at its worst. Today, as Americans come together to donate blood, rescue the survivors, and comfort those in mourning, we see America at its best. The first two questions that follow this kind of unspeakable tragedy are always who did it and why. Although we have not yet determined who was behind the attack, we do know some things about them. The people who did this premeditated act of violence were calculated, malicious, and cunning. They ruthlessly turned commercial airliners filled with innocent passengers into flying bombs. They were brazen in their planning and determined in their execution. Their despicable act of violence and cowardice is tantamount to an act of war, and as President Bush said, we must marshall the full resources of the government to hunt down and eliminate those who would use terror as a weapon. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the manufacturers of terror have no place to rest, no allies willing to risk harboring them, and no hope of ultimate success. The United States of America is a peace loving nation; we are not a people who are easily provoked to confrontation or war. We are slow to anger and practice tolerance. We routinely give of our surplus food, knowledge, and resources to others in the name of humanitarianism. We have opened our arms to receive those fleeing from oppressive regimes who agree with the principles of freedom and wish to join us. And to those peoples and nations who do not agree or do not wish to join us, we strive diligently to coexist with them peacefully in the international community. But there are some who are not satisfied with our decision to sustain a society that protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They refuse to embrace the virtues of freedom and have rejected the blessings of liberty, and further, they have attempted to prevent America from doing so. We espouse freedom and the way we choose to govern ourselves embodies and manifests that principle. Our society, commerce, and government are open. And, as yesterday's attack showed, that openness can make us vulnerable. The goal of our attackers is that we will respond by closing our cities and society and withdraw our efforts to spread freedom around the world so that their quest for power through barbarism will go unchallenged. But we will remain steadfast and continue to challenge terrorism. And so as the dust is settling and the smoke is fading in New York and Washington, and as we count our lost, a rage is kindling. To those who committed this act, I say that you have not accomplished the destruction of Democracy or dampened the light of Liberty. You have only reminded us once again, that there is a price for freedom; but you will surely bear that cost in full as well. You will know the fury and scourge of a people provoked to protect their freedom and answer for loved ones who are now dead. Many have appropriately compared September 11, 2001 with December 7, 1941. It is worth pointing out that in distinction to the events of 1941, yesterdays attack targeted both military personnel and civilians. And while we deal with the shock and dismay that must be similar to the day after the events that catapulted us into World War II, I would note the words attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack when he said, ``I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with terrible resolve.'' Today I join with other Members in passing a resolution condemning this act of terrorism and in the coming hours and days, we in Congress will be working closely with the President to rescue survivors, honor our dead, and dispatch the severest possible punishment to those responsible. We have much work to do to secure the future of America, and the principles of freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true champion of freedom from the great State of South Carolina, Congressman Floyd Spence. It was an honor and a personal privilege to serve with Floyd in Congress. He served his district, his State and his country by fighting for the values that we all cherish. He was a true patriot and a remarkable man. Congressman Spence was recognized around the world as an authority on defense issues. Vice President Dick Cheney recently said Mr. Spence was one of the watchmen over America's security. He had a deep respect for the military, and that respect was returned. He was a patriot who served his country well. Floyd was chairman emeritus of the Committee on Armed Services, and a senior member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He was the only Member of Congress to have served as chairman of the Committee on National Security. A decorated veteran himself, he received many military honors. Most recently, Congressman Spence received the 2001 Distinguished Service Award from the Military Order of the World Wars. Floyd became a personal friend of mine, and I remember so many occasions on the back of this floor just talking with him. It was his encouragement and sense of humor that gave me a good perspective of our work here: to keep the focus on our country and security and what is best for those who live here. He was an inspiration to me, and I want to honor him tonight. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a champion of freedom from the great state of South Carolina, Congressman Floyd Spence. It was an honor and a personal pleasure to serve with Floyd in Congress and get to know him over the past few years. He served his district and his country fighting for the values we cherish. He was a true patriot, a remarkable man. As you know, Floyd was a walking medical miracle. In 1988, at age 60, he underwent a then rare double-lung transplant. In 1990 when asked to reflect about this operation, Floyd said ``I thank my maker for allowing me to have a second life.'' This past year he also had a kidney transplant. His doctor characterized Floyd as a man of extraordinary courage who respected and embraced life. He often said that he was ``grateful for any additional day God granted him.'' Through those experiences, Floyd continued to serve and became an active supporter of organ donor awareness programs. Congressman Spence was recognized around the world as an authority on defense issues. Vice President Dick Cheney recently said Spence was one of the `'watchmen over America's security.'' He had a ``deep respect for the military, and that respect was returned. He was a patriot who served his country well.'' Floyd was the Chairman Emeritus of the Committee on Armed Services and a senior member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He is the only member of Congress to have served as the chairman of the Committee on National Security. A decorated veteran himself, he received many military honors. Most recently, Congressman Spence received the 2001 Distinguished Service Award from the Military Order of the World Wars. Before coming to Congress in 1970, Congressman Spence was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1956-1962 and the South Carolina Senate from 1966-1970. He was a man of faith, a solid conservative, a wise mentor and a shining example of service to myself and the rest of the delegation. My heart goes out to his wife Debbie and the entire Spence family. Our prayers are with you as you grieve--thank you for sharing such a man of integrity with us.