Jean Schmidt

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the good gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of the time for both myself and Mr. Gibbs.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg). (Mr. BERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Especially for women because we're always cast as the ones that really want abortion, and it's the men that don't want it, but you're telling me that 70 percent of the women in that December 2009 study adamantly opposed Federal funding of abortion under the health care bill?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about a subject I really love, and that is history, especially women's history. I think all too often as we grew up as children, our history books failed to mention the courageous activities of women throughout the Nation and throughout the world. Somehow we learned about men, but all too often not about women. But when we did learn about women, we didn't learn what they really were all about. Growing up as a little girl, I grew up in an era where women were not really allowed to do all the things we could do today. We weren't allowed to run marathons or drive race cars or be in the pits at the Indianapolis 500 as a press person. We weren't allowed in Rotaries. It was just not something women were allowed to do. Why, shoot, women weren't even allowed to vote until 1920. In fact, the first woman that served in this House served there 2 full years before women had the right to vote. And when you think about all the things that happened in this last century, we have to look to a century before to see, wow, who were the folks that really made this happen, because it just didn't happen overnight. In the hallway out in the Rotunda there is what I think is the best statue, and it is the statue of the pioneers for women's suffrage. It is an extraordinary piece of artwork, one that depicts the likenesses of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, arguably the women who pushed the button for women today to have true equal rights with men. These were the most pro-women feminists in the history of America. And as you will see in a few moments, the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, for Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony was just not written when I was a little girl. I would like to begin this hour by referring to a few quotes from a couple of these four mothers that truly show where they stood in history with what I believe is the most pro-feminine issue, and that's the issue of abortion. You see, Mr. Speaker, every one of us has the right to life, born and unborn. And it is the women who have the responsibility to make sure that that baby is born. Unfortunately, our courts over 38 years ago decided to change that and said that women had the right to end that life. But, Mr. Speaker, we don't have that right. It is our responsibility to bear those children. And these four mothers knew that. In a letter to Julia Ward Howe in 1873, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the woman who shocked society, Mr. Speaker, by daring to leave her house proudly showing her pregnancy--because that was just not done--wrote: ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women to treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'' When I was a child in school learning about the issues of women's suffrage and women's rights, I knew Elizabeth Cady Stanton was pro- woman, pro-freedom pioneer, but I didn't know she was pro-life. I didn't know she was pro-life until a few years ago. She was hardly alone in her pro-life views. As you can see, Susan B. Anthony also expressed her thoughts about pro-life in the publication ``The Revolution": ``Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life; it will burden her soul in death.'' Mr. Speaker, those words were written over 150 years ago, and yet they could easily be written today. Because today, Mr. Speaker, we hear from women who have had the painful tragedy of abortion on their soul, and they talk about how their heart weeps because of the life that they gave up and how they want not just to forgive themselves but to protect women from that awful decision that they made to protect other women from the suffering that they have. And yet Susan B. Anthony knew that years ago. So, you see, in history, pro-life was an issue. You have to think about it, Mr. Speaker, and you have to think it makes sense because the whole issue of abortion, it just didn't come about in the 21st century. It came about centuries ago. Unfortunately, indiscretions have happened throughout history. And when indiscretions happen, babies are created, and then the issue becomes what do you do to hide the dirty little secret. Are you like Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's, ``The Scarlet Letter,'' where you put her in prison and then put her out into the wilderness, trying to hide Pearl, her beautiful daughter; in the end, only knowing that Pearl became the most beautiful little girl? What was Nathaniel Hawthorne saying about the pregnancy? What was he saying about the birth of that child? Was he saying that child had the right to life or was Nathaniel Hawthorne thinking other things? We don't know. We can only wonder why he put her in prison and why he chastised her to the wilderness, but the point was they wanted to hide the secret. And because she chose to have the child, that secret was going to be born. So for people like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the 1860s to say, wait a minute; women should have the right to get married, to get divorced, to raise their children, and, oh, by the way, have their children, own property, be able to vote; we shouldn't be surprised that protecting the child and the birth of that child was part of their platform. Today, in 2011, I am very proud to stand here and carry on with their message, because today, ever more so, the assault of life is all around us. And I believe that assault to