unjustly sent out letters to so many of their g.m. dealers terminating their dealerships. the end of this week. dealers who had been asked in many cases a few years before to invest millions of dollars of their own in order to promote the general motors brand, the dealers whose families go back three and four generations, some 85 to 90 years of continuous ownership, of service to the community and their doors will be shut by general motors as a result of a letter and the letter has completely changed the rules as to why they should stay open. dealerships that are profitable, dealerships that add to the community,

dealerships that pump billions of dollars into state and local sales tax coffers. closed by the -- by a letter. without explanation. how outrageous. so outrageous that the majority leader of the house of representatives, steny hoyer, whom i joined at a press conference just a few hours ago, made these statements -- two sundays ago i was on a telephone call with the folks at the white house who are helping to make our policy with respect to this and i asked them this -- what money does it save the manufacturer, general motors or chrysler if you shut down a dealership? the answer, zero, zero, zero. this is the official answer from the auto task force to the majority leader of the united states house of representatives

, and we send letters to general motor we send letters to the auto task force and all we get is silence. the destruction of a family business after 90 years does not deserve silence in america. it deserves the outrage of america saying how dare you close down these dealerships. when it costs you no money to keep them open. we ask general motors and chrysler, tell us the reasons why we're -- why you're doing it, and do you know what they say? it's to lessen competition. that means americans have less choice. that means prices get higher. isn't it ironic that the american taxpayer, who paid $60 billion to keep open these

companies, now will see his local dealership closed because the guys at g.m. want to lessen competition. what's good for yen motors isn't good for america today. a bill introduced by two -- by several marylanders, including chris van hollen and frank kratovil, h.r. 2743, solves the problem. we need the bill to pass by some miracle. before friday. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. moran of kansas. mr. mcclintock of california. mr. bishop of utah.

mr. paulson of minnesota. mr. gohmert of texas. mr. broun of georgia. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. smith is we can reck niced for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mrs. schmidt: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight to shine a light on a subject where i do not believe this administration's actions are living up to its rhetoric. whether it was said on the campaign trail or in speeches during his time in office, the president is certainly -- has certainly tried to sound reasonable on the issue of life. but the administration's actions belie its words. during a campaign appearance with pastor rick war on august

167, 2009, then-candidate barack obama made clear that his goal was to, quote, reduce the number of abortions. in fact, he said that he had, quote, inserted this into the democratic party platform. how do we reduce the number of abortions, end quote. now given the administration's expressed support for roe v. wade i never expected nor do not expect it to suddenly reverse its course. however, one way to reduce the number of abortions and a way that works and one that is a common ground issue for the american people is not to allow taxpayer funded abortions. violating the consciences of millions of pro life americans to fund a procedure which they object to based on a deeply held religious belief, a moral

belief by allowing taxpayers to fund abortions actually increases the number of abortions performed. according to the research arm of planned parenthood. honoring the deeply held religious and moral beliefs of taxpayers actually decreases abortion by about 30% system of that's one way to reduce the number of abortions. something that the president has said he would like to do. but since taking office, the president's -- this administration has actually worked to increase taxpayer funding for abortions at both home and abroad. the first was the mexico city policy. you know, the mexico city policy was first prom all gated in 1984 and re-- promulgated in

1984 and renewed by the bush administration in 2001. this is a very simple policy that says, as a condition for receipt of u.s. family -- family planning aid, foreign, nongovernmental organizations and international organizations certify they neither perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. simply put, this policy says that u.s. taxpayers will not pay to promote abortions overseas. yet one of this administration's first acts back in january was to rescind this mexico city policy. you know, mr. speaker, i'm going to defer here, because i have a gentlelady from the other side of the aisle, congresswoman dahlkemper, who would like to speak out about this issue. i would like to give part of my time, as much time as the

gentlelady needs, on this issue. thank you very much for joining me tonight. mrs. dahlkemper: thank you. i thank the gentlelady from ohio for yielding. i want to extend a thank you for inviting me to have this opportunity to speak on the floor about the issue of life. an issue that is very important to me. i believe in the sanctity of life from birth to natural death. in fact, i often like to refer to myself as a person whose whole life in my -- who is whole life in my beliefs. this issue of abortion is personal to me. at age 21, i found myself unmarried and pregnant and it was obviously a very difficult time of my life. there was a lot of soul searching went on, a lot of praying. i had support of friends and family, but i struggled. i struggled with the thought of telling my parents and i struggled with the social stigma and the fact that i may have to drop out of school and also the fact i would have to