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. John A. McCarroll of Greenville, SC, for his many contributions to our State and our community and to congratulate him on his upcoming retirement. Mr. McCarroll has been the Executive Director of the Phyllis Wheatley Association for the past 30 years. Since becoming director, the agency has grown from a recreational center to a multi-faceted human services agency that operates programs out of its two buildings in Greenville and three satellite centers across the Upstate. The Phyllis Wheatley Center is a member of the United Way of Greenville and, out of forty-four agencies, receives the second highest allocation behind the Red Cross. The agency had a budget of over $1,300,000 in 1999. Many individuals that have participated in the agency's programs under Mr. McCarroll's leadership are now serving in important positions throughout the state, including Columbia's Chief of Police, Mr. Charles Austin. Mr. McCarroll has assisted in providing training for several South Carolina Cabinet Agencies, assisted groups in organizing non-profit agencies, and has provided board development, marketing and fundraising training for non-profit agencies throughout the state. Additionally, Mr. McCarroll received the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National Association for Community Development. He was selected as an Inaugural Program Participant for Leadership USA in 1995. He currently serves on the Board of Trustees of South Carolina State University and the Greenville County First Steps Board. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. McCarroll for all his years of service to our community and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, it is July 31st, the year 2001. Once upon a time, the discussions about cloning human beings were about a hypothetical point in the future. America has not paid too much attention to the scientific, legal, and ethical issues surrounding cloning because it was always something so far off in the future that it seemed surreal. Well, the future is upon us and today we discuss an issue of utmost importance in determining what sort of world we live in. We all want to secure America's future--to live in a land of prosperity, good health, and great opportunity. However, our future will very much be shaped by our present decisions and fundamental questions about human life and human identity. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of H.R. 2505--the Weldon/Stupak bill to enact a true ban on human cloning. I rise in opposition to the Greenwood/Deutsch bill which purports to be a ban, but will allow the industrial exploitation of human life. Mr. Speaker, you and I and every other person on the face of this earth have unique features--things that make us not only human, but individuals. Our fingerprints are like snowflakes--there is not, nor has there ever been, an exact replica of another human being. Cloning is a whole new world. What is a clone? Whe is close? What is the identity of a clone? Who is responsible for the clone? Why would clones be brought into existence? Should they become human organ farms, created specifically to try to save the life of another human being? Would clones have different rights than `natural' human beings? Would they be a subservient class of human beings? Supporters of the Greenwood Substitute might claim that this is far- fetched, that their language has no intention of allowing the creation of actual cloned living, breathing human beings. As columnist Charles Krauthammer puts so eloquently, ``. . . once the industry of cloning human embryos has begun and thousands are being created, grown, bought and sold, who is going to prevent them from being implanted in a woman and developed into a cloned child?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask at what point do we say NO? At what point do we say that we refuse to walk down that slippery slope? When do we have the strength to stand up for the wonder of life and human experience and say that we will not allow the creation of cloned human embryos for industrial exploitation? Krauthammer calls the Greenwood bill ``a nightmare and an abomination . . . . the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history.'' Mr. Speaker. I hope we will all be able to look back on this day-- July 31, 2001--and recognize that it was a day in which we affirmed human life and rejected those wishing to exploit life in a most horrific way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take those words to heart and reject the Greenwood substitute and vote in favor of the underlying bipartisan bill. As we work together in this body to secure the future for America, let us march forward on our strongest ideals of hope, democracy, and freedom. Let us show the utmost respect for human life and this human experience which we all share.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, which is also known as the Faith-Based Initiative. America has long been a country made up of generous people who want to help a neighbor in need. Long before government programs came along to act as an extra safety net, individuals worked together with their churches and other community groups to ensure those in need were housed, clothed, and fed. While government programs were created to provide specific services to needy populations, these programs have less incentive to go above and beyond the call of duty. For many people of faith who run social service programs, their faith is what inspires them to go the extra mile for the poor, the downtrodden, the hopeless. Why, then, would the government exclude faith-based providers in its attempt to tackle difficult social problems such as drug addiction, gang violence, domestic violence, mental illness, and homelessness? Faith-based organizations with effective programs to combat societal ills should be able to compete equally with their non-faith based counterparts for government grants. And in some cases under current ``charitable choice'' laws, they can. When Welfare Reform passed in 1996, charitable choice language was included so faith-based groups providing welfare-to-work programs such as job training and child care can compete equally. I'm sure most of us know a church day care program which could care for children with just as much love and ability and