life is there because we don't recognize the meaning of life at its conception. And when you compromise it at its conception, I think you question the validity of life all the way through to its end. Each year--and I'm so proud to represent the Second Congressional District of Ohio--I am really proud of the hundreds of thousands of people that come out to the lawn on the Capitol on probably the coldest day in January to petition Congress to end abortion. It's called the Right to Life March. In the 5 years that I have been in Congress, standing with them, we've yet to have a decent day. Sometimes it's just cold. Sometimes it's cold and snowy. Sometimes it's cold and rainy. But it's always cold. And I stand out on a platform, and I'm there for maybe an hour, but they're standing there for hours. Kids from schools are coming up in buses, traveling all night, getting off the bus, only to stand on cold ground, only to get back on that bus and go right back home and go right back to school. Parents are coming with small kids, buses, cars, airplanes, caravans asking Congress to end something that is so wrong. And as I look out on the lawn and I see these brave people, I say to myself, Wow, that's what America is all about. And among the crowd I see so many women. I believe more women than men, because women, we have the privilege to experience childbirth, and we understand firsthand what that life is like inside a womb. And I think when we do have that experience and we understand the meaning of life, it makes us want to get out and protect it so that it can have its natural right to come into the world and be the person God wants it to be. And I do this because I'm so proud of the folks that are out there, but I also do it for some folks back home. Back when I was in high school, the whole issue of abortion began to emerge before Roe v. Wade because States were considering whether they should legalize abortion or not. There was a couple in Cincinnati by the name of Dr. Jack and Barbara Wilke--he a physician, she a nurse-- who were at the forefront of this movement. They gathered people like my parents and other people around their coffee table to discuss how we could protect Ohio from legalizing abortion. Of course, Roe v. Wade hit in 1973, and the campaign escalated to a national debate. But along the way--and they weren't the only ones, Mr. Speaker. There were people all across coffee tables all across America debating how we're going to protect life. But it was Barbara among the group. And they were talking on the telephone. It was before email and BlackBerrys and even fax machines, talking on the phone long distance with one another. But it was Barbara at her kitchen table that said one day, Jack, I just don't understand this whole debate. My gosh, we're protected. Our Nation protects us. It's as if everybody has the right to life. And he says, Barbara, that's the name of the movement. And the name of the movement was branded: the National Right to Life movement. Now, Barbara and Jack Wilke have served for many years in many capacities in this movement. Jack served as president of the National Right to Life Committee for well over a decade. They founded the International Right to Life Federation and wrote the ``Handbook on Abortion,'' a book often described as the unofficial bible of the pro- life movement during the seventies and eighties. They also have other groups that they work with around the world, fighting all kinds of life issues, not just for the unborn but for human trafficking and women's rights. I mention this because this couple, this simple couple from College Hill, Ohio, is just one of many across our Nation who recognizes the importance of this issue and is dedicating their lives to eradicating abortion. So, when I stand out on that lawn on those cold January days each and every year, I look at people, and I think there are other Jack and Barbara Willkes--maybe not as famous--who are doing the same thing, hundreds and hundreds and thousands. Then I think of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and of the contemporary bearers of that message like that of the Willkes, and I say, wow, there is a plan out there, and the last note on abortion hasn't been written. Alice Paul is another pretty important feminist in history. She was actually the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you think that abortion is a hot issue, I can remember back in the 1970s when the Equal Rights Amendment was being debated across this land and the hot issue that that was. Oh, my gosh. Should we give women the same rights as men? There were women who said, No, no, no. They need to be back in the home. Then there were folks who said, No, no, no. Women need to have equal pay as men. What are we going to do about private facilities? Ah, it was just an awful debate because it really deflected from the real issue that all of us are God's creatures and that all of us are created equal. So I remember Alice Paul as being at the forefront of this, and I remember the debate both in high school and college--but, man, I didn't know until a few years ago that Alice Paul was pro-life. Now, here is a woman who was painted as this equal rights, left-wing feminist. When we look at pro-life issues, we think they're conservative, right-wing issues. Yet it was Alice Paul, the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment, who stated: ``Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' Let me repeat that. ``Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' This is from this far-left, hard-nosed person. Add to her views the ones previously referenced, and it is difficult to see any ambiguity or confusion about where these feminists and advocates of the women's rights movement stood on the issue of abortion. Simply put, they detested abortion and went as far publicly and privately as they could in condemning it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems as though their rhetoric has been largely lost over the years, hidden in the annals of history, and I just don't know why, because, if we don't understand the full depth of history, we'll never understand March 15, 2011, and the views that we debate in this very Chamber today. It's sad because, as a little girl, I didn't know about these pioneers. I didn't know about their pro-life positions. I didn't know that they were sisters with me. I thought they were different. I thought that the folks who stood before me to give us equal rights were pro-choice. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I think many people wrongly believe that feminism and pro-life principles are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled with each other; but when you look at history, you can see that they're not exclusive but inclusive because it is we, as I said earlier, who have the responsibility to have the children, to continue to procreate for the future. That is why we were put here on Earth--to have children. It is our responsibility to make sure that these children are cared for both inside the womb and out; and for a court to say it is our right to end it I think is exclusive of what we are made of. It is against what we are made of. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll speak more, but I've had the privilege of being joined by my good friend, the Congresswoman from North Carolina. I would like to yield as much time to the good Congresswoman as she would like.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you to the gentlelady from North Carolina for so eloquently pointing out some of the dangers of abortion, both physical and emotional, and I don't think the chapter, Mr. Speaker, has been written on the dangers of abortion, but I do wonder about the lives that we've missed and the fabric, and how it has been compromised, the fabric of America, the fabric of the world, because an innocent life didn't get to be woven into it. You know, when we're born, our parents don't know what we're going to become. They just hope that we're happy. They hope that we're healthy. I mean, if you look at our President, do you think when he was born his mom thought he was going to be the President of the United States? I seriously doubt it. He didn't come from a dynasty of Presidents. He was just an ordinary person born from an ordinary mom, but he, you know, had the opportunity and the privilege to live in America and become the President. Our very own Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, I dare say, his parents never thought he would be Speaker of the House. They were ordinary people. They owned a bar. They had 12 kids. Chances are 12 kids will do 12 different things, but I don't think any of them thought they were going to be Speaker of the House. But that mother gave all those kids love, and because they lived in America, the piece of fabric that he has become resides over this wonderful body. And I point that out because none of us knows what our children or grandchildren will become, but it's incumbent upon us to give them that chance to be the best person they can be, the best version of themselves, and that starts at conception. It doesn't start when we choose for it to start. It starts when God chooses for it to start, or if you don't want to use the term ``God,'' nature chooses for it to start, and when you compromise that, you compromise life all the way through. You know, as I said before, many people see feminism and pro-life issues as exclusive. Well, they're inclusive, and I would like to offer evidence of the pro-life feminists in the past, the ones that we owe so much to, because they are in large part responsible for women being able to go to college, to serve in the military, to vote, and may I dare say, stand on the floor this very evening. It is because of them that we are here today arguing for this precious position. In a few minutes, I am going to be joined by another good lady from North Carolina, and I believe that this young lady is going to eloquently talk about her views on women in history and the pro-life movement, and I now yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much. I am really glad that you took the time to point out that survey, because I believe that the Nation has shifted its opinion on abortions since 1973. And maybe it's because with technology and the fact that sonograms can now show us the color of a baby's eyes and what it's going to look like inside the mom's womb as early as like 3 months, that we're really believing and knowing that it really is a baby. It's not this little fetus, this little mushy thing. It's really a baby. And when you see that sonogram and you see that baby inside the womb, you've got to say to yourself, How can I call this anything else but life? And I think that's probably one of the reasons why, throughout the years, public opinion has truly shifted on abortion. A decade ago, back in 2001, there was a poll taken wherein 40 percent of the respondents identified themselves as being pro-life while 49 percent identified themselves as being pro-choice. Well, in 2005, another poll was taken. There was little movement toward the pro-life position: 42 percent said they're pro-life while 52 percent said they're pro-choice. But for some reason, in 2006, the number grew 45 to 47; and in 2008, the numbers were 46 to 48. Now maybe that's because of the prevalence of all these sonograms. And today when your daughter or your son goes in with his wife for the sonogram, the grandparents and great grandparents go, too. It didn't happen a decade ago. But, oh, my gosh, it's a family thing because we can't wait to see what the baby is. And we are told to cover our eyes at that one moment if you don't want to know what the sex of the baby is. Believe me, I couldn't tell anyway. But I have gone twice and had to close my eyes twice. And I think because the family is involved in this whole sonogram with the birth of the baby, that all of our eyes are beginning to light up and say, Wow, that really is a