Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I inadvertently voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 463,

ordering the previous question for H. Res. 351, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Departments of Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act of 2004.

I ask that, even though the record cannot reflect this statement, you consider me opposed to the automatic pay increases that may result from passage of this provision, by a vote of 240-173, this morning.

In the 106th and 107th Congresses, I was one of a handful of Representatives to cosponsor legislation to eliminate these automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress. My voting record over the past seven years reflects my strong opposition to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Members of Congress.

A ``nay'' vote would have best reflected my opposition to automatic pay adjustments. I apologize for the way in which this inadvertent vote may have misled you to believe I am in favor of such an automatic pay increase.

Mr. Speaker, today we may be voting on a measure to open American markets to the reimportation of prescription drugs. I say we may be voting because, as a Member of this House, I have never seen an issue so important to me, to our colleagues, and to the American people treated so unfairly.

Access to affordable prescription drugs is too important an issue to only be debated on the House Floor for 1 hour.

Under the rule formulated for the debate on reimportation, the Speaker may pull this bill at any time. If that happens, Americans may remain under the thumb of the pharmaceutical industry for the foreseeable future.

In America, breast cancer kills over 40,000 people, especially women, each year. Mr. Speaker, a bottle of Tamoxifen used to fight breast cancer costs $360 in the United States. It costs $60 in Germany. How long will American women who cannot afford Tamoxifen continue to subsidize those in Europe who can? And if the drug companies have their way in this debate, Mr. Speaker, the sorry status quo will persist. Lives will be shortened, lives will be lost. This is bad process, bad form, and a bad rule. Our seniors deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues and thank the Speaker of the House for allowing us to have debate on this very, very critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, Americans will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next 10 years according to the CBO, and over the same period a policy of pharmaceutical market access will save them $630 billion. Americans pay higher prices for prescription drugs than any other nation in the world. Our tax dollars heavily subsidize research and development. But prices for the same pills right across the border, Mr. Speaker, are a fraction of those here at home. Pharmaceutical market access means a great deal on the bottom line of the drug companies. But it means much more to the bottom line of America's senior citizens.

Because of the enormous costs of prescription drugs, some of America's senior citizens are forced to cut their pills in half, some must alternate months of taking their medication, and even more must choose between food and medicine, people like my mother-in-law who live on fixed incomes, but she is lucky because she has me and our family to help her. But what about the others, Mr. Speaker, what about the seniors living in my district in Missouri, the ninth poorest district in the United States of America, who do they have to help them?

The answer, well, the answer is right here in this room. They are counting on us today, my colleagues. We can end the bus trips to Canada. We can stop the pill cutting. We can alleviate the budget- busting burdens on American seniors. We can do it, and we can do it safely. The only question is, will we?

I was raised, Mr. Speaker, to put people before politics. As a Member of this House, I have a mandate from my constituents. I was not sent here by drug companies, and I will not stand by and see American seniors take a back seat to the pharmaceutical industry.

In this place, Mr. Speaker, our credibility is our currency, and our credibility is on the line tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker of the House for his graciousness in letting us bring this bill to the floor for debate tonight.

And speaking of the leadership in the House, I thought it would be important to all my colleagues for a little clarification. We hear talk about the FDA blasting the Gutknecht bill, saying that it is unsafe. I want my colleagues to know, and it is very important that they know, that in 2000 when we passed the reimportation language that is current statute, that language was written, that statute was written by our leadership, by a person who is now working at the White House, by me, and by the FDA.

My colleagues might remember it passed in the Agriculture appropriations act. The FDA chose the 26 countries where it felt it was safe to import from those countries, because our current drug manufacturers, U.S. manufacturers, are today manufacturing drugs in those facilities that are approved and inspected by the FDA.

It is very important that my colleagues know this. This is the underlying bill of Gutknecht. Plus, we have added extremely high-tech packaging, tamper-resistant, counterfeit-proof packaging. And this is in addition to the safety requirements, the chain of custody that the FDA has written in the underlying bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for yielding me this time and for the graciousness which he has shown, as well as that of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), in allowing us to make the corrections on the legislation that will permit the Hunger Fellows to proceed with the remarkable work that they do.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), because this bill also goes through IR, and I want to thank Kevin Kramp and Lynn Gallagher from the Committee on Agriculture, and Frank Record from the Committee on International Relations, because without their great assistance we would not be here today.

I also want to thank both the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for the wonderful words they had to say about my late husband, Bill Emerson, and the commitment he had throughout his lifetime to prevent hunger wherever it is found.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill is critical for the future of the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships. The funding for the 24 Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellows and the 50 Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows will expire, as my colleagues have said, unless this legislation passes.