professionalism as a non-faith based program. The legislation before us today allows ``charitable choice'' to apply to more government programs, such as juvenile delinquency, housing, domestic violence, job training, and community development programs. Let me make one thing clear: no faith-based group is compelled to apply. Those who are not interested in government funding can carry on with their ministry and keep doing the good work of serving our nation. Those groups which have an effective program and would like to compete for a grant may do so and keep their faith-based component largely intact. They would have to abide by some common sense requirements such as keeping the government funds in a separate account, but the requirements should not interfere with the religious nature of their program. The religious organization sponsoring the program would remain completely autonomous from federal, state, and local government control. The Faith-Based Initiative is a long-overdue, much-needed reform to recognize the importance of the faith community in caring for the most vulnerable of our nation. I want to take a minute to highlight a couple of wonderful community initiatives in my District which are inspirational to me. The Downtown Rescue Mission in Spartanburg has a myriad of exciting initiatives to provide housing, meals, health services, job training, and other help to give a helping hand up and empower folks in the downtown area. And in Greenville, since 1937--during the Great Depression--Miracle Hill Ministries has provided leadership in our community by providing food, clothing, shelter, and compassion to hurting and needy people, as well as serving as a model for other homeless outreach efforts in South Carolina. I am proud of these folks and the good work that they do and hope that the Faith-Based Initiative would be helpful to them. There are countless other good people and good organizations--big and small-- which could benefit from this attempt to provide a level playing field for the faith community. This bill also contains some great provisions to encourage charitable giving by individuals and corporations, as well as incentives for low- income individuals to save money that can be used to buy a home, a college education, or start a small business. We want everyone in America to be able to live the American Dream. The armies of compassion in our nation should be able to serve the needy and provide them hope, so that they too--through hard work and perseverance--can make the American Dream a reality. Mr. GARY MILLER OF California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7 the ``Community Solutions Act.'' Although a lot of speakers have focused their remarks on the charitable choice provisions of this bill, I feel that Title III, the Individual Development Account or IDAs offers a fundamental policy shift which merits the attention of this House. Many communities are facing an affordable housing crisis. Until now, our solution to this problem has been to increase the number of available Section 8 vouchers. However, this ``solution'' has only widened the gap between those who dream of owning a home, and those who are able to accumulate the financial resources needed to become a first-time home buyer. Under the Section 8 voucher program, if you demonstrate ambition and work hard to improve your situation, you are no longer eligible for the voucher. But at the same time, you do not have the down payment to own a home. IDAs will begin to reverse this trend. By encouraging individuals to save for a home through tax exemption IDAs and matching that investment, we finally have policy which makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to turn the American dream of owning a home into a reality.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention later today to offer an amendment to allow for a Straight A's pilot program to give States additional flexibility to demonstrate how they could achieve better student performance by replacing Federal programs with innovative programs at the State or local level. However, I will not be offering the DeMint Straight A's amendment today. Yesterday, I met with the President and the Vice President, and we agreed that the State and local flexibility provision will remain a top priority for the final bill, but that this important idea would be best served if I withdraw the amendment at this time or did not offer it. I want to thank the President for his assurance that he will use all the resources available to him to make sure that Straight A flexibility for States and local school districts is a part of the final education reform bill. I also shared with the President that without the Straight A's language, I would be unable to support the current bill on the floor today. While I am reluctant to not vote for the bill, I feel I must, given the absence of key education reform provisions on flexibility and choice. It is my hope and expectation that this important Straight A's flexibility provision will be included in the House-Senate conference bill. Mr. Chairman, Straight A's is a good education reform policy, and the pilot program is worthy of inclusion in the final education package. The DeMint Straight A's amendment would have allowed seven States and 25 local school districts the option of entering into a performance agreement with the Secretary of Education. Under approved, results- oriented contracts, State and local school districts would be able to combine funds from a few or all of the eligible Federal formula grant programs that they administer at the State level and would be free from most of the administrative costs of those individual programs. In exchange for this flexibility, participating States and local schools would have to meet their performance objectives for improving student academic achievement. Mr. Chairman, this House has already passed an even less restrictive version of Straight A's last year, so most of us have already confirmed that we believe the flexibility provided in Straight A's is exactly what America needs. I know we all want the same outcome: excellent schools all across the country which provide all children access to a solid education. In order for that to happen, we cannot continue the status quo. We need to declare failure as unacceptable, challenge the status quo, and provide the mechanisms necessary for positive change to occur. This amendment would not have required any State or school district to participate. It would be a pilot program to give a few States and local school districts around the country the opportunity to break the mold, to be innovative in their approach to education. Under Federal law, all they run into is red tape. This would give them the open door to truly meet the needs of their students and work to close the achievement gap in the manner that best suits their State and local districts. The bottom line is that States and local schools must show that their students are learning, not that the bureaucrats are checking the right boxes to continue Federal funds. The freedom would be refreshing.