Jean Schmidt

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial anniversary of the city of Madeira. Like most of Hamilton County, Madeira was part of the 248,000 acres of land that comprised the ``Symmes Purchase'' in the late 1700s. The growth, history, and development of the Madeira was shaped by the completion of a rail line extension and the opening of a freight office in the heart of downtown Madeira in 1866. The Marietta and Cincinnati Railroad named the stop after its treasurer and local landowner, John Madeira. This freight station still stands and is home to Choo-Choo's Restaurant. In 1910, Madeira was home to 500 residents and was incorporated as a village. Samuel K. Druce was the first Mayor, and the village council held its first meeting on August 10th of that same year. By 1959, the Village of Madeira had grown to 6,500 and became a city. It adopted a charter form of government. In 1970, Madeira doubled in size and filled out its current geographical boundaries when the South Kenwood area was annexed. Today, Madeira is home to more than 9,250 residents. Its vibrant downtown area is home to countless niche businesses, including fine dining and shopping. Its schools have earned an ``Excellent'' rating on the State Report Card for 10 consecutive years, including the highest ranking of ``Excellent with Distinction'' in 2009. And in 2007, the Madeira City School District was awarded a Silver Medal by U.S. News and World Report, recognizing the high school as one of the best in the country. Over the past 100 years, the city of Madeira has become one of the finest suburban communities in the Cincinnati region. It truly lives up to its motto, ``Oppidum Amicum''--friendly town. Madam Speaker, please join me in celebrating this historic milestone and wish the city of Madeira continued success.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Acts. Most likely, this package of bills will pass tonight without a single Republican vote. It did not have to be this way. There is bipartisan consensus that our health care system is in need of real reform. President Obama is correct when he says that the costs associated with our current health care system are unsustainable. Too many of my constituents are struggling to provide coverage for their families and employees. The ever-rising costs of medical coverage have left too many Americans without the means to purchase the health insurance that many of us take for granted. Individuals with pre- existing medical conditions are often unable to purchase insurance at all. And, people should not be forced to remain in a job they hate just for the health insurance benefits. We can begin to right these wrongs and others, as well. But, we do not need to destroy a system that has given us the best doctors and hospitals in the world and put us on the cutting edge of life-saving technology and pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, the package of bills we are considering today, will actually increase premiums and ration care. People will be forced out of their current coverage--whether they like it or not. The bills will stifle economic growth and cost jobs. They actually manage to cut Medicare by a half-trillion dollars, yet make our entitlement crisis even more urgent. And, perhaps worst of all, it allows federal funding for abortions for the first time in 34 years. The President is fond of saying that Americans have been fighting for this type of healthcare reform for a hundred years. That might be true for some Americans. However, over the last nine months, we have all had the opportunity to hear from the vast majority of Americans. We have heard from them in a number of different ways--rallies at the Capitol, letters, phone calls, and, yes, town hall meetings throughout all of our districts. Their message is clear. If you were listening this weekend, you would have heard it summed up at rallies at the Capitol-- ``Kill the Bill.'' They fear government involvement in their medical decisions. They fear a future of higher taxes and debt heaped on their children and grandchildren. They fear a bill that rations care. And, they are tired of the backroom deals and politics as usual. Worse than all of these, they are afraid of a government too arrogant to listen to what they have to say. The House of Representatives is the people's house. We have a duty to listen to what the American people are telling us. There is still time to listen and defeat this flawed and dangerous bill.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Mr. Ed Kyrish. Recently, both Ed and his business, Texas Truck Centers of Houston, Ltd., were awarded the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Awarded by Navistar, Inc., the Circle of Excellence is given to dealerships that achieve the highest level of performance in terms of operating and financial standards, market representation, and, most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor that an International dealer can receive from Navistar. Family owned and operated since 1988, Texas Truck Centers of Houston, Ltd., is one of the premier truck dealerships in the country. Ed's business employs 264 people at five dealer locations. In January of 2010, Ed and the International Truck community celebrated his 60th year of service to International. Ed and Texas Truck Centers have earned the Circle of Excellence Award 13 times. The many awards that Ed and Texas Truck Centers earn are a testament to his reputation as a leader in the trucking industry. Ed serves as a member of the Parts Advisory Board of International's dealer organization. Ed has also been awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from International. Additionally, Ed has been recognized as an ADT Dealer of the Year. Ed is also dedicated to his community. He co-founded the Richland Youth Organization's Girl's Softball League, served as softball league and Little League manager, and served as a leader with the Boy Scouts of America. Ed also is a devoted member of his school board and its fundraising committee, is a supporter of its Adopt A Family initiative, and is the chairman of his church board. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ed Kyrish for his accomplishments, his record of success, and his many contributions to his community.