be a single parent. but i knew there was a life inside of me, a living person. little did i know at that very early stage the joy and beauty that that child would bring to my life. today, i have an absolutely gorgeous 30-year-old son who is married and he made me a grandmother just a little over two months ago with a beautiful daughter named charlotte. and she is obviously the joy of his life right now and certainly the joy of her grandfather and my life too. that's why i feel so strongly about this important issue of choosing life, an issue where there's a general consensus among the american people. a recent poll showed the majority of americans believe in at least some restrictions on abortions and certainly do not support their taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion. in fact, a may 15 gallup poll showed this practice is opposed by 75% of the american people.

i came to congress just a short 5 1/2 months ago but i came to this chamber to represent the american people and my constituents. therefore i do not believe we should be using taxpayer dollars, hard-earned taxpayer dollars, for something that faces such widespread opposition that being said, it's equllly important that we provide the support that's required to bring that child into this world and only then are bewe going to be able to prevent the root cause of abortion in america and throughout this world. so i'd like to see us use our taxpayer dollars not to fund abortions but to use this money for the moms and for the babies for health care and other services that they need. i was really proud during my first few weeks here in washington in this chamber to vote for schip. this legislation provided critical health services for our nation's babies and just as importantly it provided crucial assistance for pregnant moms as

well, the first time we have done that in this country. what a blessing it is we are finally taking care of the brand new precious babies and providing support for moms too. i strongly support this bill because of another personal story i have. when my second child was being born, when i was pregnant with number two gretchen we changed jobs in the middle of the pregnancy. my husband was carrying the insurance on his jobs and all of a sudden i had a preexisting condition. that preexisting condition was my pregnancy. and that child was born without myself having any health care coverage and luckily i had a very noneventful, natural birth, but you still have to go and have a doctor and make sure that your child's needs and your needs are taken care of. i would just like to say a child is not a preexisting condition. a child is precious and a life that we need to be taking care of.

so as we go forward here in congress and take up health care reform we must address this issue of preexisting conditions that too often keep mothers, fathers, and children from the care they need. but the first step is stopping the practice of sending taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. once again, i want to thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on the floor tonight about an issue that's very personal for me and millions of families across this country. i ask all my colleagues from both sides to join me in making the whole life of the child a priority. beginning at conception. this begins with steering taxpayer's hard-earned dollars away from providing abortions and toward health care and other critical services for our children as well as our moms and dads. i want to thank the gentlelady and i yield back. mrs. schmidt: i would like to say to the gentlelady, we have so much in common, even though

we represent different sides of the aisle, one is the fact that we have the joys of being grandparents. i think one of the things we learn often in life is while your children bring you tremendous joy, the joy cannot even be realized until you have that grandchild. >> will the gentlelady yield? mrs. schmidt: absolutely. mrs. dahlkemper: i got my second grandbaby two weeks ago. mrs. schmidt: the gentlelady has me beat by one, but i only have one child, so that's ok. while we're on the subject of abortions, i would like to recognize the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, who i will extend as much time as you need on this very sensitive and important subject. ms. foxx: i thank the gentlewoman from ohio for being the leader of the special order

tonight and i want to thank the gentlelady from pennsylvania for her pro-life statement and sharing her experience with us. we are blessed by her statement and we're blessed by being here. she and i and the gentlelady from ohio are regular attendees and at our weekly prayer breakfast. i can say it is a blessing to have that opportunity. it just would make us all so much happier if more people in her caucus felt the way that she does on this issue. you know, over the past several months, the obama administration has begun to erode the pro-life protections in place to keep taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions. we know and have known for a long time that the majority of the american people do not want to see taxpayer money used for abortions. we even know now that the majority of the american people are opposed to abortions.

