Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds. Saying that it will preserve family farms from taxation does not make it true. They are preserved already from taxation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make in order the portion of the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) request that made his amendment budget neutral and was paid for. The amendment was offered, but was rejected on a party-line vote. At least that part was taken out. The Pomeroy substitute will provide substantial tax relief from estate taxes. In fact, it grants more generous relief to most estates than the Republican bill and grants it immediately. The Pomeroy substitute completely exempts all but the largest estates from taxation and significantly simplifies tax planning for estates of all sizes. It also exempts virtually all family farms and small businesses from estate taxes. Furthermore, the Pomeroy substitute will not add one single penny to the deficit. Unlike the Republican bill, it will be completely paid for. Republicans in the House have continued for weeks to block any and every bill that provides tax relief to the people who need it most in this Nation. Even on the issue of estate tax, they favor the rich over the middle- and lower-income working Americans. They continue to take care of their wealthy friends again today with yet another deficit- busting bill. Let us take this opportunity to make in order a substitute that will immediately eliminate estate taxes for all estates of less than $6 million. That is 99.65 percent of all estates, 99.65; and it will also do that without costing any additional dollars to the deficit. Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on the Pomeroy substitute which is fully paid for. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent us from voting on a fiscally responsible and revenue-neutral tax bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbor from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that those of us who oppose this bill love the family farms and small businesses no less than anyone else in the Congress. The fact of the matter is that this tax is paid now by such a small percentage of people, less than 2 percent in the United States, that we believe almost every family farm and every small business is covered already by not having to pay estate tax, and indeed, the 2 percent who pay it, including the Warren Buffetts and the Bill Gateses and his father, all claim that this is a very bad direction for us to go in. They do not want to build large kingdoms of their own wealth. They are asking that we keep this because it has always been the American policy for taxation that it is based upon the ability to pay. We would be wise, I think, to remember our American history. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, a hero of mine, who led the charge to create an inheritance tax, believed that the wealthy had a special obligation to the government. He said: ``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.'' It would also be wise to remember the virtues of responsibility and accountability, especially now that the deficit has gone from the $5.6 trillion surplus to a $400 billion deficit in a little more than 2 years. The underlying legislation before us today would drain $80 billion more a year from the already empty Federal Treasury. In other words, the money would have to be borrowed. Now, what does this say to the American people when we prioritize the checkbooks of the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans before paying for the health care for our veterans and fully funding education? I know that the President pledged to repeal estate tax during his campaign, and I am sure that he knows some people in the top 2 percent who will benefit from the complete and permanent elimination of the inheritance tax. In fact, he probably mingled with a few of them just last night during the event that kicked off the largest political fund-raising drive in our history. But I meet those whose Social Security benefits are threatened by the drain on the resources of the government, some of the 9 million unemployed and 12 million children that are still without the help of the child tax credit. Teddy Roosevelt admonished, and this is so important because it is so wise, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' I hope that in the short time allocated for discussion of this legislation that we do not frighten the family farmers and small business owners. As I said, all of them, unless they are among the wealthiest 2 percent in the United States, are covered already by not paying this tax. They have worked hard to keep their farms from falling into bankruptcy, and far too many family farms are going under already. They fight hard to keep their small businesses going, and we support them in every way that we can, especially during this continued economic decline. They are not subject to the estate tax as it currently exists. I cannot stress that enough. Indeed, one of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules last night talked about an event in his home State where the convention hall was full and the President said he wanted to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax and got a humongous response to that. My colleague on the Committee on Rules said that he was sure that not more than 40 people in that room, if that many, would have benefitted from that repeal. Special estate tax rules for family farms value their farm land at less than other land, at between 45 percent and 75 percent of its fair market value, and already allows farm couples to exempt up to $2.6 million from taxes. Family businesses pay less than 1 percent of all estate taxes. Family business couples can also exempt up to $2.6 million from taxes. The Pomeroy substitute provides even more protections for them. It excludes from the inheritance tax any estate owned by a couple worth $6 million. Almost a decade ago, the gentleman from California, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, said on