Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, earlier this month a human rights conference was held on Capitol Hill on the issue of the Dalits of India. We learned that India's caste system was established 3,000 years ago. It allows a powerful few to dominate the many, but not everyone has a caste.

A group once called the Dalits, ``the untouchables,'' have none. They are literally outcast, some 250 to 300 million people. Often the Dalits are treated worse than animals, denied access to water, food, health care, even clothing, because they are deemed unworthy of these things. The vast injustice done to these people is indescribable. The Dalits are attacked not only physically, but various community members, sometimes even the police, attack them.

India is a great friend to America. As the world's largest democracy, it holds limitless potential; but just as slavery and the unequal treatment of African Americans blemished our record for much of our history, so the treatment of Dalits will hold our friend India back.

Countries that protect the rights and freedoms of all people are more stable and more prosperous. Once America came to accept that all citizens were equal and deserved equal opportunity to build a better life, we became a stronger Nation, and our calls for freedom elsewhere carry more credibility, because we grant it to all of our citizens. If they free the Dalits, India's will, too.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say today we live in an age of heroes. Not so long ago it seemed like we did not have heroes anymore, but today heroes seem to be plentiful. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are risking their lives every day so that people half a world away can live in peace and democracy.

Our first responders on September 11 proved that hundreds of people can rise up jointly in one great act of heroism. Todd Beamer and the other heroes of Flight 93 are soon to be featured in films. Difficult times require heroes, and America has always risen to the challenge.

Today we are remembering another difficult time, the era of Jim Crow and racial bigotry, and we are remembering that gentle and humble woman who would not give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama; that one act of courage sparked a boycott which led to a movement which has changed the lives of every American.

Rosa Parks was a real, genuine hero, the kind of American our Nation has always produced when tough times required it. Today I am sure she is hearing the words, well done, good and faithful servant.

Mr. Speaker, the war on terror is slow going. In Iraq, suicide bombers and terrorists continue to spread fear across the Sunni provinces in the center of the country. Many of our soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice. Some folks here at home wonder where the war is going.

It is important to step back and look at the big picture. Just this week, millions of Iraqis have once again exercised the right to vote, a right denied them for decades. And yesterday, the Tyrant of Baghdad was brought to trial.

Two things we take for granted here at home: the right to choose our own government and the guarantee of real justice in a court of law. Saddam Hussein is at long last standing trial for his crimes against humanity. The chickens are coming home to roost for those who have painted the past with blood, and the people of Iraq with their ink- stained fingers are creating a new tomorrow according to popular will.

No matter how difficult life remains in Baghdad and the Anbar Province, the future is now full of hope.

Mr. Speaker, we are the good guys in this war. We are helping create a better world. God bless our troops and the citizens of the new Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the SPDC rules Burma with an iron fist. It has prevented the democratically elected leader of the nation from taking power, and nearly 1 million people have been driven from their homes and now live in the jungles hunted like animals by the SPDC military. They are called IDPs, internally displaced people.

I say to the people of Burma: Other human rights issues may get the headlines, but you are not forgotten. We stand with you. We will continue to work with you for as long as it takes to ensure that the people of your nation are able to live in peace and freedom.

On September 21, Assistant Secretary of State Eric John said that the Bush administration led by Ambassador John Bolton will put Burma on the Security Council agenda this month.

This is an important step towards resolving the tragedy in Burma and calling on the SPDC to account for its atrocities. Seventeen years after the formation of the Burma's main opposition party, the NLD, the U.N. is waking up and taking notice of the plight of the Burmese people. I hope the U.N. will act.

Mr. Speaker, the left is howling about how hurricane relief money is being spent. They want to stop money from going to certain groups. The government has offered to help defray the cost that faith-based groups have incurred in helping victims of the hurricanes. Many have been able to cover costs through donations of goods, money, and volunteers. But in many cases, these groups help more people than they were capable of helping because the government asked them to.

But to serve an extremist agenda, some have called on the government to ban faith-based groups from the publicly funded relief effort. Their call would shut out the poor in churches and synagogues and mosques simply to suit their erroneous reading of the Constitution and to pad their fundraising numbers.

First, they want to keep poor kids in big cities from going to good schools with scholarship vouchers, now they want to stop aid from going to the poor. So much for compassion.

Mr. Speaker, Iraqis are not yet fully capable of defending themselves against the terrorists. But they are getting much closer.

In Tal Afar 5,000 Iraqis led 3,800 Americans in taking back the town from terrorists. The force killed 157 terrorists, captured 440, seized 34 weapons caches. The victory is a watershed moment in the war against terror. It was the largest urban offensive in Iraq since Americans led the Fallujah offensive last year. It is proof that with proper training Iraqis can do it better than us.