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The Cox amendment is responsible public policy to allow for an 11.5 percent increase in elementary and secondary education funding over last year's level. This amendment authorizes more money for K-12 programs than did H.R. 1, ``leave no child behind'' legislation as introduced. By standing here today and supporting the Cox amendment others may make claims that this is a gutting or cutting amendment of the whole bill; that this for some reason would make me less of a pro-child or pro-education Member of Congress. Let me be clear on a couple of things. First, this amendment allows for a significant amount of increased spending for education over the current appropriation levels. Secondly, it is not as if money alone will put us on the path to education reform in this country. We all know that we have spent over $120 billion Federal dollars on title I programs for disadvantaged children since the program began in 1965, with $80 billion in the last decade. We have little improvement to show for all of this spending. The achievement gap has not closed. In fact, despite increased spending, test scores remain stagnant. We should not subsidize failure. We should not pour more money into the status quo. As we provide for more funding, we should ask for results. In my life before Congress, I was a quality consultant, and we worked a lot on improving qualities in corporations; and we found that just putting more money or energy behind the current processes seldom improved very much at all. It was only when we let the people who were actually on the front lines have the flexibility and authority to actually change things that quality could actually be improved. Measuring output and setting minimum standards did very little to improve quality. America, in just about every other segment, has understood that changing the process can improve the quality. I know we all desire the same outcome. We want better schools and better education for all of our children across this land. To secure the future for our children, I believe that the answer is not money alone but that embracing some real reform concepts that we have talked about here today. I believe that when we give teachers and principals and parents more flexibility and authority at the local level, we can actually change things. And until we do, just flooding the system with more money is not going to work. We have a very responsible proposal by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to increase funding over a level last year that was also substantially increased. Let us give time for our reforms to work. Let us fund it at an 11.5 percent increase, more money for reading and all the critical programs we have talked about, and then review in a year or two and see how we can continue to improve. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Cox amendment as a practical measure.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, it does give me great joy to stand here today to celebrate the thousands of moms, dads, and children who become bigger and stronger families through adoption. The Hope for Children Act that we will pass in the House today will help build more loving, stable families in America, and send a strong signal across our land that every child is a wanted child. Like many Americans, I grew up in a family without my father in the home. While my mother and eventually my stepfather did all they could to compensate for this missing piece in my life, nothing could dispel the haunting in my heart that regularly whispered that I was not wanted. Too many Americans grow up with this sense of not being wanted. But every year in America, thousands of children have an infinitely more positive experience. When a married couple decides to adopt a child, they not only fill a void in their own lives, they send a clear signal to their child that he or she is loved and wanted. The Hope for Children Act sends a strong signal that America wants her children, all of her children. By helping new parents with the high financial cost of adoption, we as a nation encourage the building of strong, happy families. I introduced H.R. 622 earlier this year, along with my colleagues in the Hope Coalition, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), to work to ensure enactment of the Hope for Children Act this year. However, as has been mentioned, the original Hope for Children Act to permanently extend and double the tax credit for adoption was introduced in the last Congress by the gentleman from Virginia, our former, our former colleague, Tom Bliley. Chairman Bliley worked tirelessly on adoption issues during his tenure in Congress and paved the way for this legislation. While he is retired from the House, it is our privilege to carry on his work to pass Hope for Children today. The provisions in this bill are an excellent step in making adoption a reality to more families. As we work with the Senate to help the Hope for Children Act become law, we look forward to exploring the best policy methods to address the unique circumstances of special-needs adoptions in relation to the adoption tax credit. I want to take a moment to thank my colleagues in the House for showing their overwhelming support for this bill. With 289 cosponsors, this bill is truly bipartisan. As we celebrate this pro-child, pro-family legislation today, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I also want to thank the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for taking a special interest in moving this important legislation. Lastly, I would like to thank the members of the Hope Coalition and their staffs for working as a team to make the passage of this legislation a reality. I especially need to thank a member of my staff, Courtney Weise, who has made this her passion for the last 6 months. It is only because of her that we pulled this off today. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday we celebrated Mother's Day; next month, Father's Day. Being a mom or dad is the greatest privilege in life, and this bill will help make moms and dads all across the country, and make America a better place to live.