Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the chairman of the full committee, I would say as difficult and partisan as this day has begun, I think we are going to end on a very bipartisan high note, and certainly thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Texas, certainly Mr. Mica and the gentleman from Louisiana who just spoke. Congratulations to all in finally passing this WRDA bill.

I would like to spend just a moment to talk about the legislation, the modernization of the five locks on the Mississippi River and the two on the Illinois River; the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned that earlier as far as the modernization of locks and dams. And I want to do this in a little different way.

Last week, we considered and passed the farm bill. Perhaps I took a little bit of heat for actually supporting that bill. In part, I supported it because it provides an important safety net for our farmers. And, interestingly, the bill we are considering tonight will go a long way to ensuring that farmers don't need to rely upon subsidies to survive.

How is that, you ask? Well, the ability to transport crops to export markets via the Mississippi River provides our Midwestern farmers a better price for crops than if that river was not available. Witness Hurricane Katrina as an unfortunate real world example of that specific example. A recent study conducted on behalf of a river stakeholder calculated that, if we fail to increase the size of our locks and if we were to allow river congestion to increase, farmers would lose $562 million a year. That income would need to be replaced by subsidy payments on the farms or the farms would fail. As such, the $1 billion in taxpayer dollars that this bill includes to modernize our locks is a hedge against the multiple billions of dollars of future farm subsidies and allows our farmers to continue to farm for the markets and not for a government check.

This bill, as has been noticed, is long overdue. The modernization of our outdated locks is also long overdue. These locks are standing out of habit. They were built in the 1930s to accommodate steamboats. Since 1975, the Corps has spent $900 million under fix-it-as-it-fails scenarios, hoping to push major problems a little way down the river. But despite the Corps' best efforts, and I would have to say an amazing job of maintenance on a shoestring budget, the River continues to lose about 10 percent of its capacity every year due to unplanned maintenance closures.

Now, as a last point, a gentle point, I would say to my friend from Oregon, who spoke earlier on the rule, he and I have discussed on several occasions the modernization of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi, and I want to be kind to him as I say he is not as ardent of a supporter of those modernization efforts as I, and he spoke of the independent review process. I concur with him, but I would remind the gentleman that the independent review that examined the locks and dams modernization woefully underestimated the demand variable for corn and ethanol.

This year alone in my district, tens of millions of additional bushels of corn will be harvested this fall and will need a viable navigable waterway. The study by the National Academy of Sciences did not adequately anticipate this increased demand. So while independent review, I agree, is important, it is not infallible. But I thank the diligent work of the committee to include this modernization. I urge every Member to support the conference report.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I appreciate my friend from Minnesota.

I would tell the gentleman that I grew up in the shadows of the levees of the Mississippi River, and I am the son of a Missouri farm family. We are about 8 miles from the Mississippi River as the crow flies, and the ability to have that navigable waterway means the difference between being in the black or being in the red for our family farm. So that lesson has imprinted itself upon me. And I am pleased to support the gentleman in this conference report, and I thank the gentleman for the additional courtesies.

Mr. Chairman, this past Friday, the great State of Missouri and the country lost a truly distinguished man, Congressman Bill Hungate, a man who previously represented the very seat that I am now privileged to currently occupy passed away.

Bill Hungate was a devoted husband and father. He was a decorated soldier. He was a talented and thoughtful jurist, and a gifted author and musician. But above all else, he was a man dedicated to public service.

After earning his bachelor's degree from the University of Missouri in 1943, Bill answered the country's call at the onset of World War II and enlisted in the Army. He fought bravely in the European theater over the course of the

next 3 years, and received numerous decorations and awards.

After the war was over, he returned home and earned his law degree from Harvard and after a short time in the private sector, he embarked upon a long and distinguished career in public service. He started first as a county prosecutor, then was a special assistant for the Missouri attorney general, and in 1964, he was elected as a Member of the 89th Congress, representing the 9th Congressional District of Missouri, and I see some of my colleagues nodding along who served with this great man.

As a Member of this body, he carried himself and conducted our business in a manner that befits this historic Chamber. Many of you may acknowledge or remember that as a member of the Judiciary Committee, his tenure in Congress will always be defined by the Watergate investigation of which he played an integral part. He not only authored one of the articles of impeachment brought against President Nixon, but he also chaired the hearings that investigated and ultimately upheld President Ford's ensuing pardon.

After serving the people of Missouri for 12 distinguished years, he left this Chamber with the same values and integrity that he walked in with. A few years later, he was called again to serve, this time by President Carter as a United States District Court judge, and the indelible marks he left on that institution are still felt today. And my colleague will probably remember the landmark decision of his which eventually led to the voluntary desegregation of the St. Louis county and city school districts.

