Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the House will vote this week on H.R. 4128, the Property Protection Act, to secure all Americans' rights to what they have earned. On June 23 of this year, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in the decision of Kelo v. City of New London that economic development can be a public use under the fifth amendment's taking clause.

The public reaction to this decision was both swift and decisive. In Kansas, people are outraged. In a polling conducted by the Wall Street Journal, 11 out of 12 Americans said they oppose the taking of private property, even if it is for public economic good.

H.R. 4128 would prohibit the Federal Government from taking personal property, private property for economic development purposes. The bill would also deny States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds if they abuse their eminent domain power. H.R. 4128 would negate this unfortunate ruling and restore Americans' constitutional right to be secure in the property that they have worked hard to obtain. I urge the House to stand with me and protect private property rights.

On Monday, October 17, 2005, I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes: Journal vote (rollcall 521), H. Res. 457 (rollcall 522), H. Res. 491 (rollcall 523).

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 521.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 522.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 523.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to restate Congress's commitment to protecting children on the Internet and to condemn a recent judicial decision that, if left standing, would impede the work of law enforcement in tracking down pedophiles on the Internet.

Recently, Jan Helder, a resident of Mission Hills, Kansas, was convicted by a jury for attempting to solicit a minor over the Internet. Notwithstanding the jury's verdict, the U.S. District Judge, Dean Whipple, acquitted Jan Helder, saying that he did not commit a crime because he was not communicating with a minor but, in fact, was communicating with an undercover agent posing as a minor.

Judge Whipple clearly ignored the law's intent and contradicted well- established case law addressing the issue.

In United States v. Jeffrey Meek, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically addressed the question of whether a crime of attempting to solicit a minor on the Internet applies when the actual victim is an adult rather than a minor. In this case, the Court concurred with the decisions of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts in finding that an actual minor victim is not required for an attempted conviction under this section.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Offered By: Mr. Ryun of Kansas

Amendment No. 5: At the end of title IV add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525, which would authorize small businesses around the country to establish Association Health Plans. An estimated 45 million people are uninsured in the United States, and the number has grown since 1989. Eighty-five percent of these people are in working families where the price of premiums have increased so much that they cannot afford the coverage that will give them peace of mind.

The majority of Americans receive health insurance coverage through their employers, but with rising health care costs, many small businesses can no longer afford to provide coverage for their employees. H.R. 525 would remedy this by allowing small businesses to band together to garner greater buying power when bargaining with health care providers. Let's give Americans access to more affordable health care and support Association Health Plans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the next step in the ongoing struggle to reform medical malpractice liability. Skyrocketing insurance premiums are debilitating our Nation's health care

delivery system and liability insurers are either leaving the market or raising rates to excessive levels. In turn, more physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are severely limiting their practices, moving to other states, or simply not providing care. Without a change, the exodus of these providers from the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed health care.

H.R. 5 would help to lower the costs associated with health care coverage by encouraging the speedy resolution of claims, limiting lawyers' fees, and imposing caps on non-economic damages.

I urge the House to once again pass medical malpractice reform to help lower the cost of quality health care and make it accessible to more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2005, I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes: H. Res. 328, H. Con. Res. 175, H. Res. 364.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 328.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 175.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 364.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. This legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Kentucky, would establish procedures to protect our servicemembers from predatory practices sometimes employed by members of the financial services industry.

I want to specifically express support for Section 110 of the bill, which establishes a method for our military base commanders to obtain the information that they need to keep these problematic agents off their installations without neglecting their servicemembers of access to legitimate financial service providers.

Specifically, Section 110 creates a registry at the Department of Defense to list any agent that has been barred from entry onto any military installation. This registry will be made available to base commanders everywhere, empowering them to deny access to an agent known to employ predatory practices elsewhere.

I want to thank Mr. Davis and Chairman Oxley for including the language I authored in Section 110. This language, coupled with the other provisions in the bill, will go a long way towards protecting our servicemembers from those who would prey on them financially. I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Madam Speaker, I rise today against this recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which grossly misrepresents the intent and historical precedent regarding government taking of private property. Our Founding Fathers intended to protect private property by limiting government authority.

One would expect that private property taken by eminent domain would become land available for public use such as parks and roads. Unfortunately, this decision creates a loophole for government to manipulate the definition of public use simply to generate greater tax revenue.

Protection of private property is a fundamental right protected in a strong democracy. The Supreme Court's ruling is an insult to all Americans who have worked hard to have a home to call their own. It is a ruling that encourages the strong to take from the weak and flies in the face of what government is intended to do, that is, to protect the lives and property of all American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gene Bicknell of Pittsburg, Kansas for his dedication to giving back to his community.

Gene has remained an active contributor to the Pittsburg community, and has greatly impacted his neighbors through his generous efforts at Pittsburg State University and the city as a whole. Gene's devotion to charitable causes is recognized by many as truly inspirational.

The weekend of July 8, 2005 marks the fifteenth and final Gene Bicknell Charity Golf Classic, which benefits Pittsburg's Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center and Pittsburg State University, Gene's alma mater. The tournament has raised over $1.2 million since its first year, and supporters hope to raise an additional $100,000 this summer.

I congratulate Gene on the great success of this annual function and celebrate his humanitarian passion that has touched so many lives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Davis amendment. Allowing self- funded abortions would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics.

This amendment is not about equal access to health care; it is simply offered to make a political point. Female military personnel who are stationed overseas already have access to abortion clinics where they are legal. In some cases, women prefer to have abortions in the United States, and that option is available under the current law that is now in operation.

