Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to permanently repeal the death tax. The death tax hurts average Americans who have worked hard to build a family business and want to pass it on to their children.

Arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore those who the death tax hurts the most. I am particularly concerned about one group of people impacted by the death tax, and that is the family farm.

There are approximately 2 million family farms in America, many of which are in my district, the second district of Kansas. These farms produce 94 percent of the American agricultural products that are sold. More importantly, however, they pay death taxes as high as 47 percent when they deed the farm to their children. Furthermore, there are twice as many farm estates paying death taxes than any other type of estates combined. This troubles me because family farms cannot afford to pay high taxes that could be pushing them out of business.

Unless we act, the death tax will be reinstated in 2011. If that happens, countless family farms will be forced to sell land, buildings, and equipment, putting them out of business.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the family farm and vote for the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act.

Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2005, I was unable to vote on rollcall 87, the Spratt Amendment to H. Con. Res. 95. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we are considering today what is the life of Terri Schiavo, and it is not just about who we are as Americans. It is about a lifestyle. It gives us the opportunity to affirm constitutional protections apply to all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable among us.

As a disabled person, Terri Schiavo deserves the same right as any American, and for Terri time is quickly running out. I believe it is extremely important that Congress step in to protect the life of Terri before it is too late.

In looking at the evidence in this case, I believe the courts have acted irresponsibly. Terri Schiavo does not need the assistance of any machine to keep her alive. She is responsive to the sound, touch, and sight of those caring for her. She has parents and siblings who desperately want to take care of her. Yet the courts have even denied the ability of the relatives to offer food and water to her lips. In fact, Noble Prize Nominee Dr. William Hammesfahr recently issued a statement saying he has examined Terri and he believes her injury is the type of stroke that he treats every day with success. In fact, he said there are many approaches that would help Terri. I know because I have had the opportunity to personally examine her and her medical record and her x-rays.

It is time to help Terri instead of just warehousing her. She would have benefited from treatment years ago, but it is not too late now. Terri's parents along with her brother and sister have begged her husband, Michael, to let them take care of Terri. He has not only refused this request, he has denied Terri the rehabilitative care they might have offered her to help with her condition. Now he has had her feeding tube removed and sentenced her to a most excruciating death, citing Terri's own wishes as the rationale.

Yet Terri did not express this to her parents or siblings or reduce her wishes on paper, and Michael did not remember the supposed request until years after Terri's initial injuries when a cash settlement was awarded to her, a settlement he would stand to inherit.

If we as a Congress allow this to happen without guaranteeing her 14th amendment rights to due process, Terri's blood is on our hands. If we do not act now, our inaction is completely irreversible.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want to compliment the gentleman and the staff for putting together what I consider an excellent budget. Your work will be recognized as we move this.

Continuing our progress in providing for homeland security, this budget provides for a total homeland security spending of $49.9 billion, an increase of 8.6 percent. About 55 percent of that would go to the Department of Homeland Security or other homeland security- related funding spread through the government, including the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services and Justice as well.

These funds will work to meet the needs in three key strategic areas of homeland security, including, first of all, preventing attacks. We provide for increases in funding for homeland security programs and agencies specifically designed to help prevent attacks from occurring, including border security, counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

Secondly, we reduce other vulnerabilities. Our budget works to reduce and eliminate the risk of attacks at our ports, rails, in the skies, our food supply and roads by allowing for increases in many of the programs and agencies to help protect these important areas of commerce and travel.

Thirdly, ensuring preparedness. This budget also helps to ensure that our first responders have the necessary material and equipment to handle emergencies as well as adequate disaster preparedness through

Mr. Chairman, on September 11, we were attacked by terrorists who took advantage of weaknesses in our border security. After infiltrating our country, the terrorists were able to conceal their real identities, and thereby plot their attacks without fear of being apprehended. If we, as a Congress, want to seriously address the problem of terrorism, then we must address the issue of border security.

For this reason, I rise to express my support for the REAL ID Act. This bill contains urgent border security reforms that were not addressed in the Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed into law in December.

Foremost in this bill are provisions that would prevent terrorists from obtaining a United States driver's license. Without a license, potential terrorists will have a much harder time opening a bank account, traveling, and conducting other business necessary to plot an attack.

I think we all understand that preserving freedom is not an easy process. Freedom is a difficult journey filled with enemies who will try to destroy it if they are left unchecked. For this reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the REAL ID Act.

Mr. Chairman, Benjamin Franklin once said: The way to be safe is never to be secure. We must never be content in the ways things have always been, but consistently look for new ways to achieve security in our homeland. For this, I am pleased to support H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I believe this legislation will provide for the much needed reorganization and new tools to help our Nation prepare and defend against further terrorist attacks.

After the horrific attacks of September 11th, it was evident that our Government needed to be transformed to meet the new challenges of this dangerous world. Soon after 9/11, and under the leadership of President Bush, various agencies with homeland security roles throughout the government were brought under the control and vision of a single Department, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The hope was to break down the existing barriers and create more cooperation and communication in this critical field.