Judge Hungate was a man on his worse day who was better than most people on their best. He never wavered in his principles, and was a firm believer in the promise of our country. He was a servant in the truest sense of the word.

I hope it is of some solace to his wife, Dorothy, his daughter Katie, his son William and his four grandchildren to know that so many people were affected by his life and are mourning his passing, and our thoughts and prayers are with them.

I yield to my very good friend and the dean of the Missouri delegation, the gentleman from Lexington, Mr. Skelton.

Offered By: Mr. Hulshof of Missouri

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time this morning.

Mr. Speaker, in 1963, while confined in the Birmingham city jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote a letter to eight Alabama clergymen regarding his recent demonstrations. In that letter, Dr. King eloquently wrote: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Dr. King's words ring true today in this debate on H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. We can no longer stand by and allow those civil rights cold cases to collect dust on our shelves. As a Nation, we owe it to the victims and their families and the country generally to provide them with long overdue justice.

Before I begin, I see waiting in the wings my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). His diligence and perseverance on this legislation has been instrumental in getting us here today.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering this bill.

It is truly an honor to stand in league with my friend from Georgia as we began this bill, actually, this trek in the last session of Congress, and certainly he is a giant in the civil rights legislation and it is a privilege for me, Mr. Lewis, to stand with you on this bill.

I also want to thank Alvin Sykes, who is the president of the Emmett Till Justice Campaign, and also former Senator Jim Talent from Missouri. Had it not been for them, I don't think we would be standing here today. Mr. Sykes was inspirational in opening the Emmett Till case, for whom this legislation is named. He came to Senator Talent two years ago with the idea that ultimately spawned this legislation.

I think in the short time of this calendar year, a couple of months ago we commemorated as a Nation the 150-year anniversary of the Dred Scott decision. As the gentleman from Michigan eloquently stated a moment ago, there have been chapters in our country's history that are not proud chapters, and yet we cannot turn past those chapters in the book of history, but instead must focus and right wrongs.

For those of you who don't know the story of Emmett Till, Emmett was a 14-year-old African American boy from Chicago who spent his summer vacation with relatives in Mississippi. One afternoon, young Emmett spotted a Caucasian woman and allegedly whistled. For this indiscretion he was kidnapped from his house, brutally beaten, and thrown into a river with weights around his neck. And although Emmett's murderers were quickly arrested and placed on trial, the jury acquitted them and they walked out of the courtroom as free men. What makes this story even more tragic is that about a year later, one of the murderers confessed to his guilty conduct, without remorse no less, in an interview in Look magazine.

As an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise today to express my strong support for this legislation as I hope it will help bring closure to countless families who continue to suffer from injustices perpetrated so long ago. As has been noted, this legislation will establish an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office within the FBI to investigate these pre-1970 cases in conjunction with, that is, in conjunction with, State and local authorities. H.R. 923 will also create an Unsolved Crime Section to prosecute these cold cases.

In my previous life as a prosecutor, I tried some three dozen or so murder cases. And with any trial, particularly murder trials, time is of the essence. And that is especially true with cold cases that this legislation addresses. Over the past nearly 20 years, we have had 29 unsolved civil rights murder cases that have been reopened, reexamined. Thankfully, 22 convictions have resulted. We have seen justice brought to the families of Henry Dee and Charlie Moore, who were only 19 when they were murdered. What were their infractions that caused this horrific end to their lives? Henry and Charlie were believed to have knowledge about African Americans importing firearms into the country. And for this James Ford Seale and a group of fellow Klansmen kidnapped Henry and Charlie, took them into the woods, brutally beat them, and drove them into Parker's Landing in Mississippi. Henry was tied to an engine block and thrown into the Mississippi River, still alive. Charlie had to sit there and watch his friend drown,

knowing that his fate would be no different. Their bodies were found several months later, Henry still tied to the engine block, Charlie to a pile of iron weights.

After more than 40 years, James Ford Seale was finally held accountable for his actions, convicted just last week for his role in the murders. A fellow Klansman was given immunity in exchange for testifying about Seale's role in the murders.

The Nation has witnessed the conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for his part in the murders of civil rights activists Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney. Ironically, tomorrow, June 21, actually marks the anniversary of those murders.

We have recently seen authorities reexamine the murders of Johnnie Mae Chappell in Florida and Jimmie Lee Jackson in Alabama and hopefully, hopefully, with the enactment of H.R. 923, many more.