These 39 Fellows fight hunger and poverty worldwide. They each earn just $10,000 helping nutritionally vulnerable populations in urban and rural communities get food. For example, the Emerson Fellows assist low-income communities in getting access to fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as helping to do the same for Federal nutrition programs for school-aged children and the elderly. The Leland Fellows work with national and international agencies and faith-based groups to get school lunches to over 300 million children overseas.

In their work, the Fellows are constantly faced with things that we do not normally see on a daily basis, threats of terrorism, crime, AIDS, and, most recently, SARS, while helping the communities in which they are living formulate solutions to ending hunger and poverty.

For the past 3 years, many may know that agricultural appropriations and private foundations have funded the Emerson-Leland Fellows through the Congressional Hunger Center. As my colleagues have mentioned, the farm bill did authorize an endowment for the Congressional Hunger Fellows program, which incorporated the current Fellows program operated by the Congressional Hunger Center. But because operating funds for the endowment are not yet in place, the Congressional Hunger Center is left without operating funds to recruit for their future classes. This legislation will allow the program to continue while we establish the endowment.

So, again, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and my good colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who helps co-chair the Congressional Hunger Center, for all the work that they do in helping a problem that should not exist but, sadly, it does, and, hopefully, one day soon, we will find a means to make certain that no person on Earth goes hungry.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for the tremendous job that he and his staff have done in putting together the inaugural Homeland Security appropriations bill and also for the honor of allowing me to serve on that subcommittee as well.

This bill does make a large investment in our Nation's first responders. We have added $888 million above the President's request for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Firefighters and Emergency Management. This also includes another $750 million in firefighter grants, which has greatly been appreciated in Missouri and, in my judgment, is one of the most successful programs that FEMA and DHS have undertaken.

The bill also makes another important investment in intercity bus security by adding $10 million for this critical initiative. We also include over $5 billion for various transportation security initiatives to ensure that not only our airports continue to run smoothly but also our ports and our highways.

We make a large investment in the future by investing $900 million for science and technology. The funds will target research, development and deployment of innovative technologies that will help us protect the Nation well into the future.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again and also Michelle, Stephanie, Jeannie, Jeff, Brian, Tammy, and Tom for the great work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of a measure soon to be considered by this legislative body, H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and to call to attention the moral duty of the United States House of Representatives to ban this procedure.

It is not necessary for me to walk you through the gruesome steps required for a physician to commit a partial birth abortion procedure as you are certainly well familiar with it from the testimony of previous speakers today. While the means of the procedure need not be repeated, the end to these means must be restated. Simply put, this procedure results in the end of a human life. A life that was moments before on the path towards formally entering the world--a path leading toward a life of loving, dreaming, learning--a path of potential. No, I do not need to define for you the cold, methodical death procedure that is a partial birth abortion or the pain experienced by the fetus. A child is deprived of a future; that should be moral reason enough to suspend the practice.

For this fetus, this baby, all rights are forbidden in order for the mother to exercise her right to personal privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. In America, we do not hold the rights of one person over those of another; there is equal treatment under the law. This is of course with the exception of abortion, where restrictions cannot be made on an abortion procedure unless the potential life of the fetus is considered ``viable.'' Even though I do not personally require the fetus to be viable in order for a life to be significant, it is an important justifying factor to the Supreme Court that many partial- birth abortions are performed on viable fetuses. A legal reason to suspend the practice.

I do not believe that we, in Congress, are in any position to pick one life over another, which is why I believe that when the life of the mother is in danger, abortion should remain an option. Mr. Speaker, please know that I do not favor legislation that would decide for a family who should die, the mother or the child, but H.R. 760 is careful to address this issue. This measure includes a factual finding demonstrating that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of a woman.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only protects the rights of the unborn, but it is also a carefully crafted piece of legislation that addresses the concerns of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed in Stenberg v. Carhart. For a few thousand children, upon whom the partial-birth abortion procedure will be committed in the next year, H.R. 760 is not just legislation; it is life. Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to pass

Mr. Speaker, a well-known proverb exemplifies the life mission of our friend and educator Alan Lipke. ``A child is not a vessel to be filled, but a lamp to be lit.''

For 39 years, Alan Lipke has been an educator committed to bringing light to the lives of our children. Whether it was for two years at St. Paul Lutheran School in Evansville, Indiana, for 13 years at St. Paul Lutheran School in Aurora, Illinois or for the last 22 years right here at St. Paul Lutheran School in Jackson, Missouri, students across the Heartland have been blessed by the dedication and passion of someone who has spent his life preparing our children for the future.