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Mr. Blaine Roberts. Recently, both Blaine and his business, Roberts Truck Center, were awarded the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Awarded by Navistar, Inc., the Circle of Excellence is given to dealerships that achieve the highest level of performance in terms of operating and financial standards, market representation, and, most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor that an International dealer can receive from Navistar. Roberts Truck Center has grown into one of the premier truck dealerships in the Southwest. Blaine manages 8 of the 13 dealer locations that are part of the Roberts Truck Center family business, owned by Blaine and his brother Blair. The Roberts Truck Center employs 467 people and has earned the Circle of Excellence Award a total of 26 times. Blaine has earned this recognition and accomplishment through years of hard work and being a dedicated servant of his community. He is committed to his industry and serves on a number of industry groups and boards including the International Dealer Development and Systems Board. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Blaine for his accomplishments, his record of success, and his many contributions to his community.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Mr. David Kenney. Recently, both David and his business, Westrux International Inc., were awarded the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Awarded by Navistar, Inc., the Circle of Excellence is given to dealerships that achieve the highest level of performance in terms of operating and financial standards, market representation, and, most importantly, customer satisfaction. It is the highest honor that an International dealer can receive from Navistar. David's business, Westrux International, Inc., consists of six dealer locations employing 213 people. Westrux International, Inc., has now earned the Circle of Excellence Award a total of 13 times. David's dealership is also a multi-year winner of the IdealGold Award for Excellence, awarded to ``IdeaLease affiliates dedicated to success in the lease and rental industry.'' These awards are a testament to Dave's reputation as a leader in the trucking industry through many years of hard work in the industry and service to his community. His leadership in the trucking industry is evident by his serving as chairman of the International Dealer Council and has also chaired the Parts Dealer Advisory Board. In his community, he is a member of a leadership coaching group, Vistage International. Additionally, Dave sits on St. Mary's College of California's School of Economics and Business Administration Advisory Board. Dave is also a devoted husband to his wife Jill, and father to four children. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating David Kenney for his accomplishments, his record of success, and his many contributions to his community, the State of California, and our nation.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yesterday, Bloomberg reported what Moody's has been saying all year. Moody's once again reminded the United States that we are moving ``substantially'' closer to losing our AAA credit rating due to the rising cost of our debt service. The U.S. will spend 7 percent of our revenue this year just on servicing our debt. By 2013, Moody's estimates, we will spend 11 percent of our revenue just to pay the interest on our national debt. This would be a higher percentage than every other top-rated country. Fortunately, we can protect our credit rating by reining in runaway spending and reducing our debt. But what does this President and this Democrat-controlled Congress do? They want to ram down a new huge entitlement program called the health care bill, riddled with awful policy and budget gimmicks that mask its true impact, through the House, maybe even without an official vote. The truth is, this health care bill is going to choke our economy and saddle our children with $500 billion in new taxes and deficits far worse than they are now.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Mr. Timothy Reilly. Recently, both Tim and his business, Miami Valley International Trucks, were awarded the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. Awarded by Navistar, Inc., the Circle of Excellence is given to dealerships that ``achieve the highest level of performance in terms of operating and financial standards, market representation, and, most importantly, customer satisfaction.'' It is the highest honor that an International dealer can receive from Navistar. Tim purchased Miami Valley International Trucks in 2004. Since then, he has earned 14 Circle of Excellence Awards and an Isuzu Ichiban Award, given to commercial truck dealers to recognize business excellence and civic-mindedness. Under his leadership, Miami Valley Trucks has grown to include five dealer locations and two parts and services sites in Ohio that employ 367 employees. These awards are a testament to Tim's reputation as a leader in the trucking industry. This reputation has been honed through his activity and commitment to organizations like the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, International Marketing, Sales & Finance Advisory Board, and as a former member of the Idealease board of directors. A dedicated supporter of his alma mater, Notre Dame, Tim also is a devoted father to his twin daughters, now 13 years old. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Tim Reilly for his accomplishments, his record of success, and his many contributions to his community, the State of Ohio, and our Nation.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an American heroine and one of my constituents, Jean Springer. Jean was a twenty- two year old student at Adelphi University, who instead of thinking about studying and exams, began thinking about how she could help her country in the War effort. In 1943, Jean joined the newly formed Women Air Force Service Pilots or WASP Corps and began flying non-combat missions in support of the United States Army Air Forces. Jean grew up in Long Island, New York. She learned to fly on Long Island and began a lifelong love of flying. Jean and more than one-thousand other female pilots joined the Army Air Forces WASP Corps in an effort to free up their male counterparts to fly combat missions in the war effort. At that time women pilots were prohibited from flying combat missions. Instead they flew missions to ferry military personnel, equipment and delivered new aircraft. Yesterday, the United States Congress honored these women by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal, a recognition that was long overdue. It wasn't until 1977 that our nation recognized these women for their military service. The WASP Corps was disbanded in 1944. Jean relocated to Cincinnati over sixty years ago and is the retired Director of the Men's Mercantile Library Association. She is a mother of three and grandmother to four wonderful grandchildren, her family was present today to see her honored. Jean and the women of the Women Air Force Service Pilots Corp are true American Heros. I am extremely happy that today they were given the recognition they have long deserved.