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said: ``Justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation so we can continue to help heal the Nation, rectify the inequities of the past, and provide justice to those who have been seemingly forgotten.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed last night's rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 698, the Industrial Bank Holding Company Act of 2007 and ``aye'' on H.R. 1425, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service in Odessa, Texas, as the ``Staff Sergeant Marvin ``Rex'' Young Post Office Building.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1495. I grew up in the shadow of levees along the Mississippi River in southeast Missouri. And while the river, at times destructive, the river has been a provider for me and my family, delivering the grain from our farm to international markets.

And I will tell you, as the gentleman from Minnesota has stated, the nickels and dimes that we saved by shipping via barge were often the difference between our farm ending up in the red or ending up in the black. Those few cents have helped keep food on our table; clothes on our back; and, over the years, kept our farm even within our own family.

Title VIII of the legislation, lock modernization, will insure that farmers in northeast Missouri and farmers in Iowa and Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere will continue to have the same benefit that my family had, the ability to ship crops to international markets via the most cost-effective method.

I will tell you that a recent study by the Food and Ag Policy Research Institute, FAPRI, found that if the Mississippi River and Illinois waterways were forced to close, possibly because of a massive lock failure, that farmers, our own U.S. farmers, would lose between $645 million and $806 million a year, a year in increased transportation costs. We experienced a glimpse of that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the river was shut down, navigation was shut down for a short time during the fall of 2005. Farmers endured a 60- cent-per-bushel penalty on a bushel of corn during that critical time in September of 2005. And a massive failure, unfortunately, is a distinct possibility.

These locks are standing just out of habit, or as my constituent, Senator Kit Bond, is fond of saying, ``These locks belong in the National Register of Historic Locations.'' They were built in the 1930s to accommodate steamboats for the next 50 years. As the gentleman pointed out, these locks are no longer navigation aids, but hindrances. They are 600 feet long. The modern barge is close to 1,200 feet, often three across and five long.

What I want to emphasize again to my friend from Oregon who spoke, and others, these locks benefit the American public in other ways. The typical tow removes 870 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks from our already congested roads, bridges, and interstate highways. A gallon of diesel fuel will push one ton of freight 2\1/2\ times further by barge than by locomotive; nine times farther than by truck. Moreover, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, towboats emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. All in all, all worthy.

I urge its support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Kay Dinwiddie and the First National Bank and Trust Regency Club, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Kay has been the director of the club since its inception. The Regency Club is open to bank customers who are at least 50 years old, and has grown from a relatively small group to its present size of more than 3,700 members.

Although club members do receive special bank services and discounts, the primary focus of the club is on its group travel programs, which has taken them to numerous international locales. The club has traveled extensively throughout the state of Missouri, sampling the rich culture of the greatest state in the union. From Hannibal, the land of the great Mark Twain, through our fertile farm lands and national parks, the Lake of the Ozarks, to music of Branson, and the metropolises of St. Louis and Kansas City that bookend the state, Kay has shepherded her group to better know and love our great state.

But Kay has also led her fellow Missourians abroad, and has traveled to such far locales as Australia and Africa. Kay has personally visited six continents, about 40 countries and crossed the equator 12 times. I have been informed that her travels when all tabulated account for more than 600 days and over 100,000 miles. You would think all that travel would have tired her out; however, she remains steadfast in her dedication to the Regency Club.

I would like to commend and thank Kay for her commitment to the Regency Club and its extensive membership, my constituents. She has been a tireless advocate for club members and has worked for the greater benefit of the Columbia community. I hope to be voicing her praises in another twenty years.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. I am pleased to support this important and needed reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Economic growth can only occur if the infrastructure, the roads, the power grids, and the water/wastewater systems can accommodate this growth. A community cannot prosper without suitable infrastructure.

Too often, this vital infrastructure is not keeping up with the existing needs or future development. A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, found that, ``without continued improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements.'' Further EPA studies have found there to be a gap of $181 billion between the revenue that is available and the wastewater infrastructure that is needed. It is expected that this gap will widen to more than $500 billion by 2019.

These shortfalls unfortunately hit small communities the hardest. Water systems that serve these communities face a continued battle to keep their infrastructure in working order, all the while construction and maintenance costs continue to rise. Moreover, small systems simply do not have the ability to pass these costs on to their consumers.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped address this need. This program allows communities to seek Federal and State dollars from the fund. From FY 2002 through FY 2006 the Missouri SRF provided $745,776,200 in loans to water systems. These dollars went to create new collection sewers, replace existing or outdated sewers, and build treatment and secondary treatment plants. Without these updates, the environment around Missouri communities would have suffered. So for these reasons I rise in support of this legislation.