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, Americans are united around a common goal to help every child in America to receive a world class education. It is a goal that should unite this legislative body around successful education policies--ideas that respond to parents, empower teachers, and educate children. As we work to improve America's education, let's not lose focus on what is working--such as the tremendous growth and proven success of America's charter schools. Charter schools prosper because they bind parents, teachers, community and state leaders together to tailor an education program that fits the needs of local students. They prosper because they unleash the intelligence and innovation of our students. Earlier this year, in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Education, I hosted a Public Charter School Summit in Greenville, South Caroline. The summit's purpose was simple: educate and excite local leaders about the potential of charter schools in South Carolina. We told them that charter schools are public schools that are free from many state and local requirements. In exchange for this freedom and flexibility to try new approaches in education, the school must deliver results in student achievement. It is a contract with the governing board--flexibility in exchange for proven academic results. By drawing upon the ideas and energy of local and state leaders, South Carolina and other states can turn the education corner. That is how strongly I believe in the transforming ability of charter schools. We owe our best effort to improve the schools of our state. I am proud of the charter schools which have opened in South Carolina. They have banded together to form the South Carolina Charter School Association, an organization that has helped charter schools not only survive, but flourish in South Carolina. I commend our state's efforts to lift hurdles in the current charter school law and move to make South Carolina a charter-friendly state. The education of our children is a public trust which we must not take highly. Like many other aspects of our culture and society, there are principles that stand the test of time. But we need to boldly explore creative solutions that allow our nation's institutions to fit the needs and demands of modern times. Our students deserve a top- notch, cutting-edge education system. Charter schools are supported by leaders of both parties and of all political learnings. It is hard to dispute the results when competition, education flexibility, and community partnerships are offered to America's schools. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of all our debates over ways to improve America's schools, I ask that we pause and give special attention and recognition to the work of charter schools all across the nation. Thousands of parents, teachers, community leaders, and students are providing each day that schools will succeed when education dollars and decisions are kept close to the community.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I commend the gentleman from South Carolina for introducing this legislation. Let us consider for a moment the human side of this legislation. A friend of mine and his wife tried for years to conceive a child. They had almost given up when unexpectedly they conceived twins, a double blessing. If someone had assaulted or otherwise committed a crime of violence against her that killed these children, one cannot tell me that punishment should only occur for the crime against the woman when the unborn children were the innocent victims of the violence. If these two lovely children that the couple had longed for had tragically died in the commission of a crime of violence, the criminal must be held accountable. This legislation takes the important step of recognizing that violence against an unborn child against the will of the mother, taking away the mother's right to choose, can be prosecuted in a court of law. This is not a new concept. In fact, over half of the States in this Nation have State laws which protect unborn victims of violence in some form. I have with me today a list of these State homicide laws that recognize unborn victims, which will be inserted into the Record. This legislation would not supersede those State laws, nor would it impose a new law for crimes which are under State jurisdiction. Rather, this bill recognizes an unborn child as a victim in the eyes of Federal criminal law. Currently, if a criminal injures or kills an unborn child during the course of a violent Federal crime, he has not committed an additional offense, other than the violent crime. But that is not fair. If an unborn child dies because of a violent act perpetrated against his or her mother, then the criminal must be held accountable. We have heard about an amendment to this legislation which would take away the recognition that a violent crime has occurred against an unborn child. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this weakening amendment. The title of this bill describes exactly what this bill is about: unborn victims of violence. This bill works to correct an unjust situation in which the life of an unborn child is lost, and there are no legal repercussions. I challenge my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the abortion issue to hold criminals accountable for their violent crimes. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me today and vote in favor of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims full-coverage unborn victim states (11) (States with homicide laws that recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of pre-natal development) Arizona--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-1103(A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998). Illinois--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, Sec. Sec. 5/9-1.2, 5/9- 2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Louisiana--The killing of an ``unborn child'' is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 14:32.5-14.32.8, read with Sec. Sec. 14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997). Minnesota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an ``unborn child'' during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 609.266, 609.2661-609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an ``unborn child'' through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 609.21 (West 1999). Missouri--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. Sec. Sec. 1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W. 2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). North Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code Sec. Sec. 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997). Ohio--At any stage of pre-natal development, if an ``unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another'' is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998). Pennsylvania--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is first, second, or third- degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 2601 to 2609 (1998). South Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. Sec. 22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with Sec. Sec. 