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am here today, joined by my good colleague from the other side of the aisle, Mrs. Dahlkemper from Pennsylvania. Today, we really want to focus this next hour on women in history because this is the month for women in history. Toward that end, we really want to focus on women in history who were pro-life. I would like to begin by talking about the fact that National Women's History Month traces its origins back to 1911, to the first observance of International Women's Day. Since that year, countries around the world have devoted each March 8 to celebrate the economic, political, and social achievements of women, and they have recognized the many obstacles women have had to overcome. In the United States, this day is celebrated as part of National Women's History Month, first established in 1987 by Congress. A similar resolution is approved with bipartisan support in the House and Senate each year, therein recognizing women here in the United States and around the world. Though, today, as I said, we are going to focus on pro-life women in history. I am going to start off by talking about a woman who began this movement in the United States way back in 1792. In 1792, as you well know, we were just becoming the United States-- developing our Constitution, developing our institutions, our Congress, our Presidency, et cetera. There was a woman by the name of Mary Wollstonecraft. This woman, Mary Wollstonecraft, was very, very pro-life. She actually wrote a book, ``A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.'' In that, she condemned those who would either destroy the embryo in the womb or who would cast it off when born, saying, ``Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.'' She was really the first pro-life woman in the United States, and we have been blessed with many since then. Right now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good colleague from Pennsylvania if she would like to join me in this wonderful discussion.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you very much to my very good friend from Pennsylvania. Right now, I would like to give as much time as needed to my very, very good friend from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much. At this time, I will yield as much time as he may consume to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. To continue with Women's History Month and to focus on pro-life women, I want you to imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it was like to be an American woman in the 1700s and 1800s. It surprises me to have to say this, but at that time women could not vote, we could not hold property, we could not inherit property if we were married, we could not control our own money or sit on a jury or testify on our own behalf. We needed somebody to testify for us if we were involved in a criminal case. We couldn't assemble or speak freely. We couldn't keep our children if we were divorced, and sometimes even when we were widowed. There was no such thing as marital rape, and no woman had ever graduated from college. Mr. Speaker, that almost sounds likes some Third World countries today, and yet that is the kind of an environment women faced in the 1700s and 1800s. Once women realized that we needed to have our rights reserved in the Constitution, other feminists stepped forward. One of those feminists was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was a pretty moxie woman, because at the time when women were pregnant--and you couldn't even say the term ``pregnant,'' I am not even you could say the term ``with child''--they were supposed to stay at home and not be seen until the child was born. What did Elizabeth Cady Stanton do? She shocked Victorian society, because she paraded through the streets showing the baby inside of her. And people were aghast. But people were also surprised at the voice of the message that she was carrying, because, you see, at the time of the feminist movement as we know it today with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, they were fighting for all people's rights; not just the right of women, but the right of the African American, man and woman, and also the right of the child, African American and white. They were fighting for everyone. It was Elizabeth Cady Stanton who I think was the most shocking of all, because what she did was she showed her feminism on the streets. One of the things that she said was, ``When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'' Now, think about that: ``When we consider that women are treated as property''--I think you could probably put in there the African American as well--``it is degrading to women that we should treat our children''--at that time the African American slave child as well--"as property to be disposed of as we see fit.'' This was a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University library. So these are a pro-life feminist's words. Mr. Speaker, her statue is in the hall just beyond these doors, and yet when I was a child in school, I never heard she was pro-life. I knew she was pro-woman and pro-freedom for all mankind, but nobody ever said she was also protecting the unborn. And yet she was. But it wasn't just Elizabeth Cady Stanton that was holding these views. It was also her good friend, Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony, who also wrote, ``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, these words were written over 100 years ago. I want to repeat them. ``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, we hear that sentiment today from women who have had abortions and come around and realized that this was the wrong decision for them, and that they wish they hadn't made that decision, that they wish they could have made the decision for life. But she wasn't the only person, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Susan B. Anthony, that felt like this. I bet most people