But I have concerns about extending Davis-Bacon Act requirements to all dollars within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While it is true the prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon were attached to Federal dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program from 1972 through 1995, these requirements have never been attached to the State dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

The unprecedented move of placing prevailing wage requirements on all State Revolving Fund dollars is bad national policy. Placing Davis- Bacon on all dollars within the State Revolving Fund is a gross overreach of Congressional power. Though Missouri does apply prevailing wage requirements, 18 States have said through referendum or resolution that they don't want to have a prevailing wage law. This is a decision that should remain at the State level, not be subverted by the Federal government. Unfortunately, H.R. 720 says to the residents and lawmakers of these States, ``you were wrong and we're not going to listen to you.'' This is wrong. Congress should not be in the business of preempting State law in this area. For this reason, I voted for the Baker Amendment which sought to remove the Davis-Bacon provision from the bill. I was disappointed that this amendment was not adopted.

Because of the pressing need to improve our Nation's wastewater infrastructure, I will support this legislation but I do so with serious reservations about the Davis-Bacon requirements in the underlying bill. I am voting to move this important bill on to the Senate, but it is imperative that this unjustified and inappropriate provision be removed as this measure moves tough the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, on November 19 of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln rose on the platform at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, following a 2-hour oration by Edward Everett, and gave a brief but very eloquent discourse that has become a prominent

part of our country's heritage. At the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery he acknowledged, ``The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is, for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.''

Can we find some poignancy today in those simple words uttered 7 score and 4 years ago? What is the unfinished work that confronts this body politic, and more to the point, does this resolution promulgated unilaterally by the majority advance the cause for freedom for which 3,000 of our countrymen have given the last full measure of devotion?

For all of these rhetorical meanderings that have occurred lo these many hours, the responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq rests squarely with the majority of Members who serve in this Congress of the United States. Back on December 17, 1998, do you recall House Resolution 612 which declared in pertinent part, ``Resolved, by the House of Representatives that . . . the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power' and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.'''

I note that the gentleman who just spoke, along with 400 other Members of the Congress, supported that resolution as the policy of the United States, and thereafter in October of 2002, Congress, both the House and the Senate, approved the resolution approving the use of force and military action necessary to effectuate that policy of regime change.

Now, deposing the former dictator, in relative terms, was the easy part, yanking him from his hiding place, a hole in the ground. He eventually stood trial in the dock as a common accused, was judged by his countrymen according to the rule of law, and held to account for the brutality of his many crimes.

A second policy objective, promoting a democratic government has been the harder path, but though difficult, is it no less important? As my friend and colleague, my classmate from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) so passionately and persuasively annunciated yesterday, America has vital national interests in Iraq.

Does anyone argue the contrary? Can we not all agree that we must deny al Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq? Do we not further agree that Iraq must not be the source of instability in the Middle Eastern region?

Well, if we can agree on these points, can the majority make a legitimate case that this resolution accomplishes either of those important interests? President Bush recently nominated General David Petraeus as the new Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq. Widely known as a brilliant tactician in the area of counterinsurgency, General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the other body.

Today, however, the majority desires to deny this extremely capable commander the means to accomplish his objective. Isn't it incumbent upon us, as Lincoln urged, to remain dedicated to the task remaining before us? Haven't many in this body expressed frustration that the Iraqi Government has put limitations on the rules of engagement of our troops in our field, not allowing our military to hunt down the enemy because insurgents had escaped to a safe haven in a region deemed off- limits by the Iraqi Government?

Well, isn't the majority party doing exactly the same thing half a world away with this resolution? Isn't denying military additional reinforcements deemed necessary by our generals in the field hampering our last best chance for success?

Two nights ago I was moved by the quiet eloquence of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) when he made the simple yet ironic observation: At no time in our Nation's history has this House considered a public rebuke of a sitting Commander in Chief for the manner in which a war has been conducted that Congress itself has authorized.

On that score alone, I find this resolution breathtaking in its audacity. If I may be allowed to paraphrase the Great Emancipator, it is true, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but the world will never forget what we do here.

I urge rejection of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, looking back over this week's legislative accomplishments, I am sure democracy has somehow been furthered by our vote on Monday to congratulate the winners of the Orange Bowl, or our debate yesterday commending the two coaches of the Super Bowl.

But today's vote has some significant consequences in that we are about to do great harm to our Nation's land grant colleges by erasing, zeroing out $186 million in agricultural research grants. Today's vote has real consequences. There are 24 of you on that side of the political aisle that represent colleges that get this money, and I specifically urge five of you that are first-term Members here, Mrs. Boyda, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Courtney, and Mr. Welch, to consider the following: Your vote on this continuing resolution zeros out critical research grants in your home districts.