Now, after playing such an integral role in the education of countless youngsters, Alan Lipke has decided it is time to retire from education and begin a new chapter in his life. Though it is clear that he has ``put in his time,'' it is with a heavy heart that we prepare for Alan's departure. He has been a remarkable and stellar educator and after 39 years of unparalleled service to the teaching profession, to say that his absence from education will be missed is an understatement.

And though Alan is retiring from his current profession, I know he will still be a visible and active member of the Jackson community. Maybe we'll see him at Jackson Chamber of Commerce meetings, at festivities for the St. Paul Lutheran School or just out enjoying time with his wife Sally, his children Lisa and Scott, his daughter-in-law Ashley, and most important of all, his grandson Parker. Wherever we may see him, I am sure he will be having fun and enjoying this rich and wonderful time of his life.

Mr. Speaker, on this very special occasion, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Alan on this milestone and wish him every happiness for the future. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this week, as we watch the events unfolding in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our hearts go out--not just to the Iraqi people who we are liberating from tyranny and oppression--but to our dear brave friends, the men and women in uniform serving in the American Armed Forces.

The men and women of our Armed Forces have been on the front lines in Operation Iraqi Freedom and other conflicts throughout our country's history. Some of these men and women are easy to see. They are on television, in newspapers and some have even called in to talk to radio reporters about the latest happenings on the battlefield.

Others are not so easy to see, but their work does not go unnoticed. They are the Special Forces. This week, in Missouri's Bootheel one of our own retired Special Forces was lost.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ian D.W. Sutherland passed away after a skydiving accident. Lt. Col. Sutherland was a longtime resident and friend to many in the Cape Girardeau County area. Raised in Tennessee, Lt. Col. Sutherland entered the U.S. Army in 1951. During his military career he was a member of the Old Guard--the Army ceremonial unit--and participated in the state funerals of President John F. Kennedy and Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

He served three tours of duty in Vietnam, was associated with the 82nd Airborne Division (Green Berets), and was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. He retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel from the Special Forces School at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. His service was recognized by many. He was the recipient of many awards including the Silver Star, two Legion of Merits, and five Bronze Stars.

But when he retired, he didn't simply sit back and enjoy watching life. Instead, he went on to law school and furthered his lifelong career in public service by serving as an assistant prosecuting attorney. At the time of his death, he was the First Assistant prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County. In a 15-year career as a trial lawyer, he prosecuted thousands of cases and tired 123 jury trials.

Mr. Speaker, even though Lt. Col. Sutherland is no longer here, his work, his commitment and his love of God, country and service continue. And like so many who came before him and those who fellow after, he served his country with distinction and honor--and that is how we in Missouri will always remember him.

Mr. Speaker, when we hear the term ``women's rights'' we must think of the early suffragette Susan B. Anthony who fought to establish equality for women. But few people equate this woman with the plight of the unborn.

I'd like to take the opportunity, on this 183rd year following her birth, to commemorate the woman who fought to bring equality to women, African Americans, and unborn children.

Long before pro-choice advocates took the term ``women's rights'' for their own cause, Susan B. Anthony and the early suffragists were advocating ``women's rights.'' Among the women's rights demanded by the suffragists was the right of a mother to give birth to her child. In fact, Anthony has been quoted as stating that abortion destroys a woman's life, wronging her greatly. For Anthony, women's rights and the rights of unborn children are partners in the same cause.

Let us recognize in the voice of Susan B. Anthony the truth that abortion is a great wrong. Mothers who choose to have an abortion both extinguish the light of their unborn child and inflict almost certain emotional damage upon themselves. There is no reason for this needless pain and suffering to go on.

Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing legislation to assist the over 6 million senior citizens who have been negatively impacted the Social Security Amendments of 1977. Seniors born between the years of 1917 and 1926--the Notch Babies--have received lower Social Security monthly payments that those seniors born shortly before or after this ten year period. My legislation, the Notch Baby Health Care Relief Act, will offset the reduction in Social Security benefits by providing a tax credit for Medicare Part B premiums.

The approach taken in this bill is different than taken by my Notch Baby Act of 2001 or in any other Notch bill that has been introduced. This legislation is particularly noteworthy because it was suggested to me by one of my constituents--adjust Medicare Part B premiums for senior citizens born between the years 1917 and 1926, their spouses and their widows or widowers. The bill also eliminates the Medicare Part B premium late enrollment penalty for these individuals.