in Congress don't know, Mr. Speaker, but we actually had a female candidate at the time of the feminist movement in the 1800s, and her name was Victoria Woodhull. She was the first female candidate for President. December 24, 1870, this was the first female President candidate, a strong opponent of abortion. She said, ``The rights of children as individuals begin while they remain the fetus.'' Think about that. First off, in 1870, long before women had the right to vote, the right to have a divorce, the right to own property, the right to represent themselves in court, this courageous woman ran for President. Now, we know she didn't get very far, but criminy, Mr. Speaker, she certainly had a voice, and it is a voice that I think is a shame that history doesn't highlight, regardless of her message on abortion. Again, as a history major, I never knew that this woman ran for as a history major, I never knew that this woman ran for President in the 1870s, Mr. Speaker, and I will bet most of our colleagues didn't know that either. But it wasn't just Victoria Woodhull that talked abortion. It was also someone by the name of Alice Paul. Alice Paul, another person that was part of the Equal Rights Amendment, stated in 1923 that ``abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' That was Alice Paul. She was the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment and opposed the later version of the ERA because it promoted abortion. But before I forget, I also want to talk about Sarah Norton. Sarah Norton first challenged Cornell University to admit women. Think about that: Women couldn't go to college. Sarah Norton, right out there fighting to go to college, just as a man, also pondered whether there would ever come a time when the right of the unborn to be born would not be denied or interfered with. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have to think about the way women were treated back then and why they came to this conclusion. Again, as I said a moment ago, they had no rights. They were very much like the slaves of that time. They had no voice, no right in court, no real rights at home. If they were raped, they had no way to address the rape. And if they found themselves in a situation where they had a child as an accident, there was no other choice but to either carry it and be like Hester Prynne in ``The Scarlet Letter'' or to have an abortion. And many times the people they were involved with didn't want society to know that they were the father of that child, and so they would force these women into a situation to have an abortion. Again, Mr. Speaker, there were no rights for women at the time. They couldn't go to court and say, ``my neighbor raped me'' or ``I had an affair with a neighbor, he was a married man,'' kind of like Hester Prynne in ``The Scarlet Letter.'' They had no rights. But they could be forced into situations that they disagreed with. I think that is why these women who were so much at the forefront of the feminist movement were also at the forefront in talking about the right of life for all people. What amazes me in all of this struggle is that up until the 1970s, people really didn't believe that abortion should be legal in the United States. There was a lot of controversy going on at the time, and I think I became involved in this movement because where I come from in Cincinnati, Ohio, a piece of the Right to Life movement in the Nation was actually born in my district, or actually not my district, but the First Congressional District, the district that borders mine. It was with folks like Barbara and Jack Willke and folks like my parents, who are from my district, that really realized that abortion could become the law of the land, and they wanted to prevent that. So they became very proactive at the State level. They went to the State legislature and talked with the legislators, telling them if they were going to consider having abortion legal in Ohio, that was the wrong thing to do. They weren't unique to Ohio or unique to Cincinnati. This was really going on all throughout the United States, these little pockets of discontent about the issue of abortion, and they were beginning to weave together into a national movement. But it is Barbara Willke who said to her husband Jack, a physician, ``You know, Jack, the Constitution gives everybody the right to life, including the unborn child.'' And he looked at her and he said, ``Barbara, that will be the name of our movement.'' Well, we know that that name didn't just stay in Ohio, but there is also the National Right to Life Movement, and Barbara and Jack Willke have been at the forefront of this movement since its inception in the early 1970s. Jack Willke has served not only on the board of the Greater Cincinnati Right to Life, but he has also been on the board of the National Right to Life, serving as its president. Currently today he is with the Life Issues Institute, but he and Barbara continue to be on the forefront of abortion. I am going to ask those wonderful folks if they could bring those two posters over for me. Now, back in the 1970s, when the ERA movement was going around, people wanted to have an additional amendment to the Constitution stating in full force that women were equal and should have equal protections, but the problem with the movement was that they also wanted an equal protection for abortion. At that time, the public really started to figure out where they were on that issue: Did they believe in abortion or not believe in abortion? And toward that end, there were a lot of mixed reviews. People certainly didn't want to have women suffer from back-alley abortions, but at the same time the question was: Should they have an abortion after all? And before the States could figure it out on their own, the Supreme Court, in 1973, handed down the decision of Roe v. Wade. And we all know what that said: that women have the right to an abortion. Well, folks like Barbara and Jack Willke and my parents and myself were aghast because we really understood that life begins at its inception. And you can't question life at its inception, because if you do, you compromise life throughout history. So we began to work very, very hard to end it. What I really think is interesting is that while in the beginning of the seventies and eighties it appeared that women were on the edge of believing that women should have abortion rights, today the trend is changing. I have to digress a minute because the pro-choice women have been very smart on