At the University of Missouri-Columbia, my alma mater, this resolution forces 20 faculty reductions, the dismissal of 93 staff and 49 graduate students. You can argue that you open college doors by increasing Pell Grants, and yet those students are going to find the doors of plant and animal science laboratories locked tight.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, the bill to which he referenced, he, in fact, along with 72 of his colleagues, voted for. The FSC/ETI bill that actually we are now pulling back that tax reduction. We are repealing that.

It has been an interesting 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have now forced small businesses to take on additional labor costs, yet we have done nothing to cushion the blow for the mom and pop stores across the country. Last week, the majority wanted to stick it to those drug companies that develop life-saving miracle drugs, while we all have family members who actually live longer and healthier lives because of those miracle drug therapies. Today, we are considering a tax increase on the domestic energy companies.

Now, how many Members have come to the floor and made speeches and beat their breasts and lamented the loss of the manufacturing base in this country? And it is something we agree with, except that the majority's response then is to tax those very domestic energy producing companies?

Let me make a prediction, not a bold one, but as we are wrapping up this 6 in 2006, I suspect that the newly elected Speaker will actually be in the Chair as the vote is called, and as the votes are there to pass this measure there will be thunderous applause from one side of the Chamber, with handshakes and back claps all around.

You know who else is going to be applauding today's measure? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, upon whom we are already so dependent. You know who else is going to applaud today's efforts? Another big fan. The dictator from Venezuela.

And, of course, there are some on the majority side who have actually called upon Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, visited him during the last Congress, and came back to this country speaking of his benevolence?

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to actually raise revenue from the domestic oil and gas industry by $300 million. But let not the facts get in the way of good bumper sticker politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the majority for making it a whole 2 weeks before deciding to raise taxes--34 hours if you are keeping track by the clock on the Speaker's website. It must have been tough to wait this long.

I've been around here long enough to follow the twists and turns of the FSC/ETI case, and I'm somewhat puzzled by what we are doing today.

It is true that oil and gas companies were not able to claim the previous FSC benefit. It is also true that Chairman Rangel championed an approach to replace FSC

with a broad benefit targeted at domestic manufacturing. The JOBS bill ultimately provided a broad definition of manufacturing activity to avoid arbitrarily creating winners and losers. Yet today, we find ourselves here picking and choosing among domestic activities, without concern for the broader policy implications, based solely on the need for the majority's Leadership to put out a splashy press release about getting tough on big oil.

The bill before us provides an insight into the governing philosophy of the new majority. The concern of people in my district--and across the country for that matter--is that we need to maintain an affordable supply of energy by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. By any common-sense measure, domestic exploration must be part of a multi- faceted solution to this problem. So in that regard, it is counter- intuitive to think that tax hikes on U.S. exploration activities will help provide an affordable, steady supply of gasoline to consumers.

Put another way--most of us took Econ 101 in college. I must admit, it was a few years ago when I took this class, but the way I remember it, if an added cost is put on an industry--in this case a tax--those costs will eventually get passed on to the consumer. And in that regard, I guess the majority's desired policy aim is to make gasoline more expensive.

Everyone agrees that we must break our dependence on foreign oil, and I take a backseat to no one when it comes to promoting homegrown renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a way to reduce our consumption of petroleum. In fact, had the Rules Committee made my amendments in order, the House could have voted to extend these important incentives.

But the majority's answer to this problem--tax hikes--is simply misguided, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on

Madam Speaker, they are calling it the Missouri miracle, but it didn't start out that way. In fact, it was a parent's worst nightmare. A 13-year-old gets off a school bus near his home in rural Missouri but never makes it home. The local sheriff's office works frantically to locate the missing boy but has few leads. That was the real life saga for Ben Ownby's family last week near Beaufort, Missouri, in my congressional district.

Last Monday, January 8, after a normal day at school William Ben Ownby rode the bus to school. He got off and disappeared. The wrenching news energized the local community. Volunteers turned out in droves to assist law enforcement and to search the nearby woods. Friends and neighbors began prayer chains and offered moral support to Ben's family. Police officers and sheriffs' deputies from surrounding counties lent their assistance.

Fortunately the single lead provided by 14-year-old Mitchell Hults was a good one. Mitchell had gotten off the school bus with Ben and described having seen a beat-up white Nissan pickup truck with a camper shell, even describing the trailer hitch to a T. Two police officers who had gone to a Kirkwood, Missouri, apartment complex to serve an unrelated warrant saw a truck matching the description, sought additional legal authority and, lo and behold, last Friday, January 12, when officers approached the apartment, not only did they find Ben Ownby unharmed, but a second youth, Shawn Hornbeck, a boy from Washington County, Missouri who had been missing since 2002.