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A)(Supp. 1997). Utah--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998). Wisconsin--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998). partial-coverage unborn victim states (13) (states with homicide laws that recognize unborn children as victims, but only during part of the period of pre-natal development) Note: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are described here for informational purposes. Arkansas--The killing of an ``unborn child'' of twelve weeks or greater gestation is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Enacted April 9, 1999, 1999 AR H.B. 1329. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a felony or Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.) California--The killing of an unborn child after the embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 187(a) (West 1999). Florida--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.09 (West 1992). The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.071 (West 1999). Georgia--The killing of an ``unborn child'' after quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by vessel. Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 16-5-80 (1996); Sec. 40-6-393.1 (1997); and Sec. 52-7-12.3 (1997). Massachusetts--The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989). Michigan--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 28.554 (Callaghan 1990). The Supreme Court of Michigan has interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). (A separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a ``miscarriage or stillbirth,'' or cause physical injury to an ``embryo or fetus.'') Mississippi--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-37 (1994). Nevada--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 200.210 (1997). Oklahoma--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, Sec. 713 (West 1983). The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). Rhode Island--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. The statute defines ``quick child'' to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 11-23-5 (1994). South Carolina--The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998). Tennessee--The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13- 211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998). Washington--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West Supp. 1999). states without unborn victims laws, which instead criminalize certain conduct that ``terminates a human pregnancy'' or that causes a miscarriage (7) Note: These laws are gravely deficient, because they do not recognize unborn children as victims, nor allow justice to be done on their behalf. These laws are included here for informational purposes. Indiana--An individual who knowingly or intentionally ``terminates a human pregnancy'' commits feticide. Ind. Code Ann Sec. 35-42-1-6 (Burns 1994 & Supp. 1998). Iowa--An individual who intentionally ``terminates a human pregnancy'' without the consent of the pregnant woman commits a felony. This law also sets forth other crimes involving the termination of a human pregnancy, such as during the commission of a forcible felony. Iowa Code Ann Sec. 707.8 (West Supp. 1999). Kansas--Injury to a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony or misdemeanor which causes a miscarriage results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann Sec. 21-3440 (1997). Also, injury to a pregnant woman through the operation of a motor vehicle which causes a miscarriage results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 21-3441 (1997). New Hampshire--It is a felony to cause injury to another person that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann Sec. Sec. 631:1-631:2 (1996). New Mexico--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 30-3-7 (Michie 1994). It is also a crime to injure a pregnant woman through the unlawful operation of a vehicle which causes her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann Sec. Sec. 66-8-101.1 (Michie 1998). North Carolina--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. It is a misdemeanor to cause a miscarriage or stillbirth during a misdemeanor act of domestic violence. N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-18.2 (Supp. 1998). Virginia--The premeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is capital murder. Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31 (Michie Supp. 1998). The unpremeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is also a crime. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-32.1 (Michie Supp. 1998). It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman with the intent to maim or kill her or to terminate her pregnancy and she is injured or her pregnancy is terminated. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-51.2 (Michie Supp. 1998). New York: Conflicting Statutes New York--Under New York statutory law, the killing of an ``unborn child'' after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law Sec. 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But under a separate statutory provision, a ``person'' that is the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as ``a human being who has been born and is alive.'' N.Y. Pen. Law Sec. 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc. 2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984); People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co.Ct. 1987).

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, what are we to make of the most recent school shooting in California? How do we respond to events that are so beyond belief, so tragic that goodness in our world appears no stronger than a flickering flame on a shrinking wick? The accused is a scrawny, quiet fifteen-year-old named Andy. He was relentlessly picked on at his new school in San Diego. A victim of bullies, he found no refuge in his broken home. He longed for a relationship with his estranged mother. He searched for acceptance. ``He tried to act cool, but he wasn't cool,'' said one skateboarder who saw him trying to fit in with a rougher crowd. He was relentlessly hounded for his haircut, his voice, and his clothes. Andy reached out to old friends. ``He told me many times that I was the reason he hadn't killed himself,'' his closest friend from Maryland said. Within minutes of the shooting, the televisions blared with quick-fix commentary. Gun control. Lack of self-control. Blame the parents. Blame the schools. The answers seemed empty, earthly, leaving many with more questions and more confusion. I trust you will agree that Andy's actions are a condition of the heart. The answer lies in something more than smaller classroom sizes or higher test scores. Tragically, a dark shadow of spiritual emptiness has eclipsed our reliance on the truth and dignity that come from a belief in God--the very essence of what provides us with guidance, worth, and meaning. I humbly offer this saying from Dorothy Sayers who writes that the problem is ``the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, lives for nothing, finds purpose in nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.'' That, my friends, is the challenge of our time. It is the desperate calls of Andy and the despondent cries of the victims. Our youth are looking for something beyond the nothing. It is my prayer that we give them a reason to believe.