and i think the obama administration is going in absolutely the wrong direction on this issue, as it is on many other issues. but they began with the repeal of the mexico city policy, which restricted taxpayer money from funding groups providing abortions overseas. this is something that had been in effect for many, many years. now what they want to do is bring taxpayer-funded abortions back to washington, d.c., by changing the so-called dornan amendment which restricts publicly funded abortions in the district of columbia. the district of columbia is one of the most troubling track -- has one of the most troubling track records in the nation when it comes to its abortion policies. not only is the district of columbia part of a notorious group that allows minors to receive abortions, only the district of columbia and three

states have such laws. but it also has one of the highest abortion rates in the country. it is no secret that the district of columbia's lax abortion policies draw women to d.c. abortion clinics from other states. repealing the dornan amendment would mean allowing d.c. to use tax dollars to foot the bill for abortions for minors and potentially for minors from other states. it is a real travesty when most of our children cannot get any kind of treatment from a physician, they can't get a shot, can't get a preventative shot, they can't get any treatment, they couldn't be sewn up in the hospital if they're hurt or at school without permission from their parents. however, the district of columbia allows these minors to

get an abortion, to kill a human life. and, again, polls have shown that a majority of americans do not support taxpayer-funded abortion. we must preserve the dornan amendment and keep hardworking americans' tax dollars from paying for abortions, a practice that violates the conscience of millions of pro-life americans. we also know that taxpayer-funded abortions increase the number of abortions done because the research has been done on that. but i, again, applaud my colleague from ohio for leading this special order tonight and i want to say that i share congresswoman dahlkemper's philosophy that i support life from conception toatural death

and i think that a society that devalues the unborn will soon devalue those who are born and i do not want to see our country going down that slippery slope because it would not be good for us and i yield back to my colleague from ohio. schmitt schmitt i want to thank the gentlelady for -- mrs. schmitt: i want to thank the -- mrs. smidt: i want to thank the gentlelady for her kind words on this issue. before i turn this over to another gentleperson regarding this issue, i'd like to explain to the speaker one of the situations that we're talking about is the potential funding of abortions for the district of columbia and one of the things that i think we might forget is that article one of the u.s. constitution says congress holds the authority over the district of columbia, exclusive legislation in all cases

whatsoever. that's why the entire budget for the district of columbia, including revenues generated by local sources, must be appropriated by congress through an annual appropriations bill. this was the so-called dornan amendment named after congressman dornan for fiscal year 1989 appropriations bill that he talked about in 1988. this bill has -- this bill has been in place pretty much consistently over that time. the white house budget document released on may 7, appendix page 1209 asks congress to reveal the

ban on congressionally appropriated funds and replace it with a book keeping requirement that would apply only to funds specifically contributed for federal programmed purposes. now, what i want to point out is this, that while the dornan amendment was officially put in place in 1989 and was there until 1993, for a few years under the clinton administration it was relaxed and what happened during that time was that the funding for abortions in the district of columbia continued and those funds for abortions actually increased the number of abortions in the district of columbia. and the way they did it was, according to then mayor, they authorized the use of $1 million from the, quote, medical charities fund, which was originally set up to help indigent aids patients to pay for those abortions. back during the clinton administration when the dornan

amendment was relaxed, specifically prohibiting any money both directly and indirectly into the district of columbia that was federal money for the purpose of abortions, when that was relaxed, not only did the number of abortions go up, but they used an alternate funding to actually pay for those abortions and that's really the focus of what we're talking about tonight. before i go back through my history of this new administration since taking office in january, i do want to turn it over to my good colleague from minnesota, congresswoman bachmann. mrs. bachmann: i want to thank the gentlelady from ohio, congresswoman schmidt. she's the head of the women's pro-life caucus and she's done such a remarkable job for us. there aren't that many women who are pro-life women here in the united states congress and jean has done a wonderful job taking that effort forward. thank you, jean, for hosting this hour this evening. and i appreciate the honor of being with you and ms. foxx and

with my colleagues this evening to be able to address this important issue. i come here tonight as a female member of congress, as a strong pro-life member of congress and also as a mother. i've been gifted to be able to bear five children and i'm grateful for that honor, grateful to know what the like to be able to hold a little baby and be able to know what it's like to carry a little baby to full term. it is a thrill, it is a bling and i know for many women across america, they've made decisions in their lives regarding abortion that have affected them, that have affected them for good and for not so god and for women who are abortion mind, who have made that decision to abort their baby, they know what i'm talking about. they have made a decision that has radically altered their life. and whether that's a memory that they've tried to put under the carpet or whether it's a memory they're still dealing with, they know in the center and in the core of their being that