More than 4 years ago, October 6, 2002, when he was 11, Shawn Hornbeck disappeared while riding his bike. In a similar fashion, the community and law enforcement worked hard on that case to no avail. Yet Craig and Pam Akers, Shawn's parents, never gave up. Their ability to persevere 4\1/2\ years is a testament to their strength and faith.

During that time, the Akers family established the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation, whose mission it is to help families and law enforcement search for missing children. Craig Akers' commitment to finding Shawn and helping families has come at great personal expense and took a physical and emotional toll, and yet he remains devoted to helping others deal with cases of missing children.

What a miracle that both youths were rescued.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the hard work of area law enforcement, especially singling out Franklin County Sheriff Gary Toelke and the Franklin County Sheriff's Department. Gary is a friend of mine. This happens to be the second time in 4 months that Sheriff Toelke has reported a happy ending in a missing child case.

You may remember last September, his department recovered an 8-day- old baby girl when a woman attacked the baby's mother. That case became a national news story, as has this one. The outcome of both of these cases is a testament to that department's professionalism and commitment to the community.

I also applaud the great detective work of young Mitchell Hults by remembering the details of that suspicious white pickup truck right down to the dents, rust spots and trailer hitch. Mitchell not only saved the life of his friend Ben, but also rescued Shawn from 4\1/2\ years of captivity. All are true heroes, and their diligence saved the lives of two young boys and brought solace to the Akers and Ownby families.

On behalf of all Americans and parents nationwide, this House appreciates their good work. To the Akers and Ownby families, I am sure my colleagues will join me in expressing your shared beliefs that your prayers have been answered. Truly, a Missouri miracle.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the State of Washington mentioned medical school. Let me recount an old axiom that with learned in law school. We were told: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the podium.

Ladies and gentlemen, there has been a lot of podium pounding on the other side of the aisle today. The question is this, shall the government interfere with or intervene in a prescription drug plan that is working?

Now, the majority seeks through H.R. 4 to strike this nonintervention clause. First of all, is anyone having a flashback to 1993 and 1994 talking about government taking over health care?

But, more importantly, my colleague from the State of California, the incoming chairman of the Health Subcommittee, and 203 of his colleagues are about to do an abrupt, en masse, about face. Because in the Congressional Record of June 28 of 2000, you had this nonintervention clause, and 204 Democrats said, we don't want to give the Secretary the ability to negotiate in roll call 356.

Now, what could possibly explain this inconsistency? Could politics be at play?

The gentleman from Washington talked about some history. Let us go back over the committee history, because my colleagues from Ways and Means are here.

First of all, during committee action we were chided there would be no plans available under the Republican plan.

Then, of course, when we saw the plethora of plans, we heard the complaints from your side, there are too many confusing choices that seniors have across the country. Then you wagged your finger at us and said, well, we need to legislate the premium at $35, and then the total cost of the program is going to explode the deficit. Remember hearing that?

Yet, on the other hand, as has been discussed, the average premium is $22. In the State of Missouri, you could even have a premium for under $15 if you choose it. Of course, we have seen how those program costs have come down.

We heard from your side that the drug companies were going to do a bait-and-switch, that we were going to have low ball that first year and then we would see those prices being jacked up. Lord help us, what's happened? Drug prices have gone down. Imagine premiums and prices coming down in health care.

Then my colleague from the State of California said to his colleagues, it is okay, once the seniors hit the donut hole, they will be angry, and they will be outraged. Then we have seen, of course, that every senior at least has had the opportunity to have full coverage, including coverage for the donut hole. You just can't find it within yourself to say we got one right.

Just like welfare reform, surely, Mr. Leader, once every 10 years, you can say the Republicans got it right. We are witnessing cost containment and competition by incorporating private sector market principles within the public sector programs provision of drug coverage. Let us lighten up on the podium pounding, say no to government interference and no to H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I would like to divide my remarks into two main thoughts: first, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' and second, the laws of intended and unintended consequences.

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Part D Benefit ain't broke.

But Medicare was broken before there was a drug benefit. When I came to Congress, one of the issues I heard about most often from my constituents was the need for prescription drug coverage for seniors. In 1965, when Medicare was created to ensure that seniors had some access to health care, prescription drugs were not a primary mode of treatment, and thus not covered.

But as medical science advanced, and miraculous treatments became available via prescription drugs, Medicare still languished without a drug benefit, and many seniors were faced with the brutal decision between buying their medicine or paying for food, clothes, housing, and other necessities.

Seniors do not have to make that brutal decision anymore.

Under the law, millions of seniors who previously could not afford prescription drugs are now receiving the medicines they need.