the floor that ``all,'' and in parentheses the minority members at that time, ``are asking for fair treatment on both sides of the aisle here.'' And I agree with my colleague, I want fairness on both sides of the aisle. I would also like fairness and a little old-fashioned common sense. Under H. Res. 281, only one amendment has been made in order, a substitute amendment offered by my friend from, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). However, instead of choosing his substitute amendment that paid for itself, in other words, took money from probably from the tax cut from the very wealthy and paid for what he is recommending here, where we would have no further drain on the Treasury because it would not have added a single penny to the Federal deficit, but instead of making that amendment in order, the Committee on Rules made a second amendment in order which only partially offsets the cost of the elimination of taxes on estates larger than $3 million. Even though H.R. 8 falls short, and fails to offset any of the $80 billion annual losses it creates and adds to our increasing deficit, it is very important to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the differences between H.R. 8 and the Pomeroy substitute amendment is .35 percent. That's all. H.R. 8 would permanently remove the estate tax on any estate, even those as large as $3 billion or $4 billion or $5 billion or larger, and cost the Federal Government more than $800 billion over 10 years. The Pomeroy amendment would exempt every estate in America, except for the wealthiest of the wealthy. Only one-third of 1 percent of estates would be so large that they surpassed the generous exclusion in the Pomeroy substitute. This bill does a great deal for a very few. It really does, again, add to the deficit. And the most important thing about it are that the people who benefit from it the most are the people who most loudly say not to do this; that we do not need it. We would much prefer a stronger economy in America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague from New York that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) would really hate to be put in that category of a lefty. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to ask a question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, priorities, what are our priorities? H.R. 1528 is a popular, noncontroversial measure that would likely pass under suspension of the rules. So why have we made such a bill more problematic and more difficult to pass? A controversial provision unrelated to restraints on the IRS or protections for American taxpayers was grafted onto this consensus legislation for the second time. If our priority is to enact additional protections for the Federal taxpayer, why was a provision waiving consumer protections for the health insurance tax credit, for workers who have been displaced by trade, implanted into this unrelated bill? The problem that we now face as we consider H. Res. 282 is that the taxpayer protection bill eliminates the federally mandated requirements of affordability and nondiscrimination for state-based insurance policies for the American workers whose jobs were moved overseas. This controversial and problematic add-on allows the insurers to pick and choose the displaced workers that they wish to cover, insuring the young and healthy and refusing to cover the older workers and those with preexisting conditions. Such a provision would undo the promises Congress last year made to the displaced workers and to their families. Is our priority the health of working families, or is it increasing the bottom line for certain health plans? Fortunately, the rule does make in order the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my fellow New Yorker, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which better reflects what our priorities should be. This amendment removes the waivers that would allow insurance plans to discriminate and includes the child tax credit that seems to have been abandoned in the bureaucratic forest. The Nation was outraged to learn that in the recent tax-cutting package almost 12 million children were denied the benefit of the increased child tax credit. A way to correct this is simple and straightforward. The other body overwhelmingly by a vote of 94 to 2 passed a clean, simple, bipartisan bill to extend the child tax credit to the 7 million low-income working families. However, our priorities went in the wrong direction. Instead of quickly passing the other body's bill so the President could sign it and these low-income working families could receive immediate tax credits, which they badly need, the Chamber chose to consider and pass another round of tax cuts totaling $82 billion without any offsets, following on the heels of the $350 billion worth of tax cuts. This indicated that the priority is to use the child tax credit legislation as another opportunity to add more and more tax cuts for those at the highest levels of wealth. The Rangel substitute includes the language in the clean bill passed by the other body and contains language to extend the child tax credits to the 200,000-or-so families of the military personnel who serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or other combat zones and nonetheless are ineligible under the House-passed tax free-for-all. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: 200,000 families of military personnel who are on active duty were denied the protections or the benefits from this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that the provisions permitting the discrimination can be excised from an otherwise noncontroversial bill that would undoubtedly pass unanimously. Should H. Res. 282 pass, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute amendment for these children and families who deserve swift and deliberate action without political add-ons and political chicanery. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we all know that it will take years, if not decades, for Iraq to be restored and rebuilt in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our nation's desire to restore and rebuild Iraq--for the Iraqi people--is to be commended. It reflects the most dearly held values in American society. As Americans, we want to make the world a better place. We want people to live full, healthy lives without fear of violence and hunger. We want children to have full stomachs, clear heads and the educational resources to realize their potential. We believe that healthcare should not be available to only the rich. Certainly, as a nation, we want to elevate the quality of life for the Iraqi people, who bear the scars of years of hunger, violence and fear. At the same time, we must ask, what is being done to end the hunger, violence and fear that dominates the lives of far too many Americans? As USAID makes the first down-payment of $1.7 billion that the United States has dedicated to the housing, education, health care, and the infrastructure of rebuilding Iraq, we must ask--what is the Administration's plan to ``Rebuild America ``? Here at home, our schools are closing, summer school activities are being shut down, hospitals are not able to provide the health care, and state and local first responder budgets are being stretched thin. Over the past two years, 3.1 million Americans have lost their jobs, nearly 5 million Americans have lost their health care coverage, and 2 million families that were living the American Dream have dropped out of the middle class into poverty. This is not progress. We need a plan to ``Rebuild America.'' Enacting more tax cuts, as the Administration favors, is illogical. How can a $550 billion tax cut that primarily changes the tax treatment of corporate dividends stimulate the economy? How will this tax cut help state and local authorities address the shortfalls in our nation's critical infrastructure? Twenty billion dollars, as provided in the tax package, is wholly inadequate. Moreover, it is a drop in the bucket as compared to our $1.7 trillion commitment to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, while I believe that rebuilding Iraq will be important to secure lasting peace in the region, it must not come at the expense of rebuilding America. My colleague, Rahm Emanuel, has introduced legislation to require that for every dollar spent rebuilding Iraq, at least one dollar is spent addressing the health care crisis in America, urgent school construction, funding for first responders, and other domestic priorities. In looking over USAID's plans for Iraq, I cannot understand how the Administration can justify building 12,500 new schools in Baghdad, without doing anything for children in America. Today, far too many America children are forced to study in trailers because their school districts simply do not have the funds to build a new school. How can the Administration justify providing health care services to 13 million Iraqis while 42 million Americans struggle to live without health care? It's indefensible. Why, just today, Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator of Iraq, announced plans to invest $100 million to create jobs in Iraq. in iraq? Mr. Speaker, how can the Administration justify launching this ambitious initiative in Iraq when there are thousands of workers in Western New York that have been unemployed for over two years? Mr. Speaker, the Administration must not sit idly by and let America fall apart, just as unprecedented resources are being dedicated to reconstructing Iraq. I strongly believe that enactment of H.R. 1738 will help us make significant strides in the effort to restore this nation. We must rebuild America. We owe it to the men and women who fought in Iraq, risking their lives to protect our homeland. We owe it to our children. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to all Americans.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 110, a resolution that I was pleased to author with my colleagues, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell. This resolution recognizes a set of milestones in the history of human scientific endeavors. In April 1953, two young scientists by the name of James Watson and Francis Crick published an article in the journal Nature describing the structure of a molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In doing so, they opened the doors to an entirely new field of research--that exploring the information carried in the genetic code and the way it is duplicated, translated, and activated. This field of research culminated two months ago with the announcement that the next generation of scientists had completed a full map of the human genome. Every one of the three billion base pairs in a string of human DNA has been identified. This singular achievement is the result of more than a decade of concerted planning, international cooperation, and single-minded dedication to the cause. It is a scientific accomplishment of the highest order, emblematic of the advances in human knowledge of which we were capable when we work together across all divisions. When the Human Genome Project was initiated, the technology to carry it through did not exist. It was invented as the research sped along. Congress, to its credit, considered this endeavor worthy of funding and had faith in our scientists' ability to achieve it. It was, therefore, also a stunning example of the vision and good of which our government is capable. H. Con. Res. 110 expresses the sense of the U.S. Congress that we recognize these achievements for the historical landmarks they are. The resolution also lends its support to the designation of April as Human Genome Month and April 25 as DNA Day. Furthermore, it encourages schools, museums, cultural organizations, and other educational institutions to recognize these dates with appropriate programs and activities. Even though the resolution does not specifically do so, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to commend the individual who has directed the Human Genome Project since 1993: my good friend, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins began his career as a brilliant scientist, a pioneer in the field of genetics, and discoverer of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He has continued his career, however, as a brilliant administrator--a truly remarkable progression. Under his leadership, the Human Genome Project has been completed under budget and ahead of schedule. Dr. Collins guided and shaped the initiative for a full decade, bringing it to fruition. Our nation, and indeed our world, owe him a debt of gratitude. I am pleased that the leadership has agreed to consider this resolution today, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I would also, however, like to urge this body to take up a far more urgent piece of legislation on the subject of genetics: the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. The resolution before us today recognizes the immense benefit which the mapping of the human genome may have for us. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act would forestall the darker consequences that could arise from this new technology. We must not allow the potential advances in human health to be stifled because Americans fear that their genetic information will be used against them. I urge the leadership to take up and pass the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act as quickly as possible.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 110, a resolution that I was pleased to author with my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. This resolution recognizes a set of milestones in the history of human scientific endeavors. In April of 1953, two young scientists by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick published an article in the journal ``Nature'' describing the structure of a molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In doing so, they opened the doors to an entirely new field of research that explained the information carrying the genetic code and the way it is duplicated, translated, and activated. This field of research culminated 2 months ago with the announcement that the next generation of scientists had completed a full map of the human genome. Every one of the 3 billion base pairs in a strand of human DNA has been identified. This singular achievement is the result of more than a decade of concerted planning, international cooperation, and single-minded dedication to the cause. It is a scientific accomplishment of the highest order, emblematic of the advances in human knowledge of which we are capable when we work together across all divisions. When the human genome project was initiated, the technology to carry it through did not exist. It was invented as the research sped along. Congress, to its credit, considered this endeavor worthy of funding and had faith in our scientists' ability to achieve it. It was, therefore, also a stunning example of the vision and good of which our government is capable. H. Con. Res. 110 expresses the sense of the U.S. Congress that we recognize these achievements for the historical landmarks that they are. The resolution also lends its support to the designation of April as Human Genome Month and April 25 as DNA Day. Furthermore, it encourages schools, museums, cultural organizations, and other educational organizations to recognize the dates with appropriate programs and activities. Even though the resolution does not specifically do so, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to commend the individual who has directed the human genome projects since 1993, my good friend, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins began his career as a brilliant scientist, a pioneer in the field of genetics and discoverer of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He has continue his career, however, as a brilliant administrator, a truly remarkable progression. Under his leadership, the human genome project has been completed under budget and ahead of schedule. Dr. Collins guided and shaped the initiative for a full decade, bringing it to fruition. Our Nation, and indeed, our world, owe him a debt of gratitude. I am pleased the leadership has agreed to consider this resolution today, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I would also, however, like to urge the body to take up a far more urgent piece of legislation on the subject of genetics, which is the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. The resolution before us today recognizes the immense benefit which the mapping of the human genome may have for us. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act would forestall the darker consequences that could arise through this new technology. We must not allow the potential advances in human health to be stifled because Americans fear that their genetic information may be used against them. I urge the leadership to take up and pass the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employee Act as quickly as possible.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Village of Lyndonville, New York. This congressional recognition will be presented later this month when village officials and citizens gather together to celebrate this historic event. The Village of Lyndonville is a small town that has evolved with the times, but whose residents have never lost touch with their roots. Its history resembles that of many of the small towns on which our nation was built. In the 1820s, the area began to grow after the construction of a corduroy road, which was built of logs laid side by side transversely. This road is now Route 63--Lyndonville's Main Street. The locale began to prosper after several merchants built businesses on Main Street in 1836. Settlers also found the area attractive due to the possibilities offered by Johnson's Creek, which runs through the village. Named for the British Indian agent, Sir William Johnson, Johnson's Creek was harnessed by early settlers as a power source. Early settlers built the first flouring mills using the creek, including S. W. Mudgett, Samuel Tappan, and Richard Barry, among