H5334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FOR 

WOMEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

the District of Columbia (Ms. NORTON) 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, sometimes schoolyard bullies pick on the 

wrong kid. Anti-choice forces thought 

they had found a cheap way to make a 

large point against the right of women 

in our country to reproductive health 

and choice by picking on the District 

of Columbia. Pick a fight with the District of Columbia—after all, the District of Columbia doesn’t have a vote 

even if the bill is about only the District of Columbia. But in the process, 

they picked a fight with the women of 

the United States because this is still a 

pro-choice Nation. 

Now, they didn’t want to get women 

worked up in an election year, but they 

wanted a Federal imprimatur, a Federal label, so they thought that they 

could get the House to pass the bill 

that’s coming to the floor today on 

suspension that women in the District 

of Columbia are not entitled to an 

abortion after 20 weeks. Mind you, everywhere else in the United States that 

right still would exist. 

And while they’re at it, they say, 

let’s penalize women by allowing an injunction against an abortion by these 

women by, any health care provider 

who has had anything to do with the 

woman any time in her life—I guess 

the elementary school nurse could 

come in to seek an injunction. And, of 

course, penalize doctors—2 years in jail 

and a fine are possible. No health exception for the woman no matter her 

health nor fetal abnormality, rape or 

incest exceptions. 

One of my constituents, Professor 

Christy Zink, had an abortion at 21 

weeks, the earliest time her physicians 

would discover that she was carrying a 

fetus with half a brain. Had it been 

born alive, it would have had constant 

seizures. She would have had to carry 

that fetus to term. 

Sometimes, bullies pick the wrong 

fight. Anti-choice forces have threatened the leadership here, particularly 

Republicans, saying they are going to 

score the vote. All that did was to 

bring out the really big boys and 

girls—Planned Parenthood and NARAL 

Pro-Choice America—who are going to 

score the bill as well. 

They’ve been too clever by twothirds. It’ll take two-thirds to pass this 

bill. I’m hoping they won’t get that 

kind of supermajority. 

This is not the typical anti-homerule bill that holds everyone else harmless except for D.C. residents and the 

D.C. government. This bill is a key element in a State-by-State campaign 

that seeks first to undermine and then 

to eliminate reproductive choice and 

health care for women across the 

United States. 

They’ve miscalculated. They have reinvigorated the pro-choice movement, 

just as they did when they infiltrated 

Susan G. Komen for the Cure and 

forced Komen, which later reversed 

itself to stop giving to Planned Parenthood, just as they did when they failed 

to defund Planned Parenthood, just as 

they did when they caused a furor by 

women with the attack on contraceptives in health insurance policies. 

b 1210 

Now women see this fight against reproductive choice for what it is, because it has ended with the constitutional right to abortion. Anti-choice 

Republicans have abandoned their own 

principles. If they feel so deeply, how 

could they introduce a bill that would 

affect only women and only fetuses in 

the District of Columbia? 

The Supreme Court decided 39 years 

ago that a woman is entitled to an 

abortion. That’s a constitutional right. 

It’s not a constitutional right everywhere except the Nation’s Capital. The 

differences in our country on choice 

are great, but they are differences we 

all must respect. And the Supreme 

Court has settled those differences 

with Roe v. Wade, which says pre-viability, that is a decision between a 

woman and her doctor. After viability, 

of course, there are some things that 

can be done, but the health and life of 

the mother always have to be protected. 

This bill stretches beyond penalties 

doctors in our country would receive, 

and penalties on women, and it is the 

kind of bill that sends a message to 

women: this is not a House that is protecting your reproductive health. If 

this bill passes, it will cause the kind 

of uproar that we have not seen in almost 40 years. 

f 

FREE TRADE WITH EGYPT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California (Mr. DREIER) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, nearly 

three decades ago, one of my great heroes, Ronald Reagan, famously said: 

In all of the arsenals of the world, no weapon is so powerful as the will and moral courage of free men and women. 

For the last year and a half, no development on the world stage has drawn 

greater interest or sparked more passionate debate than the upheaval in 

the Arab world. What started in Tunisia in December of 2010 has spread 

throughout North Africa and the Middle East, leaving virtually no Arab nation untouched. 

Tunisia ousted a dictator and elected 

a constituent assembly, which is drafting a new constitution. Libya fought a 

civil war, rid itself of its dictator, and 

held elections. In both cases, particularly in Libya, blood was shed, but it 

has so far not been in vain, as real hope 

for democracy and an improved quality 

of life prevails. 