More than 40,000 volunteers in communities across the country worked during the enrollment period, counseling beneficiaries and sponsoring events to help people with Medicare. I would like to commend these volunteers, volunteers like Debbie Catlett from the Hannibal Nutrition Center, who lovingly helped her friends and neighbors sign up for drug coverage.

The system the Republican Congress set-up has been remarkably successful: The average premium in 2006, originally projected to be $37 per month, was only $23; and rather than increasing to the projected $40 per month in 2007 it lowered to $22 for this year. In Missouri, we have even less expensive options available, the lowest costing only $14.90 per month. Imagine that, health care premiums going down!

Seniors are saving, on average, $1,200 a year on prescription drugs. At the same time, Part D recipients saw a 13 percent increase in the number of medications available. According to polls, about 80 percent of America's seniors are satisfied with their prescription drug plans.

All that is on the micro level, what individual seniors are enjoying and saving; but let's look at the macro level. Over 90 percent of seniors now have drug coverage--if these seniors are paying less, the government must be paying more to pick up the slack, right?

Wrong.

The Medicare drug benefit cost nearly $13 billion less than expected in its first year, 30 percent below the $43 billion that had been budgeted.

Long-term savings are even greater. HHS Secretary Leavitt just announced that the independent CMS actuaries are lowering their estimate of the cost of the benefit over the next decade by another 10 percent, with almost all of the new savings resulting from competition. The actuaries' new estimates show that total net Medicare costs are 30 percent lower, or $189 billion less, for the same budget window (2004- 2013) than the actuaries originally anticipated before the Medicare drug benefit was implemented.

The long and the short of it is, Medicare Part D is a big, fat success.

Look, the majority is upset that the Republican Congress enacted a successful, popular program, and the ``let Medicare negotiate low prices like the VA'' polled well for them (I've seen the polling numbers). But a bumper sticker phrase aimed at coopting that success isn't good policy.

I've discussed how the program isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, now onto the intended and unintended consequences of this bumper sticker bill.

Best case scenario if this Democrat attention grabber of a bill becomes law is that

Medicare proves unable to negotiate lower prices than the marketplace currently does--and two non-partisan entities, the Congressional Budget Office and the CMS Office of the Actuary have said the Democrat plan yields no savings for this reason--and no harm is done. But worst case scenario is overactive bureaucrats or the next President take this negotiating authority and use it to force price controls, ration drugs, and deny doctor and patient choice of what medicines are allowed for seniors.

So friends, pick your poison: On the one hand an impotent outcome as CBO and the CMS Actuary have foretold, on the other, Medicare setting prices and rationing seniors their medicine. I will remain agnostic as to which is the intended and which the unintended consequence.

The reason the two economic models I've mentioned concluded no savings via H.R. 4 is that, fundamentally, the government cannot negotiate any better than the thousands of prescription drug plan managers in the private market. Under current law the millions of Medicare beneficiaries, via their prescription drug plans, are coupled with the 200 million other health insured Americans. Caremark negotiates for 70 million lives, Medco for 54 million, and Express- Scripts for 51 million. Medicare Part D allows our Medicare beneficiaries to piggyback on that huge buying power with professional negotiators. And the other side would rather untrained government bureaucrats negotiate for my constituents? No thank you.

So let's look at the worst case scenario under this bill, where Medicare commands and controls seniors' medicine.

Yes, H.R. 4 seems to disallow formularies, but in law school they taught me to look closely at the law. Page 3, line 20: ``nothing . . . shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.''

But banning a national formulary does not protect beneficiaries from other government access controls to prescription drugs. For instance, the Medicaid program has no national formulary, however, it employs various strategies such as a ``preferred drugs list'' to limit access of medications. If beneficiaries want to receive a medication that is not on the preferred drug list, they must go through a lengthy and confusing authorization.

If the authors of H.R. 4 didn't have this in mind, why did they strike the underlying MMA language that would seem to protect against this, that said ``The Secretary may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs''?

The Ways and Means Chairman was thoughtful enough to hold a forum on this matter yesterday for our committee members, and both his and Mr. McCrery's invited witnesses agreed that to get VA prices, you have to set a formulary, and a strict one at that.

Again, the Democrats' bumper sticker slogan is fraught with bad consequences--intended or unintended.

Most importantly, the plan offered by Democrats would limit choice. Veterans have access to less than one third the drugs Medicare beneficiaries do--the VA formulary covers 1,300 drugs while the Medicare drug benefit covers 4,300 drugs. Drugs like Lipitor, Celebrex, Flomax, and Prevacid are unavailable in the VA plan. In fact, 20 of the top 33 most commonly prescribed drugs for seniors are excluded in the VA plan.