this. In fact, it was in the late eighties, early nineties, that they realized with ultrasounds that women were recognizing that that baby inside of their womb really was alive and breathing and moving and had a little personality. And so they started to wane back on whether they agreed women should have the right to an abortion or not. And so they made a language change. What they said was, instead of calling it pro-life or pro-abortion, anti-abortion or pro-abortion, they changed the name to pro-life or pro-choice. Now the pro-choice, pro-abortion folks were very smart in that marketing approach because we as a society believe in choices, Mr. Speaker. We go to the grocery store--in my town, it would be Kroger, Meijers, Biggs, or Super Value--and you have an array of deli meats, you have an array of cheeses, you have an array of fruits and vegetables, and just anything that you're willing to pay for. In fact, in some of these stores you can even buy furniture. We love choice. How many restaurants offer a salad bar where you can get all kinds of salad? We like choice. You go to a department store and how many kinds of shirts and shoes and ties and sweaters can we buy? We like choice. And so it was a very smart marketing strategy because at the time when women were starting to hesitate on whether women should have the right to an abortion because of the ultrasound, the pro-choice tag made them feel that yes, indeed, maybe women should have that right. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, because as technology has come full forward and as we've had 3D with technology, women stepped back a few years ago--back about 10 years ago--with ultrasounds that we have today and recognized that even as a child is at the age of 2 weeks, it begins to appear to look like a child. And they started to hesitate on whether abortion should be legalized and women should have that right. And if you look at this chart, what you see is that this was a Gallup Poll. A 2009 Gallup Poll. The majority of Americans--this was the first time, Mr. Speaker--a majority of Americans, 51 percent, consider themselves to be pro-life over the terminology pro-choice. So this isn't pro-abortion versus anti-abortion. This is pro-life over pro- choice, the pro-abortion marketing verbiage. What we see is that in 2001, 40 percent believed in pro-life. Forty- nine percent believed in pro-choice. Back in 2005, it was 42 to 52. In 2006, 45 to 47. We're tightening up. In 2007, 42 to 51. In 2008, 46 to 48. In 2009, 43 to 50. And in 2009, it has finally come full circle to where the pro-lifers are at 49 and the pro-choicers are at 44. So we have seen this very narrow trend all the way through, finally eclipsing just about a year ago. And I think it's because women especially, but men as well, realize that that baby in the womb is actually a human being. And that human being deserves to have the right to life. The other interesting thing that I think we need to talk about as we focus on women in history is that women really oppose the use of Federal funds for abortion. Even if they're pro-choice women, they just don't think Federal funds should be used for abortion. Now, the late Henry Hyde--Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether you had a chance to serve with Henry Hyde. I did have the luxury to serve with the gentleman from Illinois. But it was Henry Hyde after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land that decided that maybe we shouldn't have Federal funding for abortion. And so in the appropriation bill he put in an amendment, which we still continue to use today, that said there shall be no Federal funding for abortion, period. And this has been the law of the land for the last 30 years. And when you ask folks today--now this was a Quinnipiac poll, December 2009, and this was for women: Do you support or oppose allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill, well, 25 percent support it, 70 percent oppose it, and folks that weren't sure of the answer were about 5 percent. So I really think that, Mr. Speaker, there's a real clear message here that women, whether they're pro-choice or pro-life, do not believe that we should have Federal funding for abortion. They just don't think that's a smart way of using taxpayer dollars. I have to agree because, Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing the bill of the moment--and the bill of the moment is health care, it's the bill that touches everyone's mind. It's a bill that is something that will be a game- changer in the United States, if passed. One of the things that is in that bill is the public funding of abortion. From what I have gleaned, there will be a dollar of every premium paid to women's reproductive health that will allow for all kinds of things for women, including abortions. I think that when you look at the polling and you see that 70 percent of women oppose Federal funding of abortion, I think we should listen to the will of the people. And whatever we do on this health care bill, at least let's listen to the women of today. Because as we look at women in history, we really have to recognize that we do have a choice today. My good friend, Dr. Roe, just came. Before I give Dr. Roe a chance to speak on this, I want to mention that in women in history we've come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. And when you think about the first woman to try to run for President way back in 1870, I think it's ironic that the first woman to serve in this House was in 1917. Her name was Jeannette Rankin. This was 2 years before women got the right to vote. Yet, today in the House there's about 275 women in total that have ever served here, Mr. Speaker. We have a lot of pro-choice women, we have got pro-life, we have got some that probably haven't made up their mind. But we have really got a long way to go when you think of the thousands of men that have served here. I think that's why it's so important, as we debate this issue of health care, to listen to women, because it is women that are saying, Wait a minute, not with my tax dollar. Right now I've been joined by my good friend from Tennessee. I will give you as much time as you need, sir.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you. I have just been joined my good friend from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann. Would you like to add to the conversation?