life. In just 3 months' time, it's a real baby. In May 2009, 51 percent of those polled identified themselves as being pro-life where only 42 percent responded that they were pro- choice. Now, the latest poll I could find on the subject was conducted in January of this year, just a couple of months ago; and it was consistent with the 2009 poll. Half the respondents said they were pro- life. The numbers become even more definitive when it comes to public funding or taxpayer moneys going towards the funding of abortions, even indirectly. This is a very real and timely debate as we struggle today to tackle our enormous deficit and debt which, Mr. Speaker, if we don't get under control will reshape this country in a way that I don't believe will allow our children to have at least as equal an opportunity as us, if not to have a better opportunity than us. But that's a debate for another day on the debt and deficit. When I first got here in September of 2005, the very first person I wanted to meet was Henry Hyde of Illinois because he was my hero. You see, after Roe v. Wade, people at my kitchen table and in my family were talking about money, Federal money being used for abortion. My mom and dad were mad; and, shoot, even I was mad. And Henry Hyde was mad, too. In 1976, he offered the Hyde amendment, and it simply said that Federal taxpayer dollars were barred from funding abortion, period, case closed. And that amendment has been consistent with the policy of this House ever since. So I wanted to meet that hero, that gentle man. And when you walk into my office, you see a picture of him and me on the last day that he served in this House. Of all the people that I have ever met, he is truly my hero. Anyway, every year we debate this. Even in the health care bill, it was a hotly contested issue. And after the bill was voted on, the President had an executive order that at this point still stops the Federal funding of abortion in health care, we believe. But that's a very fragile piece of paper, and I really believe this body needs to recodify in the health care bill that no money will ever be spent for abortion and no insurance policies will have any Federal dollars attached to it that would allow for abortions to occur. But that's something I believe we have to work on this year, Mr. Speaker. And even today in this body as we voted on the CR, the issue of abortion was there. Do we put it in the CR and stop the Federal funding of abortion or not? You know, we have a lot of pro-life leaders in the House. They have looked at the budget very, very shrewdly; and they have determined that if we don't put these protections in place, Federal funding will slip into the budget in the future. And that's why they are so adamant about putting out bills and provisions in CRs that would stop the Federal funding of abortion. One of the latest initiatives to receive a full vote in the House was an amendment introduced by my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that would prohibit Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which happens to be the largest abortion provider in the country. Now, I know what you are going to say, Well, they have a separate wall, and they're really only using the money for women's health issues. They're not using it for abortion. But we know money is fungible, and we know in a building, you can't really dissect how much energy costs are going to one side of the building and how much are going to the other. We know that while, yeah, the actual procedure isn't using Federal money, we know that the building is. So it's fungible, and it's slipping through. But a few weeks ago when we had the CR, his amendment received, I think, 239 votes out of this body that said, No, Planned Parenthood shouldn't receive the money. And you know, Mr. Speaker, maybe it's a bigger debate than just the abortion issue because what we saw last fall was a sting operation that showed where in some cases, abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood clinics across the country were actually talking about or ignoring the fact that people were coming in about human trafficking and saying there was a human trafficking issue, and if the underage girl got pregnant, how could they get an abortion. And the gal at the desk didn't think there seemed to be a problem with that conversation. Now, I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood International condones it, and I'm sure that they don't, but I'm saying that there were clinics at which this conversation occurred. I know in my own hometown in Cincinnati, Ohio, where in 2 cases there were young girls that went to the Planned Parenthood clinic on Auburn Avenue, and both told the abortion provider they were underage and they were pregnant, one by her father, one by a coach. The father's now in jail. And the situation with the parents was, they didn't know the coach took her to the abortion clinic. He signed the document that said, oh, I'm the legal guardian, and it wasn't until later when she went to the doctor on another issue that the doctor said--When did your daughter have an abortion?--that this whole thing exploded. And right now it's in court. They're going after the coach, and they're trying to go after Planned Parenthood because the girl said, I'm 15. So maybe Planned Parenthood shouldn't have our money if they're not careful stewards about people that are coming through their doors, because a 15-year old that's pregnant, well, I think that's called statutory rape, no matter who the father was. And if a girl comes in at 15 we should be asking questions--How did you get pregnant? Who was the father? What happened?--because that's breaking the law. So above the fact that we have a looming deficit and a looming debt, above the fact that I believe that money is fungible with Planned Parenthood, above the fact that in some cases they have people that go into clinics and they have a lady or a guy at the desk that doesn't understand what human trafficking is all about, maybe they shouldn't have the money, because when it's right in their eye, they simply choose to ignore the issue. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of pro-life people in America, and there are a lot of pro-life people in this House. And I think it is time that we discussed this issue more openly, because people of this Nation understand that all life is precious, including the life of the unborn. They also understand that our money comes from taxpayers, and taxpayers expect us to do the right things with their money, and that means protecting life at all costs. One of the things that I want to say before I wrap up--and we talked about polling--is that there have been multiple polls conducted on the subject within the last year of Federal funds and abortion. Two that I want to highlight were conducted by CNN and Quinnipiac. Now, CNN is hardly a right-wing organization. But the CNN poll showed that 60 percent of Americans oppose public moneys going to fund abortion. That's well over a majority. The Quinnipiac poll shows 72 percent oppose it. Wow, that's a lot of Americans. I believe that we need to do the right thing and end the public funding of abortion whether it's in the health care bill, any bill that comes here, or any moneys that go overseas. Like the feminists, the pro-life women of the past, pro-life women today simply believe that we are all afforded the right to life. It is not a gift from our government; it is a gift from our Lord. He is the one that has allowed us to stand here in America and across the world. He is the one that has said to us, He wants us to be in His image and His likeness. It is our Lord that wants us to be the best person we can be. And if we are to be the best person we can be, we have to ensure that each other has that same chance whether it's a little seed in a womb that is 20 minutes old or it's an elderly person in a nursing home. All of us are equal in the Lord's eyes. All of us have the right to life. So I am proud to stand here today, like my sisters before me--like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, like Susan B. Anthony and, yes, like Alice Paul--and say, enough's enough. Women's rights are women's rights, and if a woman has rights, those rights are the child's rights because everybody has the right to life.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Every day, Americans sit at their kitchen tables, and they do a number of things, including trying to figure out how to stretch that dollar and how to stop unnecessary spending. And they are asking us in Congress to do the same. I look at this room as our kitchen table. Over the last week, we have debated that issue: How do we stretch the American tax-paying dollar? Tonight, Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Pence amendment because it ensures that our precious tax dollars will no longer go to a group whose main purpose is to provide abortions. Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood is our Nation's largest abortion provider. It receives one-third of its $1.1 billion from tax-paying Americans. For the sake of abortion, Planned Parenthood holds itself above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sex-trafficking. Madam Chair, this hurts young girls in the process. Four years of investigations show 17 Planned Parenthood clinics in 10 different States facilitating the sexual exploitation of women. In 2008, the Mona Lisa Project showed 10 Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Alabama, and Wisconsin ignoring mandatory reporting laws and finding ways to skirt parental consent laws, covering up sexual abuse so girls can get secret abortions. I only wish this weren't true, but in my own hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, twice Cincinnati Planned Parenthood did just that. In one case, it was a father who brought his daughter to the abortion clinic. When she was taken into the room, she told the abortion provider it was he who raped her. They did nothing. He is now in jail. We have an ongoing case right now of a coach who took a young girl to the clinic, and said, I'm her guardian. When later the parents took her to the doctor and the doctor asked--When did she have this abortion?-- the parents were shocked. He is now on trial. So this isn't something that is out there of ``a wish come maybe.'' This is something that actually happened in my own city. In 2011, seven Planned Parenthood clinics in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, and Washington, D.C., aided and abetted the sexual trafficking of children, helping actors posing as a pimp and a prostitute to ``manage'' an underage sex ring to get secret abortions, contraceptives, and STD testing to keep their commercial child rape business ``safe.'' Planned Parenthood called the behavior of a Richmond counselor, who coached the pimp and the prostitute on how to use judicial bypass to get secret abortions for their underage sex slaves, ``professional.'' Like former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson says, ``It's not a training problem; it's an ideology problem.'' Now, Planned Parenthood will tell you they are trying to prevent abortions, but last year alone, they performed 324,008 abortions and prevented 283,000. One in 10 Planned Parenthood clients receives an abortion. They are the largest provider of abortions in America. America's taxpayers are asking us to be wise with their dollars. When you ask the question--should we be paying for abortions?