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, due to air traffic congestion, I was unavoidably detained in my district last night. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both Roll Call Votes 584 and 585.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor my colleague, Chairman Bliley, for his faithful service in the U.S. House of Representatives. As his many years as a dedicated public servant in the House come to a close, I am sure he is looking back at the many accomplishments of his time here. I would like to highlight his activity in one specific area--adoption. Chairman Bliley, as the adoptive father of two and co-chairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, has championed adoption issues in Congress. Most recently he has worked to make sure pregnancy counselors are trained to provide complete and accurate information on adoption to women with unplanned pregnancies. He has also worked to increase the adoption tax credit to $10,000 in relief for families dealing with the high cost of adopting children. Adoption is a wonderful thing because it brings a positive, life- giving end to what could be difficult circumstances. The mother can place her child in a loving family, the child receives a warm and welcoming home, and an adoptive couple gets to wear one of the greatest titles in America--parent. I applaud the chairman for his tireless efforts to help the birthparents, adopted children, and adoptive parents around this country. There are many children who have been blessed with parents and a loving home because of the work of Chairman Bliley. I thank and salute him for all of his work and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, as the original sponsor of H.R. 2511, the Adoption Awareness Act, along with the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, a champion of adoption issues, I am pleased to endorse the Infant Adoption Awareness Act included in the child health bill, H.R. 4365. Adoption is a wonderful option because it brings a positive, life- giving end to what could be difficult circumstances. The mother can place her child in a loving family, the child receives a warm and welcoming home, and an adoptive couple gets to wear one of the greatest titles in America--parent. Additionally, pro-life individuals, groups, and communities should encourage adoption as one of the life-giving choices of women with unplanned pregnancies. With the love and care provided at crisis pregnancy centers and in homes, community and faith- based organizations across the country, more women will hear about the resources available to help them through this difficult time and to encourage them to bring this newly-formed life into the world. While this language is not as broad as the original legislation, it does reflect significant efforts to advance the purpose of the Adoption Awareness Act. This language was drafted with input from a wide variety of organizations, including those in the adoption and public health communities. Women facing unplanned pregnancies deserve to hear about their options from a well-trained counselor who can provide accurate, up-to- date information on adoption. This Act provides professional development for pregnancy counselors in adoption counseling. The training will enable pregnancy counselors to feel confident in their knowledge of the adoption process, relevant State and local laws, and the legal, medical, and financial resources which can be provided to women with unplanned pregnancies. I am pleased to support the Infant Adoption Awareness Act as a step in the right direction to bring complete and accurate adoption information to women facing unplanned pregnancies. I hope that this step significantly advances our Nation in the direction of eliminating a perceived anti-adoption bias in pregnancy counseling in providing lasting answers to difficult circumstances. I truly believe that in our great Nation, while there may be unwanted pregnancies, there are no unwanted children.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight one of the specific provisions of this child health package, the Infant Adoption Awareness Act. It is truly my privilege to stand here and thank my colleagues in the House and Senate and on many different sides of the family planning issue for their ability to come together and pass adoption provisions which allow us to celebrate life by celebrating adoption. I would like to thank the leaders in sponsoring and negotiating this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); Senator Frist; Senator Kennedy. In particular, I would like to thank and honor the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for his tireless efforts on behalf of adoption. As an adoptive father and cochairman of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, as well as the chairman of the House Committee on Commerce, he has championed the adoption issue to help build happy, loving homes across America. I would also like to thank Marc Wheat of the Committee on Commerce staff for his excellent work and dedication and persistence on this project. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the infant adoption awareness provisions in this bill are a step in the right direction to bring complete and accurate adoption information to women facing unplanned pregnancies. These women in difficult circumstances deserve to hear about the options from a well-trained counselor who can provide accurate, up-to-date information on adoption. This act provides professional development for pregnancy counselors in adoption counseling. The training will enable pregnancy counselors to feel confident in their knowledge of the adoption process, relevant State and local laws, and the legal, medical and financial resources which can be provided to women with unplanned pregnancies. Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not easy to get a diverse group of organizations representing a wide variety of interests to agree on anything. I am therefore particularly delighted to be on the floor today praising the infant adoption awareness component of this bill, which reflects the input of a broad range of organizations. I want to thank everyone for their support.