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. You know, one of the things that I'm proud of is the fact that it's not just conservative women that have been at the forefront of this debate. As we all know, this debate, as I said before, began in 1792, and when Mrs. Wollstonecraft was the first pro-life woman, she really wasn't that conservative. She was very, very radical. One of the things I forgot to mention was that her name may be unknown, but her daughter's name is not. You see, if you have ever read the book Frankenstein, her daughter Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote it. And this lovely little girl never even really got a chance to know her wonderful mother because her mother died giving birth to her. But it was women like Mrs. Mary Wollstonecraft; it was women like Lucretia Mott; it was women like Susan B. Anthony; it was women like Cady Stanton who really brought this to the attention of America over 100 years ago. And even today, we have women from all over the country making a difference on this issue. There is a group of women called Feminists for Life, and they've got some pretty liberal thoughts on other social issues in America, but they're really dead on on this issue. I had a chance to meet with them the other day, and Serrin Foster is one of the leaders in that. She wrote a paper that she gave to Wellesley College on March 3, 2004, that talks about the feminist case against abortion, and that's really where I got a lot of my literature. It's amazing what she talks about in here and how women throughout society who have had abortions, what social ills tend to fall to them, just as my good colleague from Minnesota brought up. The depression, the anger, the suicide rate. There's even talk that there could be some physical harm that could happen with abortion. And I don't know if my good friend Tennessee knows anything about that, being the doctor that he is, but are there any physical risks to abortion?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Or a Heisman Trophy winner.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. And I think it's interesting that as we continue to debate this since Roe v. Wade, sometimes the media inadvertently sends a pro-life message. There was a movie a few years ago which captured Hollywood's attention, and it was called ``Juno.'' It was about a young girl and a young guy, high school age, and she found herself pregnant. I remember the scene vividly in the movie where she was going to go to have an abortion, and her friend was standing outside the abortion clinic with a sign. And she said, ``What are you going to do, Juno?'' and she kind of sloughed her off. Her friend screamed, ``It's got fingernails.'' So when Juno goes in and she fills out the paperwork, she hears somebody wrapping their fingernails, somebody filing them, somebody chewing on them. And what does she do? She leaves. The end of the story, we know the outcome, she finds a wonderful woman who wanted a child, wanted to be a mother, and she gives that child to a loving arm. Now, I know that sounds like a Hollywood fantasy, except I have someone very close to me who worked with me on a daily basis, and 11 years ago, he and his current wife, the lady he married, had a Juno experience, and yet today, they are a loving family. They had their own child, and they're doing just fine. I got to meet his birth daughter, and she is a beautiful young lady. Who knows in another 10 years or 20 years what she will aspire to. Maybe to just be the greatest mother of all or maybe be the next President of the United States. But he and his wife made that decision. And so when I saw ``Juno'' and knowing his story, I thought, This is real. And yet Hollywood, for whatever reason, didn't see the power in the message. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe this country is recognizing that every life is precious, and I think what is equally compelling is the fact that last year in the Presidential debate, the issue of abortion took center stage, and it took center stage because a little unknown Governor from Alaska was suddenly thrust into the limelight and could have been the Vice President of the United States. And with her came a family, and in that family came their last child, and their last child has some issues. And most cases in the United States when parents are met after an ultrasound where indications say that your child will have a mental handicap, a mental issue, they are given the opportunity to abort the child. I think the numbers are--Doctor, am I correct?-- about 80 percent do have an abortion when they believe that they're going to have a child that will not have what society deems as a ``normal life.'' And yet she had Trig, and Trig has become the face of life. I think it's interesting that as history continues to develop, that this wonderful woman, Sarah Palin, continues to be at the forefront of the media, and her child is right there. And together, that family is the face of life. And she is, I think, our most current and prominent member of women's history. Yet again, another woman who was pro-life. I was hoping my good friend Mrs. Dahlkemper could get back. She had to go to a hearing. But I want to say that--is she here? Oh, good. Mrs. Dahlkemper just came back. Mrs. Dahlkemper, my good friend from Pennsylvania, I want to give you the opportunity to close this wonderful hour and to thank you for your participation and all that you do for the cause.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. This is really a bipartisan debate. One of the things I know my good friend from Pennsylvania and I will agree with, there is nothing better than having grandchildren. It is worth having children, isn't it? But to my good colleagues from Tennessee and Minnesota, do either one you have want to add anything before we lose this hour?