--American taxpayers say ``no.'' Should we be providing America's largest abortion provider taxpayer funding to help keep its lights on so that on one side it can provide family planning services and on the other side provide abortions? I believe the folks at the kitchen table in America are saying ``no.'' Tonight in this Chamber, at America's kitchen table, I am asking our Members to say no to this practice and support the Pence amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is the wrong way to go at our critical hour of need. Congress has consistently provided funding for the development of the alternative engine because Congress knows full well the benefits of competition in weapons acquisition and procurement. Last session, we passed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, 411-0 in favor, and, in fact, our Senate colleagues agreed with 95-0. If there is such overwhelming bipartisan agreement in both Chambers on the need for competition in weapons systems acquisition, then why are we taking a vote to eliminate competition for the propulsion system that is going to power 95 percent of our tactical fighter fleet over the next 40 years? Section 202 of the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act clearly states, ``The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures to ensure competition throughout the life cycle of such program.'' The Joint Strike Fighter is the Department of Defense's largest procurement program. The Department of Defense plan calls for acquiring nearly 2,500 Joint Strike Fighters. Hundreds of additional F-35s were expected to be purchased by U.S. allies. If the propulsion system that powers nearly 3,000 tactical jet fighters is not a major defense acquisition, then I'm not sure what qualifies. Passing this amendment will hand Pratt & Whitney a $100 billion monopoly on a 30-year contract that has never been competitively bid. Proponents of this amendment will argue that Pratt & Whitney won the engine competition when Lockheed was awarded the contract to develop a Joint Strike Fighter. Not so fast. Last May, Mr. John Roth, from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller, and Mr. Mike Sullivan, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO, both testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs that the competition was done at the contractor level and that the engines were never actually competed. The point of all this, Mr. Chair, is that the engine competition never occurred, and it is disingenuous to argue that Pratt & Whitney has already won. The fact is that providing funds for the competitive alternate engine will ultimately drive down costs, improve product quality and contractor responsiveness, drive technological innovation, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. History shows that competing engines can result in significant long- term savings. The ``Great Engine War'' saved the F16 program 21 percent in overall costs according to the 2007 GAO report. This represents $20 billion in savings for the lifetime of the Joint Strike Fighter Engine program. Additionally, the alternative engine team represented by GE and Rolls-Royce offered the Department of Defense a fixed-priced contract. Their offer saves $1 billion in the first 5 years and puts cost overruns at the risk of the contractor. This is an unprecedented move in major defense acquisition. Finally, providing for a competitive alternate engine will serve as a hedge against operational risk and ensure that a fighter that makes up 95 percent of our tactical fleet is not grounded due to engine failures. Fully funding the alternative engine is not only prudent risk management, but an acknowledgment of the fundamental responsibility that Congress has to protect and provide the most reliable equipment to our men and women in uniform. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-guided amendment. It will not save taxpayers money in the long run. I'm not even sure it's really going to save them money in the short run. I yield back my time.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I could go on and on, Madam Speaker, but the point of this is that the EPA is getting into areas where it doesn't belong, costing American farmers, American businesses, and good old Americans more money than they can afford.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I can't think of a single agency of the Federal Government that poses more threats to jobs in our economy than the Environmental Protection Agency. As chairwoman of the Nutrition and Horticulture Subcommittee, I am especially alert to the threat the EPA poses to those charged with providing food and fiber for our Nation. There are so many examples of actions undertaken by this President's EPA that defy sound science, good judgment, and will only result in putting America's farmers and ranchers out of business. For example, the EPA has proposed a zero-risk standard on pesticide spray drift. The EPA is proposing a standard that even it admits is unachievable. This proposed standard leaves our agricultural producers vulnerable to enormous compliance costs and untold numbers of potential lawsuits. Another example, the EPA has withdrawn a proposed exemption for milk from the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program. This move puts the livelihoods of our dairy farmers in jeopardy because they could face enormous compliance costs. Under this regulation, milk would be treated as if it were motor oil, thereby necessitating dairy farmers across the country to comply with costly, burdensome rules designed to control storage of toxic substances. As far as I can tell, the agency's only stated reason for withdrawing this proposed exemption is that it was initiated under the Bush administration. Yet more than 2 years later, our dairy farmers are still in limbo. Another example of the EPA's disconnect with science at the expense of the economy is the agency's unprecedented multiyear, multimillion- dollar re-reevaluation of a popular herbicide. Only 2 years earlier, the agency completed a 12-year review of 6,000 scientific studies and concluded that the product is safe. I suppose the logic for this re- reevaluation is that with trillions of dollars deficits we face, we have the money to burn on pet causes of radical environmental groups. As if the agency didn't have enough on its plate, we see that they have issued a draft pesticide registration notice entitled, ``False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' Note that the EPA is now attempting to regulate not the safety of the product but the name of the product and even the name of the company that manufacturers it. This notice threatens to undermine the very investment in our economy that this President spoke about 2 weeks ago in this very Chamber. The President's EPA is threatening a potential loss of approximately $2.5 billion in brand equity for U.S. businesses.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from the great State of Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening remarks, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the American voter spoke loud and clear in November. They said they are tired of business as usual in Washington. They want less government intrusion and more freedom to prosper. This resolution begins that journey. It ensures freedom from government overregulation. The buck stops here in this Chamber. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee alone, in this committee there are overregulations in every mode of transportation and in every area of infrastructure. Specifically, our committee is going to look at a recent rulemaking by the National Mediation Board; arbitrary revocation of environmental permits by the EPA; new hours of service regulations for truckers by DOT; costly implementation of positive train control by DOT; the overly broad lithium battery rule; an extremely burdensome EPA rule to comply with the Cotton Council versus the EPA decisions; EPA's regulation of leaded general aviation fuel and airport de-icing fluid; EPA's expanded regulations of storm water discharge; and EPA's jurisdiction grab while they claim to implement the Clean Water Act. An issue of particular concern to me and others are the actions taken over by the National Mediation Board. Mr. Speaker, under the current administration, unelected and unaccountable political appointees at the National Mediation Board have been bullying hardworking airline employees. As many of us know, Delta Airlines merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008. Northwest employees were represented by unions and traditionally most Delta employees were not. To complete the merger, employees have to decide whether they will elect union representation or not. Beginning in 2008, Delta repeatedly urged the unions to seek elections so that the issue could be resolved one way or another. The only way to start that process was for the employees who wanted a union to call for an election. Many of the merged Delta working groups had already made their decision about representation. Pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, and meteorologists had all chosen, and the mediation board affirmed those decisions promptly. In August of 2009, everything was in place to allow votes to proceed for the remaining work groups. The mediation board, however, dragged its feet and did not act on these requests, despite receiving and acting on three other requests from three other employee groups at other airlines in the intervening time. The reason became clear in September of 2009, when the AFL-CIO asked the mediation board to change the rules in the middle of the merger. With no consultation or transparency, the mediation board rushed through new rules which makes it much easier to join a union. The new rule does so by only requiring a majority of those voting--not the majority of the work group, as required under the Railway Labor Act--to decide whether or not employees would be represented by a union. This meant that if, of a workforce of 20,000 people, only 1,000 people voted and 501 wanted a union, the entire 20,000 would be then represented. At the same time, the new rule, while making it easier for unions to gain a foothold among employees who might not want them, didn't provide any mechanism for decertifying the union. In other words, the mediation board made it easier to get the union in and nearly impossible to get it kicked out. With these new rules proposed, the unions which represented Northwest employees withdrew their request for votes while they waited for the new, easier rules to be finalized. The rules change was then finalized. They refiled for elections under the easier rule, and the mediation board promptly acted on those requests. So what the unions wanted and got was the chance to have their vote under the new, more favorable rules. It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, of how much the mediation board is mediating on behalf of workers as opposed to coordinating with special interests. If the mediation board were reasonable, it would have allowed Delta and Northwest flight attendants and airport workers to decide whether or not they wanted union representation as soon as the unions filed. The NMB let three other airline elections go forward under the old rules but not Delta. I would hope that the mediation board is watching out for workers' rights and not just union dues. Nothing appears to have been done to enhance worker rights and protections, and many feel that their rights are being trampled on by the very agency that is supposed to be looking out for them. Despite the rule change, Mr. Speaker, when votes were eventually held late last year, a majority of the employees in fact voted not to join the union. The unions now have filed a complaint with the mediation board, asserting that Delta interfered with these elections and asking for new elections under--guess what?--another new set of rules. The National Mediation Board has not yet responded, but there are rightfully concerns with how it will proceed based on its past behavior. It should be up to the employees and no one else to decide whether or not they will have a union--not the company and certainly not the Federal Government. Forcing employees to unionize through regulation is not why the National Mediation Board exists. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have my last speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).