something huge happened when they made that decision and i don't stand here this evening, mr. speaker, condemning any women that have made that decision. to the contrary, what i am saying is that there is a way out for women who have made that decision. they can find peace, they can find forgiveness, but we also want to tell the truth about abortion. we want to tell the truth that it leaves a gaping hole in the soul of a woman when she makes that decision. and many women are pressured to make that decision. pressured by a boyfriend who tells them they'll leave the woman if they don't make the decision, pressured by parents who are embarrassed or who don't want their daughter to have to deal with a baby or maybe who themselves don't want to deal with a grandchild, they're just not quite prepared to deal with. part of the message we want to give tonight is that there are alternatives, there are positive alternatives for women and for

men who find themselves in that situation. there are loving alternative pregnancy centers in nearly every community in the united states who will offer free pregnancy testing, who will offer free sonograms or ultrasounds so you can hear your baby's heartbeat and see your baby on a screen and make that decision and i think what we're trying to let a lot of american women know across this country this evening is that choosing life is probably one of the most gratifying decisions any woman, any man can make. we want to let them know they're not alone. mrs. schmidt: would you yield for just a second? i've been to a number of these wonderful pregnancy care centers in my own district and it's not just offering them the opportunity of a free sonogram, but it's also you are aing -- offering them the opportunity to really help them not just with their pregnancy, but with the deliver and the caring of that child and these senters have programs to help educate the

moms and the dads on good parenting skills, something that awful us can befit from. they also work to give them a points program so as they go through each one of their phases of education they can earn point ises so they can have a free bed, a free basinet, free clothing, free food. it is a wonderful experience for these young women and these young men. and it really makes them better parents, not just for that baby, but for future babies and builds a stronger relationship in many cases between that mother and that father. and so it's not just pregnancy centers that want these women to have their child, but pregnancy centers that reach out and help that woman and the dad with that child, not just through its birth, but through the process of its natural life. and at least the ones in my district opened their arms to that and toward the end of all of the pregnancy centers, you

know, i really salute them because they're doing a great job and i yield back. mrs. bachmann: you're absolutely right. they are all across america and they are doing a fabulous job. they do it on very little money. they aren't receiving money from the federal government the same way that planned parenthood does. planned parenthood receives well over $300 million a year in grants from the federal taxpayer. we don't see that for these pro-life centers. and these are centers who people give donations to and for women who find themselves in a situation where they're torn, trying to figure out what they should do about this unplanned pregnancy, you're exactly right because they offer not only just the sonogram and just a pregnancy test but they offer clothes if you need maternity clothes, they offer baby clote cho clothes, they offer little basinets, they might offer a stroller, a little baby carrier, free diapers. they're there to help women at their most vulnerable time and

you'll find in planned parenthood that a woman walks in and they say that they're full service but there's actually only one option usually when you go into planned parenthood and that's to end the life of that little baby. and what the pro-life centers try to do is offer women life-giving choices and to let them know they can keep their dignity whether they choose to keep their baby or not. they can keep their dignity but they can give the greatest gift that they could ever give and that's they can give the gift of life to the next generation. it's one of the most beautiful decisions that could ever have been made. you've had the pleasure of being a mother. i've had the pleasure of being a mother. and it is truly one of the greatest treasures anyone could ever have, to be ebb trusted with giving life to the next generation. so i think as we start this discussion on abortion, on what it means, there's a lot of opinions on either side, but one thing that we have seen that's occurred recently, the american people for the first time, the

public opinions show that over 51% of americans claim they are pro-life. this is one of the highest ratings we've ever seen. part of that, i think, is because of science. because science shows us human development of the unborn child and the more that we learn about the unborn child, the fascination, the intricacy, the beauty of the unborn child, the more we embrace giving life to this beautiful treasure and to this beautiful gift. and that brings us to our subject this evening, dealing with d.c. and there's a few things think a wanted to mention in my remarks. the taxpayer funding of abortion also increases the number of abortions. so when we put tax money into the equation we'll get more abortions. and it makes sense, it's practical. and that's according to the allen gute macker institute which is the research arm of planned parenthood.

the institute also are you teenly reports showing that -- routinely reports showing that when public fund something not available, 30% fewer women who received medicaid have abortions. now this is interesting because it means 30% more babies whose mothers receive government subsidized health care survive because abortion funding restrictions. and this is, i think, particularly important for women and men in the african-american communities, in the latino communities, in communities of color. we see a very high percentage of abortions and i know one of our colleagues, congressman trent franks, speaks about this often. he has a tremendous heart as we do as well. for unborn children in the minority community because such a grossly high percentage of babies in the african-american and latino community are aborted and we don't want to see that. these babies add to the