In Fallujah, the Americans withdrew and the terrorists reappeared. In Tal Afar, though, Iraqis are weeding out the terrorists and seeding the town with security forces. This will become the model for future operations in towns like Ramadi. Upcoming elections and the permanent establishment of the Iraqi constitution will lend legitimacy to this young democracy and move them closer to victory. Another ally in the cause of freedom.

Madam Speaker, much has been said about leadership in the Katrina response. Some elected leaders failed because they were not decisive and did not make tough choices when the times called for them. We should not repeat those mistakes.

True leaders make tough choices and inspire shared sacrifice when times get tough. President Bush outlined an unprecedented Federal commitment to cleaning up the mess left by Hurricane Katrina, and this body will give him a plan that largely reflects what he wants.

The devil, as it is said, is in the details. How do we pay for this? We cannot just throw money into programs and ideas. A successful plan to rebuild the region will be limited in scope, targeted to specific needs, and its cost offset from other areas of the budget.

It is wrong to use this tragedy as an excuse to pile more debt onto future generations. Let us help Katrina's victims but let us also tighten our belts and pay for it today.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a judge in San Francisco ruled the Pledge of Allegiance, which we just said, is unconstitutional. Again, it is disturbing how a judge can strike down a voluntary act of patriotic expression. Any reading of the founding documents reveals that the first amendment was written to guarantee the right of expression. That should allow for public displays and proper expressions of faith in the public square. It also certainly allows for voluntary expressions of patriotism. But certain judges are ignoring it.

The Constitution established the judiciary as a coequal branch of government, not as the final and supreme authority. The hearings on Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court underscore the importance of confirming judges who understand this. We must maintain the proper checks and balances which our Founders designed. It is time for Congress and the President to stand up to the courts which have seized so much power to themselves. Ultimately, the survival of our constitutional Republic will depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, many of us were appalled at the red tape that hindered the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Hundreds of surgeons and paramedics were stranded in a state-of-the-art mobile hospital without patients to treat, prevented by Louisiana State officials from mobilizing their taxpayer-funded hospital closer to the disaster zone. State homeland security officials prevented the Red Cross from trucking in supplies in the immediate aftermath.

Police shut down a key bridge after the hurricane hit, preventing escape by victims of the storm. Churches in Louisiana asked by FEMA to take in victims of the hurricane have received no financial assistance from the agency, because FEMA cannot offer assistance to uncertified faith-based groups.

Survivors sleep on the floors of these churches while FEMA is storing unused cots in Louisiana warehouses. The worst thing that can come from all of these hearings, investigations, and commissions is more red tape of the sort that has slowed current relief efforts and probably cost many, many lives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 881.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, our prayers are with the families who are still displaced, those who have lost loved ones, and those who have yet to locate friends and family.

Last week we offered a $10.5 billion down payment on a long-term rebuilding effort, and I hope this initial commitment will send a clear message to the victims that the American people stand ready to help during their time of need.

But I am concerned about politics. I have been around long enough to recognize opportunism when I see it. Some Democrats are already using this opportunity to impugn the integrity of the President with blame and finger-pointing. Though it is appropriate to determine what went wrong, I am afraid that they may have another agenda.

Now is the time for all of us to work together to help those in need. Lest we forget who they are, here is a hint: They do not work here in the Capitol, they do not run for political office, they live in refugee camps in a dozen States because their homes and lives were destroyed by Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the energy bill later today, but I am amazed that Democrats in this town have convinced the majority party that law-abiding citizens must clean up Congress's mess.

When Congress mandated use of cleaner-burning gas, MTBE was the

only way companies could obey its orders. Upon learning MTBE was linked to environmental concerns, Congress did not accept responsibility, change the policy, or invest in alternatives. Congress told the companies to clean up the mess themselves. Trial lawyers loved it. Congress's inaction signaled that obeying law warrants a lawsuit. Now they sue anyone who might have even had a thought of using MTBE.

Mr. Speaker, these companies did not cover up bad data. They did not set out to save money by cutting corners. They did not even choose to use MTBE over a cleaner alternative. Congress made them do it.

The Democrats' own energy chairman in 1990 admits that. He says MTBE ``was the only commercially viable alternative at the time.''

Democrats are quick to blame corporations, but slow to take responsibility for their own foolish actions. Maybe that is why they are still in the minority.

Mr. Speaker, CAFTA has received a lot of criticism from many on the other side, but sometimes critics can be wrong. Does free trade present challenges to consumers and workers? Absolutely. Is it the death knell for manufacturers or textile makers? By no means.

I believe American workers, American products, American ingenuity can compete with any other nation on the planet, and free trade enables us to do it. In so doing, it lowers costs for consumers here and actually creates jobs. That is right, hundreds of thousands of jobs are insourced to this country.

We have all dealt with the pain of local factories shutting down and businesses closing, and it is tragic whenever it happens. But the fact is that even without free trade, businesses close. Free trade makes sure we have a flow of capital and jobs coming into the Nation.