Congress is continuing this effort to improve our homeland security with the passage of H.R. 10. This legislation clearly recognizes that the United States can no longer afford to think of defending the homeland as being the responsibility of just one Department--be it Homeland Security, Justice or Defense. Many aspects of our government and society, from the FBI, to DOD's Northern Command, the Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, Immigration, local law enforcement, our corporate partners, and the academic community all have important roles to play. All of these players must work together, in concert, to achieve the real results worthy of this great nation.

The 9/11 Commission, which is the basis of this legislation, found that government institutions failed to adapt to the threat of terrorism for more than a decade, enabling the terrorists failed to exploit deep institutional failings within our government. These failures, in part, stemmed from a strict stove-piped structure.

Our enemy is asymmetrical and unconcerned about such things as the internal structural uneasiness of sharing information inside the Intelligence Community and between other organizations. However, our enemies will certainly do everything they can to benefit from this ingrained culture--to the detriment of our society.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that: ``the September 11th attacks fell into the void between the foreign and domestic threats.''

The Report continues: ``Information was not shared, sometimes inadvertently or because of legal misunderstandings. Analysis was not pooled. Effective operations were not launched. Often the handoffs of information were lost across the divide separating the foreign and domestic agencies of the government. . . . Action officers should have drawn on all available knowledge in the government. This management should have ensured that information was shared and duties were clearly assigned across agencies, and across the foreign-domestic divide.''

Although people have levied fault on the CIA and FBI, I believe we must not single out individual agencies. Instead, we should use our energies to focus on the culture and structure of our government. As the 9/11 Commission report continues:

The problem is nearly intractable because of the way the

government is currently structured. Lines of operational

authority run to the expanding executive departments, and

they are guarded for understandable reasons: the DCI commands

the CIA's personnel overseas; the secretary of defense will

not yield to others in conveying commands to military forces;

the Justice Department will not give up the responsibility of

deciding whether to seek arrest warrants. But the result is

that each agency or department needs its own intelligence

apparatus to support the performance of its duties. It is

hard to break down stovepipes when there are so many stoves

that are legally and political entitled to have cast-iron

pipes of their own.

The problem is clear: stove-piping of resources and responsibilities, along with not sharing the information or analysis collected is hindering our Nation's ability to remain secure. Instead of stove- piping, we must increase the flow of information inside and between government agencies while still protecting vital sources. If we are going to achieve a greater level of security in this nation, we need to break down the barriers to homeland security. We must not be bogged down in a need-to-know mentality, but most rise to a need-to-share focus.

The 9/11 Commission Recommendations bears out this solution. Repeatedly, the Commission calls for unity and the unifying of efforts across the government. It calls for unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign- domestic divide with a new National Counterterrorism Center. Unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director. And, unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism efforts.

The old ways of thinking about and organizing our government have failed us. We have been confined by a vision of the past. Of local vs. federal, of domestic vs. foreign intelligence, of national security vs. law enforcement.

We instead need to focus on unity of purpose and on communication, collaboration and coordination that transcends our old structure. Only by working together, as a single unit, can we be secure. And I believe that H.R. 10 is the right step forward in doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I am known for running a 4-minute mile, and while today I run a 4-minute half-mile, I still make running a priority. I know that exercise is preventative medicine at best. Healthy, active lifestyles could save $76 billion in health care costs each year. Health insurance companies clearly have an incentive to keep their beneficiaries healthy.

There are 88 million inactive adults in the United States today. Sixty-one percent of adults exceed their target weight, increasing their risks for more than 30 illnesses, most of which are preventable. Exercise is beneficial to every age group, and for those over the age of 50, strength training has been proven to reduce osteoporosis and increase bone density.

Insurance companies can do more to promote healthy living by offering incentives for those who exercise regularly and encouraging preventative health screenings.

H. Con. Res. 34 commends the health insurance companies who are already acknowledging the benefits of exercise and rewarding their active beneficiaries and encouraging others to do the same. Join me in voting for H. Con. Res. 34 today and help promote healthy lifestyles in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.

I am a strong supporter of this legislation that we are considering today, and I want to thank Mr. Burns for his leadership on this issue and also the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for his work moving this bill to the floor in a very timely and expedient fashion.

As a member of both the Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Financial Services, the issue at hand today is one that I care very deeply about. Today, by passing H.R. 5011, we will be protecting our men and women in uniform.

I have the honor of representing three military installations and have seen firsthand the dedication and service of our servicemembers. These military men and women deserve the protection found in H.R. 5011. Congress has a responsibility to provide our servicemembers access to financial services while protecting them from dishonest agents.

I was honored to work with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) in the committee to include language that will improve installation commanders' knowledge of previous predatory offenses. This will allow our commanders to keep previous offenders from soliciting on the bases.

I urge and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the need to protect the definition of marriage for the future. While I wholeheartedly agree, I would like to offer a perspective from the past on the importance of marriage in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville perhaps provided the most comprehensive analysis of American society in the 1830s. He observed that there is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America.