Other countries, such as Morocco and 

Jordan, have seen more modest 

changes, but in the same direction—toward greater openness. Elsewhere in 

the Arab world, this unprecedented 

chain of events has thus far taken a far 

more tragic path. The Syrian people 

are suffering immeasurably for their 

efforts to unseat a regime that has 

proven itself eager to take innocent 

lives in brutal fashion. 

In countries like Bahrain, the violence has been more limited, but no 

less tragic. Even in those nations 

where regimes stifle public discourse, 

we know that the autocrats are watching. They are mindful of Reagan’s lesson that the will of the people cannot 

be suppressed indefinitely. 

Of all the nations where this movement has unfolded, none holds greater 

sway over the future of the region than 

Egypt. Since the stunning fall of Mubarak in February of last year, Egypt has 

held parliamentary and presidential 

elections. Both sets of elections swept 

the Muslim Brotherhood to office, setting up a power struggle between the 

Brotherhood’s leadership, the 

secularists, and the military council. 

Knowing of the harsh and deeply troubling rhetoric the Brotherhood has 

used over the years, many Americans 

rightly ask the question, can we work 

with the newly elected leadership in 

Egypt? 

Should we continue to provide support to this government and the Egyptian people? What exactly does the 

Brotherhood stand for, and how will 

they lead? Mr. Speaker, these are important questions. To answer them, we 

have to go beyond the reactionary and 

reductionist assumptions that are 

often made. I’ve spent a great deal of 

time in Egypt, meeting with staunch 

secularists to Salafists and everyone in 

between, including leaders and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. What 

I have found is a vast movement that is 

far from monolithic. It is made up of 

moderates and hard-liners, reformers 

and the old guard, and great internal 

differences exist. 

One thing, however, that has unified 

them is their public statements of support for the Camp David peace accords 

for human rights, including women’s 

rights, as well as religious freedom, all 

of which are prerequisites to meet 

their quest to get their economy back 

on track through tourism and international investment. I’ve joined with a 

Democratic colleague in introducing a 

resolution calling for a free trade 

agreement with Egypt to help achieve 

just that. 

Ultimately, we will judge them not 

by their words, as Secretary Clinton 

has just said in a piece, but by their actions. But the mere fact that these 

public statements have been made says 

a great deal about the stark difference 

between the nature of an underground 

movement, which the Muslim Brotherhood was, and an elected government. 

Now that the Brotherhood has at least 

taken some of the responsibility of 

righting the economy and providing opportunity for 85 million Egyptians, it 

will face enormous pressure to pursue a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5335 

reform agenda, engage appropriately 

with the West and eschew regional conflict. 

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we as 

Americans have a responsibility to live 

up to our own ideals. How can we 

preach democracy, yet shun the free 

and fair choices of Egyptians? Of 

course, we cannot be naive. We have to 

recognize that democracy is about 

more than just elections, but also 

about protecting minority rights and 

building institutions that outlast the 

individuals who occupy them. 

But we also have to recognize that 

supporting only democracies around 

the world that produce our own preferred results is the height of hypocrisy. On a more practical level, compromising our own values would only 

strengthen the hands of anti-Western 

fundamentalists. Refusing to engage 

with the Muslim Brotherhood would 

simply achieve a self-fulfilling prophecy by giving rise to extremists over 

reformists and moderates. 

No country following decades of authoritarian rule can make a full transition to a thriving, stable, peaceful and 

prosperous democracy quickly and 

painlessly. Even with the most optimistic of outlooks, the Egyptian people 

will struggle for years to come to 

throw off the shackles of the past and 

create the kind of future for which we 

all strive. We have been working at 

this for 236 years, Mr. Speaker, and we 

still haven’t gotten it exactly right. 

We have a responsibility, as longtime 

Egyptian allies and as champions of democracy around the globe, to stand 

with them in this process, encouraging 

continued reform and providing our 

support for the development of real democracy in the Arab world’s most populous nation. 

f 

HONORING AMERICA’S VETERANS 

AND CARING FOR CAMP 

LEJEUNE FAMILIES ACT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

North Carolina (Mr. MILLER) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. 

Speaker, I rise in support of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring 

for Camp Lejeune Families Act, which 

the House will consider later today, especially title I, the Janey Ensminger 

Act. 

Title I and a similar House bill honor 

a 9-year-old girl who died from childhood leukemia, most likely because 

she was exposed to contaminated 

drinking water at Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina, when her mother was pregnant with her. 

And by honoring Janey Ensminger, 

we honor those Americans who have 

shown remarkable determination to 

make their government do the right 

thing. They have struggled for more 

than a decade to learn exactly what 

chemicals were in the drinking water 

at Camp Lejeune, water that perhaps a 

million marines and their families 

were exposed to over a 30-year period, 

to learn the health effects of exposure 

to the contaminated drinking water, 

and to seek justice for those harmed. 