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. As we go back out into the hall and we look at that statue of the women who gave us the opportunity to be able to be here on the floor today, not only did they give us the right to vote, they gave all children the opportunity to have the right to life. And it wasn't until Roe v. Wade that that was taken away. Maybe we can be the generation of women that will find ourselves with a statue out in the hall that will give all children, all God's children back the right to life. Thank you all for this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mildred Thompson, long-time Clerk of Courts for Scioto County. Sadly, Mildred passed away on February 28th. She was a life-long resident of Southern Ohio, and graduated from Minford High School. She married Judge Lowell Thompson. Mildred is survived by two daughters, two grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. First elected in November of 1968, Mildred Thompson continuously served the citizens of Scioto County as their Clerk of Courts until she retired in September of 2008. During her nearly 40 years as Clerk-- Mildred was known for her tireless dedication to the citizens of Scioto County. She served on the boards of many state and local community organizations and, along with her husband, was a positive influence on the lives of many local children through her service as a 4-H advisor. Mildred was loved and respected by those she came in contact with as Clerk of Courts for her hard work and the kind way she treated everyone she met. Outside of work, Mildred was known for her countless volunteer efforts. One of her favorite places to volunteer was the Southern Ohio Medical Center. Each year the Friends of Southern Ohio Medical Center present the Mildred E. Thompson Scholarship to a high-school senior from Scioto County who has placed service above self. Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Mildred Thompson, who led a life dedicated to public service. Mildred has forever left an imprint on her community. God bless Mildred and may she rest in eternal peace.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Zach Strief of the Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints. Zach grew up in Milford, Ohio and--despite being too big to play pee wee football and an unfulfilling first practice in high school--was recently named to the Milford High School Athletic Hall of Fame. Zach went on to attend college at Northwestern University where he was a three-year starter. He was selected as a first-team All-American after his senior season. In 2006, Zach was selected in the seventh round of the National Football League Draft by the New Orleans Saints. Now, in his fourth season with the Saints, Zach is an important part of the Super Bowl champions. Citizens of Ohio's Second Congressional District are certainly proud of Zach's athletic accomplishments. However, I am more impressed with his actions off the field. Recognizing a need to keep children active and wanting to give back to the community, he formed the Zach Strief Dream Big Foundation with the help of his parents, Doug and Cathy. Through this charity, Zach and his new wife have become important contributors to the rebuilding of the New Orleans community--and he has not forgotten his hometown. The Zach Strief Dream Big Foundation has focused on after school activities for children in New Orleans. And in Zach's hometown of Milford, the foundation has donated football equipment and uniforms as well as provided scholarships for children. Each summer, Zach returns to Milford High School and conducts a youth football camp that benefits his foundation. Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Zach Strief for his many noteworthy accomplishments both on and off the football field. Zach is truly an inspiring leader and Ohio's Second Congressional District is proud that he is one of our own.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting. One year ago, this Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus bill which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, but since its enactment more than 3.5 million jobs have been lost. The national unemployment rate remains around 10 percent, and in Ohio it is worse. Our unemployment rate is nearly 11 percent, and the real unemployment rate in some areas in my district is over 20. By all measures, this stimulus bill has failed to create jobs. Congress needs to act to provide the environment for private-sector job creation. Instead, this Congress continues to seek solutions that tax too much, spend too much, and borrow too much, creating massive debts for our children and our grandchildren. Let's focus on getting Americans back to work. More government borrowing and spending is only heaping more and more debt on our children and grandchildren and disincentivizing the job creators from creating the jobs. Let's work with solutions that put Americans to work, not take them from them.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 150th Anniversary of the founding of the Immaculata Catholic Church in Cincinnati. On December 9, 1860, Archbishop John B. Purcell celebrated the Immaculata Church during a special High Mass. This first mass marked the fulfillment of a heavenly promise that Archbishop Purcell made as a passenger aboard a ship sailing through a storm. As the storm raged, he promised to build a church on the most prominent point in Cincinnati. While most Catholic churches were built by local communities, the Immaculata Church was quite different. Archbishop Purcell actually purchased the land, donated the stone, and supervised construction from start to finish. And, just to be certain that his promise was fulfilled, he urged parishioners to walk up the hill where the church was being built, and pray for its success along the way. In 1970, the Immaculata Parish joined together with neighboring Holy Cross Parish. While the parish's name changed to Holy Cross Immaculata, its traditions continued. Each year, an estimated 10,000 individuals walk up the church's steps on Good Friday, stopping to say a prayer on each step. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 150th Anniversary of the Immaculata Church and wish the parish continued success in the future.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, almost 500,000 folks gathered at the Capitol to remind us once again that all life is precious and that the unborn are guaranteed the right to life. While abortion has been allowed in this country for the past 37 years, Americans have made it crystal clear that they do not want their tax dollars being used to pay for it. For 34 years, the Hyde amendment has stopped Federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. The current bill passed by the Senate will erode this. This bill will change that longstanding law and allow for tax dollars to be used for abortion. Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want their money to be used to pay for abortions. As we continue to debate the health care bill, we must honor their wish.

Mrs. SCHMIDT