In 1885 the United States Supreme Court added its opinion stating, ``Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth than that which establishes it on the idea of the family, consisting of the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the family is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.''

Historically, marriage between one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of stable families. The marriage protection amendment will ensure that the definition of marriage in America does not change based upon the whim of an activist judge. It will protect the rights of each State and the will of the people. I urge Members to support the marriage protection amendment. It is necessary for the preservation of the historic institution of the family.

Mr. Speaker, amidst the controversy surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance, I fear that we have forgotten our Founding Fathers' true intentions behind the establishment clause in the Constitution. While our critics argue that the words ``under God'' violate the establishment cause, our founders actually encouraged this type of religious recognition.

As George Washington said in his farewell address, and I quote, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. The mere politician, equal with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.''

Washington encourages us to respect religion, and I think he feared that the government might misapply the establishment clause to things like the Pledge. Even Thomas Jefferson, who advocated the wall of separation between church and State, articulated this, and I quote, ``No Nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion, nor can be.''

Considering our Founding Fathers' clear statements, it is hard to say that the Pledge establishes religion or crosses the wall of separation. I urge my colleagues to embrace the founders' original intent and support H.R. 2028.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the proposed Federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Marriage for thousands of years has been between one man and one woman. This body passed the Defense of Marriage Act, along with 38 State legislatures. Yet in recent years, courts and other government authorities have actually worked against these efforts to protect marriage.

Today, because of local government authorities, homosexual couples are able to be married in certain States and cities in our country. It will not be long until a couple will try to force another State to recognize this marriage; and sooner or later, they will find a Federal judge who will side with them.

Congress must take a stand now against these efforts to thwart the will of Congress, State legislatures, and the American people. Thus far, Federal law has not stopped courts from ruling in favor of these illegal unions. Organizations have challenged DOMA in arenas that further remove the decision-making process from the general public and their elected representatives, barring the majority of Americans from being heard during the process.

We should support efforts to block Federal judges from overriding DOMA, but only the Federal marriage amendment can protect the American people's will from being silenced once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I missed three votes in the House of Representatives on July 19, 2004. Had I been in attendance I would have made the following votes:

Vote on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on S. Con. Res. 114, the ``Food distribution in schools to hungry or malnourished children around the world'' Resolution. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on S. 2264, the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I missed six votes in the House of Representatives on July 15, 2004. Had I been in attendance I would have made the following votes:

Vote on the Buyer Amendment to H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on the Sanders Amendment to H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``no.''

Vote on the Nethercutt Amendment to H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on the Jackson-Lee Amendment to H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``no.''

Vote on the Weiner Amendment to H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on final passage of H.R. 4814, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of FY 2005. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in opposition to the amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for drafting this thoughtful and thorough legislation.

I believe the approval of H.R. 3574 is essential to the economic well-being of many businesses, most significantly, many small businesses. As for the gentleman's amendment, while H.R. 3574 only requires the expensing of stock options granted to the top five employees of a given company, it is still necessary to accurately determine a value for the option to be expensed. Determining this value has proven tedious at best and extremely inconsistent and inaccurate at worst.

One of the reasons for the unreliability of these valuations is the requirement to factor in the anticipated volatility of a company's future stock prices. The value has proven virtually impossible and actually difficult to determine and is highly susceptible to error and manipulation.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Baker, for drafting this thoughtful and thorough legislation. I believe that the approval of H.R. 3574 is essential to the economic wellbeing of many businesses, most significantly many small businesses.

As for the gentleman's amendment, while H.R. 3574 only requires the expensing of stock options granted to the top five employees of a given company, it is still necessary to accurately determine a value for the options to be expensed. Determining this value has proven tedious at best and extremely inconsistent and inaccurate at worst.

One of the reasons for the unreliability of these valuations is the requirement to factor in the anticipated volatility of a company's future stock price. This value has proven virtually impossible to accurately determine and is highly susceptible to error and manipulation. By setting the volatility to zero, we greatly reduce the possibility of manipulation. Some have incorrectly stated that setting volatility to zero will result in an expense value of zero. This is inaccurate. Other factors, including the underlying price of the stock, the exercise price of the option, and the life of the option will still be used to determine a value for the option.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Australian- U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which will be good for our farmers, manufacturers, and businesses both small and large. Last year, Australia imported $44.5 million worth of transportation equipment, $20.9 million in manufactured machinery, and $7.1 million in food products from Kansas alone. These strong figures characterize the trade relationship between Kansas and Australia, which is destined to grow substantially.

In 2003, Australia was the 10th largest export market for my State. With the Free Trade Agreement in place, 99 percent of Kansas' goods will enter Australia tariff-free. I believe this will translate into higher revenues for small businesses, greater agricultural trade for farmers and more jobs for Kansans.

What will be good for Kansas will also be good for the rest of the Nation. In fact, it is expected that manufacturing exports will increase by at least $2 billion, significantly boosting the economy. We currently run a trade surplus with Australia, and the Free Trade Agreement will ensure that this strong trade relationship continues.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.