Pharmacy access is another pitfall of the Democrats' slogan. In reality, the VA distributes 80 percent of its medications by mail. Medicare uses mail for less than 2 percent of its medications. Seniors appreciate the opportunity to talk to their local pharmacist and ask questions about their prescriptions, and we have 1,077 pharmacies in Missouri where they can do just that. The VA has 6 pharmacies in the entire state of Missouri (and only 332 nationwide); the Democrat bumper sticker slogan loses a lot of its luster when looked at through that lens.

Simply put--seniors would find many of their favorite drugs unavailable and that's unacceptable.

The price control plan offered by the Democrat majority does not guarantee that seniors have access to ``all or substantially all'' drugs to treat cancer, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and Lou Gehrig's disease. These important protections are in place in the current drug benefit and our motion to commit will offer the majority a chance to continue to protect drugs for these vulnerable populations.

While the plan being debated may be labeled ``price negotiation,'' it is more accurate to call it ``price fixing.'' Every time price fixing has been tried in other countries, it has failed. It has resulted in limited therapies and reduced innovation. And if the government saves the money from price fixing, the economic models show the cost will be shifted to the higher prices for the over 250 million non-Medicare Americans. In fact, the Democrat witness at yesterday's forum stated ``if Medicare gets a better price, some people will have to pay more.''

It's an easy campaign slogan to say ``let Medicare negotiate low prices like the VA.'' But, to get there, you have to make that deal with the devil and allow Medicare to set prices and force strict formularies.

In conclusion, in attempting to fix an unbroken system, H.R. 4 faces the unintended consequence of either being lamely impotent at negotiating lower prices, or dangerously controlling by price fixing and restricting seniors access to drugs. Bad outcomes, whether intended or not; therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the career of a great Missourian, a physician who has practiced for years in my home town of Columbia, MO. He literally wrote the book on pediatric rheumatology, and has provided outstanding health care over a distinguished medical career. He is being honored at the Cassidy Symposium at the University of Missouri School of Medicine on October 7, 2006.

Dr. Cassidy is an outstanding pediatric rheumatologist, well-known nationally and internationally. He has been a leader in the field of rheumatology for over 40 years and a founding member of many of the subspecialty organizations.

Dr. Cassidy was born in 1920 in Oil City, PA, and received both his undergraduate and medical education at the University of Michigan. He completed 2 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy and 7 years in the Naval Reserve. He returned to the University of Michigan to complete his residency in Intellectual Medicine and a rheumatology fellowship in the Rackham Arthritis Research Unit under the mentorship of Drs. Roseman and Johnson. He went on to the faculty in 1963 and worked his way up the ranks, becoming Professor of Intellectual Medicine and Pediatrics in 1974. In 1984 he was recruited as Professor and Chair of Pediatrics at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, NE, and then 4 years later as professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine and Chief of Pediatric Rheumatology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He became emeritus in 1996 and continued to staff his arthritis clinics until this year.

He is a Diplomate of both the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Pediatrics and their respective rheumatology sub- boards.

He has received many honors and awards including Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Omega Alpha, Excellence in Education Award from the University of Missouri SOM, National Service Citation from the Arthritis Foundation, and Master of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). He is a member of a number of prestigious organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Rheumatology, the British Society of Rheumatology, the American Pediatric Society and the Society of Pediatric Research.

He has served the academic and the rheumatology community admirably with service on numerous committees including as a Founding Member of the Council on Pediatric Rheumatology of the ACR and Chair of the Academic Pediatric Rheumatology Blue Ribbon Committee, the BOD of the Arthritis Foundation and the first Executive Committee of the American Juvenile Arthritis Organization, and Chair of the Executive Committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Through Dr. Cassidy's efforts, the Missouri Department of Health established the Juvenile Arthritis Care Coordination Program in 1993 to help families obtain family-centered, community based, coordinated care for children diagnosed with juvenile arthritis.

Along with Drs. Brewer and Kredich, he was instrumental in the development of the Subboard of Pediatric Rheumatology and the acceptance of educational training programs in Pediatric Rheumatology by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education.

He has published over 150 manuscripts and book chapters and is the founding author of the ``Textbook of Pediatric Rheumatology'' now in its fifth Edition and the leading textbook in the field. He is a frequent invited speaker, having addressed audiences all over the world.

In summary, he is the consummate academician and a founding member of pediatric rheumatology as a recognized subspecialty. He is a great American, he has treated my constituents and their children with dedication and sympathy, and I am grateful they have brought his distinguished career to my attention. I congratulate Dr. Cassidy on his many successes, and wish him well in his future endeavors.