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you to my good friend. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about this issue. I'd like to take a few minutes to not only say that this is the 37th anniversary of one of the most dark days in the U.S. history, but to talk about the ramifications of what that act did. To give you a little history, the pro-life movement actually began in Cincinnati, Ohio, and it began before 1974 in a little place called College Hill by folks by the name of Barbara and Jack Willke. Jack's a doctor. His wife, I believe, is a nurse, but I could be wrong. But they, along with some other folks, were involved in another crusade in Cincinnati, and they became aware that this whole issue of abortion was suddenly creeping up in the State legislatures and they wanted to make sure that Ohio did not allow abortions. So Barbara and Jack formed this little group to fight it in Ohio. It was Barbara that said to Jack Willke, You know, Jack, under the Constitution, everybody deserves the right to life, including that of the unborn. And he looked at Barbara and he said, That's the name of our movement. And look at how far that movement has grown. It is a national and an international movement. I'm proud to lay claim that Cincinnati is part of my district, and while College Hill is not technically in my district, it is part of Cincinnati. And I'm very proud of the work that Barbara and Jack have done, but also proud of the work that my parents did. I'm proud of the fact that they educated me on this issue when I was old enough to understand it, because the impact of abortions really hurts all of us. But I truly believe that it hurts women the most. I want to talk a little bit about the privilege that it is for a woman to be able to have a child. If we didn't have the opportunity to create, none of us would be here. But it is the woman's privilege to carry that baby inside of her until it is full term. And women, if they pay attention to themselves, know that, yes, they're carrying that baby right from the beginning, because we see some things changing inside of us. But back in 1974, they didn't have all the fancy equipment that they have today. They didn't have all the ultrasounds and the three- dimensional ultrasounds, and so in 1974 maybe it was a little easier to think that baby wasn't a life. But we know that it's a life today, and we know that it's a life immediately. It's interesting, because the impact of the Supreme Court's decision has been immediate and devastating in the United States. The number of abortions in this country skyrocketed after that horrible, horrible decision. It skyrocketed from about 750,000 in 1973, to more than 1.3 million in 1977. Think about the lives that are lost. Think about the potential doctors, lawyers, football players, race car drivers, politicians, Presidents, Air Force Generals that have been lost; moms, dads, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles. By 1985, the number has grown to an astonishing 1.6 million abortions performed in a year, and the United States soon became the country with the highest number of abortions. I could go on. The reasons for abortions were easy to understand. Women thought that it was a way to get out of an unwanted pregnancy. They didn't understand that the consequences of that decision would be more lasting and more far reaching than it would be to have had the child alone. As reasoning for these abortions, one national survey found that a quarter of the women thought that the timing of their pregnancy was wrong. Another 19 percent thought that they could not afford to keep the child at the time, and almost 10 percent thought that they were just too young. Simply put, these answers indicate that the short-term legacy of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe was the enabling of the American woman to terminate the life of a child when it happened to be inconvenient or fitting for their lifestyle. You know, I could go on. But the tide is changing. Maybe it's changing because of the miracles of modern technology. Maybe it's changing because a woman can find out immediately she's pregnant and immediately pay attention to those signs in her body. Go to the doctor, get that ultrasound and realize that baby is alive, well, and kicking. Those moms know that's a real live human being. In 2005, the number of abortions performed were actually down to 1.2 million, a modest but welcomed decrease. And these abortions were performed by only 2 percent of this country's OB/GYNs. The reality is abortion is no longer a part of the mainstream medicine, and the vast majority of the hospitals in the United States, religious or secular, now choose not to perform elective abortions. Yes, the tide is turning, but much has to be done. For example, the last 12 months have tested the pro-life movement here in this House-- its initiatives, its resolves--more than ever. During this time, pro- life advocates like me have been forced vigorously to preserve this country's longstanding ban on the Federal funding of abortions, and it was a major success when the bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted in favor of including language equivalent to the Hyde amendment in the infamous health care bill. The Stupak amendment prohibited the funding of abortions. But we need to continue that fight on this issue in the upcoming months to ensure that similar language is included in any final bill that may come forth before this Congress, for the vast majority of Americans do not want their Federal tax dollars to pay for elective abortions. But we also have to fight for our medical establishment. We have to fight to make sure that the conscience protections for our country's faith-based medical providers are in place. These individuals should not have to choose between their morals or their livelihood. They should not have to face discrimination or retribution for refusing to perform procedures that offend their deeply held beliefs. They should not be forced to participate in procedures like abortions that cannot be described as health care. Yet, there are those in Washington who want to abolish these conscience protection clauses for these people and force them to do just that. We need to work together to ensure that their faith-based belief is held in tact, because when we make the choice to protect our country's medical providers and when we make the choice to preserve our country's laws prohibiting the Federal funding of abortion, we continue to reshape the lasting legacy of Roe v. Wade. This is the best way that we can honor the anniversary of Roe and the millions and millions of lives that have been lost. I yield back.