So should we compete in the global economy or let it pass by? I think we should compete. I choose more and better jobs for our constituents. And, Mr. Speaker, this is also a matter of national security. Vote for

Mr. Speaker, as a sponsor of this legislation in the House, I rise in strong support of S. 1395. This bipartisan legislation would reform laws that govern the export of American-made pharmaceutical products, which our chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), has explained.

This really is a jobs bill that will benefit small businesses, particularly small pharmaceutical companies employing between 100 and 250 highly paid workers. Current law puts U.S. companies, particularly these small manufacturers, at significant disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Larger manufacturers, with an established foreign presence, may choose to manufacture offshore. Foreign firms do not have to worry about it. They readily export approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction.

To compete, smaller U.S. companies, or those requiring specialized manufacturing plants for niche pharmaceuticals, are forced to choose between spending millions of dollars on export costs or spending millions of dollars in establishing overseas manufacturing facilities. This cost hurts smaller companies like Cephalon, back home in Pennsylvania.

The bottom line is our law ties the hands of American companies, forces them to do business elsewhere or not to do business at all. This legislation would authorize the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to international drug convention partner companies. The DEA would retain full authority over all shipments of controlled substances, and the bill establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation keeps jobs and capital right here at home, and removes one of the barriers to prevent the success of these small companies. I urge support of the bill; and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for the bipartisan effort, and I thank Chairman Deal for his leadership on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this legislation in the House I rise in strong support of S. 1395, the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005.

This bipartisan legislation would reform laws that govern the export of American-made pharmaceutical products.

This is a jobs bill that will benefit small businesses, particularly small pharmaceutical companies employing between 100 and 250 highly paid workers.

Current law allows U.S. companies to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed.

Shipment to central sites for further distribution across national boundaries is currently prohibited.

Current law puts U.S. companies, particularly small manufacturers, at a significant disadvantage with their foreign competitors.

Larger manufacturers with an established foreign presence may choose to manufacture off-shore using existing facilities.

Foreign firms don't have to worry about it.

They readily export approved medical products between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction.

To compete, smaller U.S. companies and those requiring specialized manufacturing plants for niche pharmaceuticals are forced to choose between spending millions, of dollars on export costs or spending millions of dollars in establishing overseas manufacturing facilities.

This cost harms smaller companies, like Cephalon, back home in Pennsylvania.

The bottom line: Our law ties the hands of American companies and forces them to do business elsewhere--or to not do business at all.

This legislation authorizes the Attorney General to permit carefully regulated pharmaceutical exports to international drug convention partner countries.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) would retain its full authority over all shipments of controlled substances.

It establishes strict procedures to ensure these products are used solely for legitimate medical purposes.

Once enacted it would save small companies nearly 75 percent on export costs.

It would enable them to compete in the long-term in the global market. And it would help them keep jobs and capital right here at home.

An informal review of impacted U.S. exporters indicates that current law, with the cost of compliance, jeopardizes between 100-250 new U.S. jobs each time a covered product is introduced in foreign markets.

Small businesses create new jobs; they strengthen communities; they drive innovation.

The law should help them thrive, not put them at a disadvantage with foreign competitors or large corporations.

We need to make sure that we treat them fairly and give them every opportunity to succeed.

This bill removes just one of the barriers that prevent their success.

I urge support for this bill.

And continued support for our Nation's small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, before 2002, the government funded the approval process for pacemakers, catheters, defibrillators, contact lenses, hip prosthetics, and other medical devices using only taxpayer funding.

This publicly funded process was a mess. It significantly delayed Food and Drug Administration approval of new, life-saving medical devices and prevent patients from benefiting from this new technology. To end this delay, Congress unanimously passed The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act in 2002. MDUFMA overcame obstacles at the FDA that prevent timely approval of new life-saving medical technologies without compromising the safety of consumers.

Modeled after a similar program used to approve medicines and pharmaceuticals, MDUFMA created a stable funding base for the FDA. It combines industry paid user fees and Congressional appropriations. As a result,

the device approval time has been virtually cut in half. The program proved very popular among companies making these devices and the patients who have benefited from them.

However, Congress built a trigger into the law. The trigger sun-sets the program on September 30, 2005 when Congress fails to appropriate the amount authorized under the 2002 law. Congress provided the $216.7 million required in fiscal year 2005. But in 2003 and 2004, Congress shortchanged MDUFMA by $40 million. That shortfall will cause MDUFMA to expire on September 30th. We can't allow that to happen. Too much is at stake.

H.R. 3243 renews MDUFMA for two years and brings some much needed stability to the program. In 2007 we will revisit a full reauthorization of MDUFMA and finetune the program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I'd like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo, for her hard work on this legislation.