others. The village was originally called Lyndon--in honor of Lyndon, Vermont, the home of many of its original settlers. Lyndon's name was eventually changed to Lyndonville in order to distinguish the village from nearby Linden, New York. One hundred years ago, the Village of Lyndonville was officially incorporated in Orleans County, on the shore of Lake Ontario. The village sits on one square mile of beautiful, fertile Western New York land. The surrounding area is home to many of New York's famous apple orchards, as well as the lush, rolling vistas created by the retreating glaciers ages ago. Nestled against Lake Ontario, Lyndonville is blessed with the rich soil and pastoral serenity that Americans consider the ideal of our countryside, evocative of Mayberry and Grover's Corners. With a population of 950, Lyndonville is a close-knit community where everyone is a neighbor. Most people know each other, and even if you are not well acquainted, faces smile with recognition and greetings are exchanged with warmth. Friendly inquiries are made when there has been an experience with pain--or joy. Anytime a neighbor is suffering from ill health or some loss, the community is there to help, to lighten the burden, and to express its loving concern. Beyond the village's long and distinguished history, Lyndonville is simply a place residents are proud to raise a family. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Village of Lyndonville's 100th birthday, I unite with its residents to celebrate their accomplishments and contributions to Orleans County, our state, and our nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything contradictory to my friends on the other side who want to make sure these children are born; but if they are poor, they are not going to get the benefit of the tax rebate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, how happy I am that she had that experience. I am even more happy that that experience showed that that fetus was in good shape and would be able to be born and to be healthy. We are talking today about women who are faced with the fact that the fetus will not be. I think we are getting astray from that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the statistics on the clinic in Pennsylvania were really quite shocking. I thought these were all done in hospital situations. I have never heard those kinds of figures for anything. That aside, let me read about a woman who terminated a pregnancy that, they are very rare, I still believe that. The decision to terminate a pregnant late in term is an agonizing decision for the women and their families. Listen to the story of Viki Wilson and her family as she told it in her own words: ``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician had delivered our other children and would do it again this time. At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that detected that all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect. Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brains had formed outside her skull. What I had thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements were, in fact, seizures. ``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a perinatologist, a pediatric radiologist, and a geneticist, in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her; but everyone agreed she would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the pregnancy progressed and before I went into labor, she would probably die from the increased compression in her brain. ``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and delivery, c-section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size of her anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the birthing process probably rendering me sterile. The doctors also recommended against a c-section because they could not justify the risks to my health when there was not any hope of saving Abigail. ``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical professionals. I am a registered nurse and Bill is a physician, so we understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. And after discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E. Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that has ever happened to us in our lives, but I am grateful that Bill and I were able to make this difficult decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do not complicate the tragedies that we already face. Oppose H.R. 760.'' Mr. Speaker, for Viki and her family and for other Vikis yet to come, I hope that my colleagues will oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 760. And I urge them to remember that once this bill passes the House, if it does, then it will be substituted for the Senate bill. The Senate bill at least had the protection in it that was passed by Senator Dorgan on his request that says that Roe v. Wade would be preserved. Obviously, by substituting this bill for that bill, Roe v. Wade will not be preserved. [From the New York Times, June 4, 2003] ``Partial Birth'' Mendacity, Again If the so-called partial-birth abortion ban now careering toward almost certain approval by the full House this week has a decidedly familiar ring, it is not your imagination playing tricks. The trickery here belongs to the measure's sponsors. Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed, the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the health of the woman. Plainly, the measure's backers are counting on the public not to read the fine print. Their strategy is to curtail access to abortion further as the inevitable legal challenge wends its way back to the Supreme Court for another showdown. They obviously hope that by that time, there will have been a personnel change that will shift the outcome their way. House members who vote for this bill will be participating in a cynical exercise that disrespects the rule of law and women's health while threatening the fundamental right of women to make their own childbearing decisions. Representatives who care about such things will not go along.