Furthermore, overseas military hospitals already offer self-funded abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Abortion services are already available, and there is no demonstrated need for expanding abortion access. Furthermore, this amendment does not seek to address operational requirements or ensure access to an entitlement.

Although this amendment is presented as providing for solely self- funded abortion, the fact is that American taxpayers will be forced to pay for the use of military facilities, the procurement of additional equipment needed to perform abortions, and the use of needed military personnel to perform these abortions.

Military doctors signed up to save the lives of our dedicated servicemen and women, not to end the lives of babies. Many military doctors, even those who are pro-choice, would not want to perform abortions.

I think it is important to note that this amendment was offered in the Committee on Armed Services where only 19 of the committee's 64 members supported it.

I ask my colleagues to vote against turning our military hospitals into abortion clinics and to vote against the Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. JoAnn Davis).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, how much time have I remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is an unnecessary amendment. We must not turn our military installations into abortion clinics. Our military doctors did not sign up to perform abortions, and we must not put them in that position.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the goal of stem cell research should be to help our fellow human beings. The debate on this issue has, unfortunately, moved into dangerous unethical territory when perfectly moral alternatives exist.

Rather than debating about unethical methods of research, effective, principled alternatives should be sought out that successfully treat patients and offer potential channels for further treatment and research. There are countless opportunities besides embryonic stem cell research that have proven successful.

Adult stem cells have shown great potential and have effectively helped patients. Another alternative is cord-blood stem cells. These are a neglected resource that could be used to treat a diverse body of people. Evidence has demonstrated that cord-blood stem cells have treated a variety of problems, such as spinal cord injuries and neurological diseases.

By supporting H.R. 2520 later today, progress can be made in finding solutions to many medical questions we have to face. H.R. 2520 provides an ethical solution to this issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I am mindful of the limitations that the Appropriations Committee is under when funding project requests for the Army Corps of Engineers. I am also aware, however, that the committee works closely with the Corps in this process, and that funding decisions are based largely on the priorities put forward by the Corps.

With this in mind, I am very disappointed that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we approved today did not contain funding for the cleanup of a logjam on Jacobs Creek in my district in Coffey County, Kansas. I am disappointed because I have made it abundantly clear to the Corps on numerous occasions that I hear more from constituents about this project than any other Corps project in my district. Further, I have asked the Corps to make it one of their highest priorities when it comes to funds spent in my district.

This logjam began in 1973, but has only in recent years escalated to such a problematic level. Currently, the logjam covers an expanse of more than two miles. Along this stretch, boat docks are useless and garbage is trapped in the sediment. The clog poses not only a health and safety hazard to area residents, but it also threatens the economic viability of the region.

If the Corps had given this request the priority it deserved, it would have received funding. The absence of funding for this project in the bill leads me to conclude that the Corps has once again looked the other way.

I am disappointed that this crucial project has once again been ignored and I call on the Corps to put their resources to work and remedy this situation. I fully intend to continue working to see that this project is funded in the final version of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for all his hard work on this budget.

Mr. Speaker, there is no greater priority in this budget than ensuring America's strength and security. As became painfully clear when we were attacked on September 11, our Nation had severe defense and homeland security deficits that had to be addressed immediately.

Since that day, Congress has shown that we are more than willing to spend whatever is needed to protect and defend our Nation and support the needs of our troops. We have invested nearly $2 trillion for the critical building, rebuilding and across-the-board updating necessary to provide for the defense and for homeland security, and this year's budget builds on the substantial progress we have already made.

Our national defense base budget continues the multiyear plan to enable the military both to fight the war against terrorism now and to transform our military to counter unconventional threats in the future.

This budget fully accommodates the President's request for the Department of Defense and increases discretionary spending by 4.8 percent. It also proposes a sustained average increase of 3 percent over the next 5 years, not including supplementals, following on the heels of a 35 percent increase between 2001 and 2005.

We have also included in our budget $50 billion to provide for the ongoing war against terrorism. We provide for an increase of 8.6 percent in homeland security funding. About 55 percent of that will go to the Department of Homeland Security, with other homeland security- related funding going to the Department of Defense with 19 percent, Department of Health And Human Services with 9 percent, the Department of Justice with 6 percent, and the remaining being spread throughout the government.

These funds will work to meet the needs in three key strategic areas of our homeland security, including preventing attacks, reducing vulnerabilities and ensuring preparedness.

An increase in this year's budget, rather large, at the same time follows on the heels of truly massive increases in the past few years. Since 2001, we have increased homeland security spending an average of about 20 percent per year to get us to where we are now. And we have invested more than $50 billion to create the Department of Homeland Security, reorganized 22 agencies consisting of 180,000 employees and their missions, and invested heavily to protect homeland security against threats such as bioterrorism.

Again, there is no higher priority in this budget, or certainly in the budgets of the past years, than providing what is needed to protect and defend our Nation and support our troops.

I urge my colleagues to support this budget.

Mr. Chairman, the energy policy before us is comprehensive and timely. It bolsters the economy while preserving the environment, recognizing that one need not be sacrificed for the other. In addressing both present and future concerns, this plan provides real improvements to our energy policy with the goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

This bill looks inward by expanding our refinery capacities and tapping into our domestic resources in an environmentally safe way. This will help provide relief for rising gas prices and begin to safeguard us against the whims of OPEC.

Beyond traditional energy, this plan promotes the development of renewable fuels. By approving this bill, we will do much for the development and expansion of alternative fuels. For example, the increased use of Ethanol will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil but will also benefit our economy and environment. Farmers in Kansas and across the country stand ready to help with this effort.

We have gone without a national energy plan for far too long. We must act now and finally pass this forward-looking energy plan into law.