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. There is a lot of confusion about who qualifies as a person today, so this is an important bill. This bill says if a child, a little human being, is born and is showing signs of life, this child is entitled to the full protection of law. We are talking about babies who are breathing or have a beating heart or whose muscles are moving. Now, I must admit that I believe that life begins at conception, and a child exhibiting these signs in the womb deserves the same protection out of the womb, but that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about a born, living, breathing little boy or girl being treated as a precious human being and receiving the full protection of law, rather than being thrown away to die in a linen closet, a plastic bag, or the bottom of a trash can. Mr. Speaker, what has happened in America when we even must have this discussion on the floor? I believe this bill is something that we can all agree on. Please support this bill.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I have had the good fortune to work with my good friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) on it. I want to emphasize a specific part of the bill which has already been mentioned. This bill would allow the loan forgiveness program to all teachers who choose to go into the special education field regardless of teaching location. The field of special education faces special challenges. There is not only a shortage of special-ed teachers, but some teachers in the field are not qualified. Additionally, special education teachers are burdened by the need to comply with complex Federal laws and paperwork requirements in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. While the law is filled with good intentions, it is widely acknowledged to be a complicated process which leaves less time for teachers to go about the business of teaching. Teachers are discouraged by the paperwork requirements and spend hours working on checklists rather than lesson plans. They do this because they fear lawsuits if somehow they fall short of a dotting an ``I'' or crossing a ``T.'' Local school districts must pay for this underfunded mandate for special education, which strains their budget. This bill does its part in a small way by giving local school districts an incentive to attract special-ed teachers. If teachers are qualified, they can receive loan forgiveness over time if they teach in the special-ed field. While the number of special-ed students is rising, the number of teachers qualified to teach special-ed kids is not keeping pace with demand. Each year there is a chronic shortage of fully certified special-ed teachers, averaging about 27,000 per year. While the demand is ever present, institutions of higher education are graduating fewer teachers qualified in special ed. Mr. Speaker, the Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act is one step we can take to help local school districts by recruiting qualified teachers to enter and remain in the special education field. I thank my colleague for his willingness to craft this legislation in such a way that addresses the important need for special education teachers across the country.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), my friend. Mr. Speaker, public schools should not use our taxpayer dollars to distribute the morning after pill to the children of this Nation. This is serious business. We are talking about whether or not the schools of America hand out emergency contraceptives to the children of America. There are many factors in play here, but I fundamentally believe that it gets back to what schools are supposed to be about. Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, schools are supposed to be about education. This is their stated purpose, and I think we should all agree that schools have a lot of work to do in that area just to get our children educated. It is unimaginable to me what I just heard on this House floor, that it has been suggested that a girl who is date raped or suffered from incest should go to school the next morning to get a pill to make sure she is not pregnant, instead of being with her parents in a hospital with police and counselors that could help her. That is where this type of idea leads when we operate in secrecy from parents. Some would say that schools cannot teach if kids are worrying about life's outside pressure. Well, that may be true, but I believe that if schools were really focused on education and teaching, some of life's worries and outside pressures might fade away. Studies have shown that high educational expectations and goals keep kids focused on their future and their education, and they are not so easily sidetracked. Like it or not, when schools pass out emergency contraceptives, it sends a signal to kids. It says, there is no need to talk to your parents or involve them in decisions which are of immense importance to your physical and emotional well-being. It also says that schools will help students bypass their parents and help make life- changing decisions for them. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is not what our schools are supposed to be about. I think kids, parents and folks all across this Nation know it. Schools are supposed to be about reading, writing, arithmetic and educational experience, not social projects funded with taxpayer funds which bypass parents and harm children. It seems to me that it is not okay for a child to even sneeze in class without a parent's permission, and rightly so, you need parental permission to go on field trips and for a variety of other reasons. You often need parental permission just to take an aspirin. Yet, providing emergency contraception is of more serious medical consequences and parents are specifically not involved. The Congressional Research Service looked into the prevalence of providing emergency contraceptives in school-based clinics and they found at least 180 schools across the country already are handing out emergency morning after pills in their clinics. This is just part of their sample. Again, Mr. Speaker, schools should be about education, teaching, and learning. Let us keep the focus there. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Republican freshman class, I would like to congratulate Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska on the birth of his baby boy, Jack William Terry. On the fourth of July, at 11:40 p.m., Mr. Terry and his wife, Robyn, welcomed an eight pound, seven ounce child into this world. We sincerely congratulate both Mr. and Mrs. Terry on this joyous occasion as they enter into their new life as parents. May God bless the gentleman from Nebraska and his new family, and may Jack Terry live a long and prosperous life.