As health care expenses can take up a large portion of a senior's retirement income, this tax credit can go a long way to both correct the inequity caused by the Notch and to help seniors meet their health care needs. I urge my colleagues to review the Notch Baby Heath Care Relief Act, to discuss this legislation with the seniors in their districts, and to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Notch Baby Act of 2003, which would create a new alternative transition computation formula for Social Security benefits for those seniors born between 1917 and 1926. These seniors, who are generally referred to as ``Notch Babies,'' have been receiving lower monthly Social Security benefits than seniors born the years just prior to or after this ten year period.

There are those who dispute the existence of a Notch problem. However, take into consideration the following example presented in a 1994 report by the Commission on Social Security Notch issue. There are two workers who retired at the same age with the same average career earnings. One was born on December 31, 1916 and the other was born on January 2, 1917. Both retired in 1982 at the age of 65. The retiree born 1917 received $110 a month less in Social Security benefits than did the retiree born just two weeks before in 1916. Also take into consideration that there are currently millions of seniors in our Nation who are faced with this painfully obvious inequity in the Social Security benefit computation formula.

By phasing in an improved benefit formula over five years, the Notch Baby Act of 2003 will restore fairness and equality in the Social Security benefit computation formula for the Notch Babies. For once and for all this legislation would put to rest the Notch issue, and it would put an end to the constant barrage of mailings and fundraising attempts, which target our Nation's seniors in the name of Notch reform. Our seniors deserve fairness and equality in the Social Security system. They deserve an end to the repeated Congressional stalling on this issue. I urge my colleagues in the House to discuss this issue with the seniors in their districts, and to join me in ensuring that the Notch issue is addressed in the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to introduce the Military Retiree Health Care Task Force Act of 2003. This legislation will establish a Task Force that will look into all of the health care promises and representations made to members of the Uniformed Services by Department of Defense personnel and Department literature. The Task Force will submit a comprehensive report to Congress which will contain a detailed statement of its findings and conclusions. This report will include legislative remedies to correct the great injustices that have occurred to those men and women who served their country in good faith.

Let us not forget why we are blessed with freedom and democracy in this country. The sacrifices made by those who served in the military are something that must never be overlooked. Promises were made to those who served in the Uniformed Services. They were told that their health care would be taken care of for life if they served a minimum of twenty years of active federal service.

Well, those military retirees served their time and expected the government to hold up its end of the bargain. They are now realizing that these were nothing more than empty promises. Those who served in the military did not let their country down in its time of need and we should not let military retirees down in theirs. It's time military retirees get what was promised to them and that's why I am introducing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment for the protection of our nation's flag. The flag is a revered symbol of America's great tradition of liberty and democratic government, and it ought to be protected from acts of desecration that diminish us all.

As you know, there have been several attempts to outlaw by statute the desecration of the flag. Both Congress and state legislatures have passed such measures in recent years, only to be overruled later by decisions of the Supreme Court. It is clear that nothing short of an amendment to the Constitution will ensure that Old Glory has the complete and unqualified protection of the law.

The most common objection to this kind of amendment is that it unduly infringes on the freedom of speech. However, this objection disregards the fact that our freedoms are not practiced beyond the bounds of common sense and reason. As is often the case, there are reasonable exceptions to the freedom of speech, such as libel, obscenity, trademarks, and the like. Desecration of the flag is this kind of act, something that goes well beyond the legitimate exercising of a right. It is a wholly disgraceful and unacceptable form of behavior, an affront to the proud heritage and tradition of America.

Make no mistake, this constitutional amendment should be at the very top of the agenda of this Congress. We owe it to every citizen of this country, and particularly to those brave men and women who have stood in harm's way so that the flag and what it stands for might endure. I urge this body to take a strong stand for what is right and ensure the protection of our flag.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment for the protection of the right to life. Tragically, this most basic of human rights has been disregarded, set aside, abused, spurned, and sometimes altogether forgotten. Even more tragically, the United States government has been a willing partner in this affair, and the sad consequence is the sacrifice of something far more important than just principle.

One of the things that sets America apart from the rest of the world is the fact that in this country, everyone is equal before the law. Regardless of race, religion, or background, each person has fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the law. However, we too often overlook the rights of perhaps the most vulnerable among us--the unborn. When abortion is legal and available on demand, then where are the rights of the unborn? When abortion is sanctioned and sometimes paid for by the government, then how do we measure the degree to which life has been cheapened? When an innocent life is taken before its time, then how can one say that this is justice in America?

My amendment would establish beyond a doubt the fundamental right to life. Congress has an obligation to do what it has failed to do for so long, fully protect the unborn. I urge this body to move forward with this legislation to put an end to a most terrible injustice.