They took on their own government, 

including the Marine Corps they had 

served and to which they are still 

loyal, but which has been shamefully 

reluctant to accept responsibility for 

the water contamination. 

Janey’s father, Jerry Ensminger, is a 

retired marine who lived with his family on base at Camp Lejeune for a time. 

Jerry watched his daughter become ill 

from leukemia, struggle with the disease, and eventually lose the struggle. 

Years after he watched his daughter 

die, Jerry learned of the water contamination at Camp Lejeune and has 

not rested since. 

I first met Jerry 4 years ago when he 

testified powerfully on the Science and 

Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which I then chaired. Jerry 

worked shoulder to shoulder with others, including Tom Townsend, Mike 

Partain, Jim Fontella, the Byron family and William Hill against long odds. 

b 1220 

The Janey Ensminger Act is the result of their remarkable efforts. They 

were always faithful to the cause of 

justice for those harmed by the contaminated drinking water. 

The Janey Ensminger Act will require the VA to provide medical coverage for certain illnesses to veterans 

who served at Camp Lejeune between 

1957 and 1987, and to their families. The 

VA will be the ‘‘payer of last resort.’’ 

Justice requires no less for the people 

harmed by the water contamination at 

Camp Lejeune. 

The harm will never be fully made 

right. The bill will not help Janey or 

her father. But the Janey Ensminger 

Act acknowledges responsibility and 

provides needed treatment for many 

others. 

The marines who have championed 

this legislation served our democracy 

when they wore our Nation’s uniform, 

and they served our democracy by 

their determination to obtain justice 

for the people harmed by the toxic 

drinking water at Camp Lejeune. 

f 

THE POLITICS OF FAIRNESS—I.E., 

THE POLITICS OF FAVORITISM 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. POE) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we 

have heard a lot about fairness from 

the President lately. Perhaps his Chicago advisers think that if he distracts, 

divides, and creates envy all in the 

name of so-called ‘‘fairness,’’ Americans will ignore their thin wallets and 

stacked up bills. But the people are 

smarter than back-room government 

policycrats. 

If the President is reelected in January, he will have inherited a weak 

economy from his predecessor—himself. Then who will he blame? The 

President was elected to solve problems, not place blame and make excuses for failure. 

Like most Americans, I want the administration to succeed, but the evidence is not on the administration’s 

side. With unemployment higher than 8 

percent for 41 months—even higher for 

recent college graduates at above 50 

percent—and our deficit above $15 trillion, there isn’t much of a record to 

stand on. 

So we are involved in a new Madison 

Avenue campaign diversion called ‘‘Remake America’’ to make America 

‘‘fair.’’ Of course, fairness is in the eyes 

of the beholder, and it means different 

things to different folks; but it certainly sounds good at first glance. 

Mr. Speaker, let’s look at this idea. 

The politics of ‘‘fairness’’ are used 

when politicians want you to ignore 

their record and then claim that some 

people just haven’t been treated fairly. 

This is a mere diversion from failed 

policy, failed ideas. When you look at 

the record, you’ll see that this administration’s definition of ‘‘fairness’’ really means ‘‘favoritism.’’ 

There is no fairness in crony capitalism. That is favoritism. There is no 

fairness in a perpetual bailout culture 

where the omnipotent government 

deems some too big to fail and others 

too small to succeed. That is favoritism. There is no fairness in forcing 

Americans to fork over money to pay 

for failed pet endeavors like Solyndra. 

That is favoritism. There is no fairness 

in an unaccountable government that 

constantly takes money from the 

working people and squanders it in a 

failed stimulus—or two. That is favoritism. And there is no fairness in enforcing some laws while proudly ignoring other laws. That is favoritism. 

What this ‘‘fairness’’ debate—or the 

politics of favoritism—achieves is a 

systematic desire by government to 

create animosity—animosity towards 

those who have or are just trying to 

achieve some success. It also creates 

animosity toward government from 

those who built it on their own without 

being a member of the government’s 

favored class. 

This debate degrades the American 

Dream because it removes the equality 

of opportunity and creates a class of favorites—the class of government 

‘‘friends.’’ 

There is no equality or fairness in 

forced equal outcomes. Since some people are more successful than others, to 

paraphrase Lincoln, the government, 

which cannot make everyone rich, is 

trying to accomplish what it can do— 

make everyone poor and dependent on 

the government for success. This is 

fairness? I think not. 

Instead of encouraging individuals to 

succeed on their own, this administration tells citizens that they need the 

government. In fact, according to The 

Wall Street Journal, almost 50 percent 

of the population lives in a household 

where at least one member receives a 

government benefit. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE