Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that we are discussing that would allow us to consider legislation to permanently repeal the death tax.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those that truly believes the death tax is a triple tax. First, Americans pay a tax when they earn this income. Then they buy an asset and spend it, and they pay the tax then. Then when an American dies, they have to pay the tax again.

This tax is a tax that affects all Americans, especially our small business owners. In fact, 70 percent of small businesses never make it past that first generation because of this tax. It is something that prohibits people from being able to pass that business on to the next generation.

In addition, it discourages savings. It discourages investment, and it is costing our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Americans get it; 89 percent of the people want us to permanently eliminate the death tax. Small business owners get it. Seniors get it. The farmers in my district in Tennessee, they get it. They want us to do away with death taxes. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will also get it and vote in favor of this rule and in favor of H.R. 8 to rid our country of an unjust tax that penalizes all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a busy agenda since we started back into session in January. I am like a lot of freshmen. I feel like we have spent a lot of time looking at reform issues. That is something that my constituents want to see, and it is certainly something where I look forward to placing a good bit of my energy as we look for waste, fraud and abuse in government and look for opportunities to reform the system and to lower the cost of doing business with the government.

We have reformed education. We have lowered taxes. We have provided our Nation's military servicemen and women with a pay increase. And Republicans are now working to ensure that America's seniors have access to affordable, quality health care that will help lessen the financial burden of prescription medications.

Any effort to provide a prescription drug benefit absolutely must include a Medicare reform plan that not only preserves the system for today's seniors and for future generations but also provides seniors with a Medicare that is more efficient and flexible. Medicare must include the market-based incentives that have fueled research and development of products that are keeping us healthier longer and improving the lives of millions of Americans. There are three issues that virtually all senior citizens agree on. These three critical components of the reform initiative are affordability, access and choice. These are three premises that we need to be sure to include in our plan.

On the first point, affordability, Medicare reform legislation must make health care more affordable for seniors. Currently seniors are paying more on doctor visits and prescription drugs than they are on any other expenses combined. This is really intolerable. I think when we look at the reform to the Medicare system and think about

affordability, we need to be sure that whatever we do as we look at reforming Medicare must be affordable by the government so that we are not going to place a burden on our children and on future generations and create a system that just a few decades down the road cannot even be afforded.

No less important to our seniors is that we preserve their ability to have a choice. What I hear from my constituents is that they want the power to choose their physician and their hospital. For our rural communities, being able to choose a doctor means having a physician in their town. It does not mean having access to a physician that is 50, 100 or 200 miles away in some urban area. Too many of our seniors are forced to make frequent trips hours away from their homes in order to get routine primary medical care. More importantly, allowing seniors to choose their doctors is the right thing to do, and it is what we would all want to do for our families.

Most seniors also agree that access must be a reform priority. Once a Medicare enrollee chooses his or her doctor, they should be able to see that doctor on a regular basis, not to be shifted from one physician or one plan to another. Quality health care becomes less and less assured when a patient has to go from doctor to doctor or from clinic to clinic with consistency. We want to be sure that that access is readily available. We also want to be sure that access includes having access to new medications and to new technologies as research and development brings those forward. What I am hearing from a lot of the constituents in my district is that they would reject a one-size-fits-all universal- type plan. In Tennessee, we are familiar with what bad policy can do to health care. A few years back, Tennessee decided that state-managed health care was the way to go, and today the State is in a very difficult situation because of a health care system that is not providing access to many of the individuals that are enrolled in that system.

Some are going to come down to this floor and try to convince Americans that one giant health care system is what we should all support. I can tell you that my mother's health care needs are much different from my health care needs. My health care needs in Lawrence are different from those of many of my neighbors in Tennessee. What we can all agree on, though, is that a plan must be affordable, it must provide choices, and must be accessible. A one-size-fits-all plan has proven time and again not to reduce our health care needs, but to increase those costs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act, and I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for bringing this legislation to the floor today. It is critical that the House act on this issue.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the filing of class action lawsuits in the United States. Some of these lawsuits have played a valuable role in our legal system allowing for the efficient resolution of legitimate claims where there were numerous parties involved. Unfortunately, too many class actions are frivolous and are brought about by greedy trial lawyers who are more concerned with shopping for the best venue to collect fees than with producing justice for the injured parties.

We have heard about some of these examples. The Blockbuster Video case where customers got a coupon for a dollar off the next video. The court in Minnesota that gave the credit card company that was engaged in deceptive practices, those customers got some coupons, and the chance to apply for a credit card at a lower rate. The attorneys got $5.6 million there. In the Blockbuster case, we heard they split $9.25 million. The Coca Cola case, the customers got some 50-cent coupons and the lawyers split $1.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, Americans love couponing. They love double couponing. They love triple couponing. But let me tell my colleagues something: this is a mighty expensive way to do it. The American people get ripped off, and the big-time lawyers and the greedy trial lawyers are getting the millions of dollars. They are hitting the coupon jackpot.

It is time to reform the system. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a man who has been a role model for me and my 2,500 fellow church members in how to honor the Lord and serve our brothers and sisters. He has shown us the path to both living a life of service and leaving a legacy of service.

Charles McGowan, the senior pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee, is retiring. His decades of service to congregations and his mission outreach are a testament to the good a single man can do when firmly planted in a place by God. Under Pastor McGowan's leadership, we have developed a strong extension training site for the Covenant Theological Seminary. And in a time when we seek international understanding, our congregation, guided by Pastor McGowan, has forged a Ukraine partnership that has led to the Ukraine Biblical Seminary in Kiev.

Not only has Charles served his country as a man of God, he has served his country as a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve, Military Intelligence. Pastor McGowan and his wife Alice found time to raise a family of four children. Charles and Alice McGowan have shared generously with us. Theirs is truly the story of a life of grace, a life dedicated to others, and to their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mr. Walker for this wondrous achievement. His essay is an example of the exceptional scholarship from the young men and women of our great nation.

[2002-2003 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Contest: Tennessee

Winner]

Freedom's Obligation

(By Logan Walker)

On a cold, breezy day, a cool wind whips through the air

unfurling the flag in the midday sun. The breeze heightens to

a gust and in the furious waves, the flag lets out a crack

like a whip. The crack resounds through the air reminding all

who hear it of the flag's presence. But what does that flag

mean? It means one thing: freedom. In America we pride

ourselves on our institutions of checks and balances, all

created with the purpose of maintaining freedom. But with

freedom comes responsibility and obligations, but what is

freedom's obligation?

This complex question is answered rather simply. Freedom's

obligation is to protect principle over property, to guard

ideas over oil, to defend the helpless, not the helpful. This

is freedom's obligation.

For thousands of years people have been fighting over the

lines on maps or the resources in a region, but America is

more than that. Freedom demands of us to overlook our petty,

selfish needs to satisfy the calling of a higher government:

The government of humanity. Freedom is not about money,

capitalism, oil, or land. It is about ideas, people,

happiness, and liberty.

In the past twenty years a massive amount of criticism has

risen against the United States for the wars it has

participated in. Many claim our participation has been based

solely on money rather than morals. Other critics claim that

we simply make up moral justifications for fighting wars that

we are really only interested in for monetary or political

gain. Take for example the Kosovo War and the Gulf War. Both

Yugoslavia and Kuwait were strategic oil suppliers. On the

other hand, the United States gave detailed moral

justifications for its involvement. Perhaps it is time that

critics examine the fact that if you fight for any moral

cause, you will most likely help your own, and the world

economy, because any economy operates better and more

effectively when it is not under the iron hand of a

repressive regime.

But freedom's obligation is not just to one country, our

own United States, but to all forms of democracy around the

world. Many critics suggest that the United States is too

much of a policeman in the world, but how could one assume

so? What is America about? It is about freedom for all of

mankind and justice for everyone. When someone is ten feet

outside of our borders, do they become any less human? No.

Then do they deserve any less protection than we would give

another human life within our borders? Freedom's obligation

is not merely to protect any specific people's freedom, but

to help people to understand that any group's cry for freedom

is paramount to a regime's sovereignty.

A sad example, Taiwan is in a constant state of protest

over democratization, but China, a repressive Communist

relic, refuses to let them break away. Should the people of

the United States simply sit back and take the money of the

Chinese Government while ignoring the wails for freedom

sounded by the people of Taiwan?

Freedom is not about Gross Domestic Product, the

Stockmarket, or Armies. It is about people, principles, and

morality. Freedom gives great benefits, but it also demands

great sacrifice. The crack of the flag is not just there to

remind us that we are Americans. It is there to remind us

that we are a free people! A regime demands no sacrifice

because it does what it wants at the expense of the helpless.

Freedom, however, demands that we give up something of

ourselves so that others, anywhere in the world, can share at

least a fraction of what we have here. That is what brave

American forces have been fighting for.

The Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and the Book of Buddhist

Principles all suggest that you give something of yourself,

whether it be your time or your money, to help someone else.

They all stress the personal and moral rewards of sacrifice.

But there is another document that preaches the benefits of

sacrifice: the Constitution, because wherever freedom

resides, sacrifice must follow, because freedom is love and

love is sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and

of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

For the last decade, thousands of healthy babies have been tortured and murdered every year through the procedure that is commonly known as partial-birth abortion. This procedure, which is routinely used during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, kills a baby just seconds before he or she takes that first breath outside the womb.

Mr. Speaker, this congressional body must act now to preserve the future of the next generation of this Nation, or this Nation will reap the horrible consequences of allowing partial-birth abortion to continue.

Some opponents advocate that this bill is in violation of a fundamental right to an abortion as stated in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, they are wrong. Numerous medical practitioners and the American Medical Association have testified in committee that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary in any situation and is severely below the standard of good medical care. In fact, partial-birth abortion can threaten the mother's health or her ability to carry future children to term.

As representatives of the people of the United States, we are charged with the duty to protect the life and the liberty of the innocent, and passage of this bill is a prime example of fulfilling that duty.

I urge all my colleagues to remember this duty and vote for H.R. 760.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday those opposed to tax relief came to the floor to wage an orchestrated campaign of disinformation against the Jobs and Growth Act. Having lost the battle to convince the voters that tax relief is fundamentally bad, and unable to win the legislative battle over passage of the tax cuts, Democrats are now engaged in damage control. That means that they will lie, twist and distort the truth about the benefits of the plan, benefits that extend to nearly every person who actually pays Federal income taxes.

They were on the wrong side of the issue then, and they are on the wrong side of the issue now. At least they are consistent.

Fortunately, Republicans have the truth on our side and we are also consistent. We are consistently supporting legislation that will give working families tax relief.

The facts are that the tax cuts Republicans passed will do these things:

First, it will take an additional 3 million low income families off the Federal tax rolls completely. Let me repeat this, because I know as soon as I am finished, an opponent of tax relief will say this bill does nothing for the working poor. This bill takes an additional 3 million low-income families off the Federal tax rolls completely.

Second, we have also expanded the 10 percent tax bracket and increased the standard deduction for married couples. Both of these provisions are targeted to low and middle-income families.

Third, the decision at the center of this maelstrom of misinformation, the child tax credit. Republicans raised the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 effective immediately. All those families with children who pay Federal taxes will be able to take advantage of this credit.

Those who oppose the tax relief plan are claiming this provision ignores some families. Absolutely untrue. Families that pay zero Federal taxes will not get this tax credit because they are already exempt from paying any Federal taxes. This credit is for the millions of families that do pay Federal taxes, giving them tax relief.

The frantic attempts to discredit the jobs and growth plan are proof of just how great these tax cuts are for hard-working Americans. Those who oppose tax relief know that they have made a mistake and, instead of owning up to that mistake, they are trying to cover it up.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should immediately adjust the amount withheld from their paychecks for Federal income taxes so that they feel the tax relief as soon as possible. When Americans start to keep more of their paychecks, when they get that child tax credit, they are going to remember who stood here and told them they did not deserve tax relief, and it was not the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be surprised by the latest tactics Democrats are employing to convince Americans that the jobs and growth plan ignores working families, but today I think most of

us were a bit shocked at the frantic attempts to spin these tax cuts as harmful to low-income families.

Those across the aisle who oppose this tax relief should be nervous. They voted against the plan that exempts another 3 million-plus low- income workers from any Federal tax liability. They voted against a plan that expands the 10 percent income bracket so that more low-income working Americans get to keep a greater portion of their paychecks. And they voted ``no'' to giving small businesses the ability to expense investments, a provision that is a boon to mom-and-pop operations in virtually every single corner of this country.

In an article printed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, it was pointed out that the Nation's bottom 50 percent of filers had very little income tax liability. And you know what? Republicans reduced the burden on these working families even further when we passed the jobs and growth act. So do not be fooled by the screeching coming from across the aisle. Democrats know that people are going to love this bill when they start reaping the benefits of lower taxes; when they take a long overdue vacation, buy a new car, and put a little bit more in retirement or college funds.

We were right to pass the tax relief bill. Today, the economy looks to be on the verge of a turnaround, and Chairman Greenspan has said that the jobs and growth plan will likely boost consumer spending and feed into the job market. This is great news for Americans and should be cause for reflection for those who voted against the tax and relief bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on this amendment.

Under the current civil service system, agencies are limited in the extent to which they can reward employees for their performance, in the way they can recognize excellent performance. In the current system, employees at lower levels of their employment grade can receive quality step increases limited to about 3 percent of their annual salary, and they can only receive one a year regardless of how well they perform in their job. The Human Capital Performance Fund would allow agencies to reward their top-performing employees with a pay raise, a pay raise that they deserve, that they have worked for and earned, but would never receive under the current guidelines.

It is important to clarify, however, that the funds in the Human Capital Performance Fund are in addition to across-the-board pay raises and periodic within-grade step increases that Federal workers already receive. This is not an attempt to gouge Federal employee pay raises, and this is not an attempt to circumvent the existing system. It is an attempt to integrate performance incentives into a civil service system that was developed many decades ago. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, no parent should feel forced to put their child on a psychotropic drug like Ritalin or Adderall. But that is just what is happening every day in schools across America. Currently, teachers can coerce parents by demanding that their child be medicated to attend their class.

This is wrong. Parents should not feel pressured to make a choice for their child because a teacher or school administator--individuals who do not have a medical background to make these suggestions--tells them their child must be medicated. That is why House Resolution 1170, the Child Medication Safety Act of 2003, is such an important piece of legislation. It gives parents the ultimate power in deciding whether or not their child should be on medication.

This bill requires states that receive Federal education funds to establish policies and procedures that prohibit school officials and teachers from requiring a child to be on a psychotropic drug to attend school.

Of course, parents often seek the advice and input of their child's teacher. But this bill calls for open communication between parents and teachers. Once a teacher or other school official meets with the parent and makes a suggestion that medication may be needed for a child to learn in the best way possible, the parent can then go to their family doctor to discuss both the risks and the benefits of these psychotropic drugs and make the choice themselves after weighing all of the options.

Parents are the only ones who should make the ultimate decision whether their child needs to be on medication. They should never be told that their child cannot attend school without being on a drug like Ritalin. H.R. 1170 gives the power to the parent when it comes to these choices.

Mr. Speaker, today I had the opportunity to do something that millions of Americans would love to do: I asked the Internal Revenue Service to account for the use of its taxpayer dollars.

Representing the Committee on Government Reform at the Joint Committee on Taxation's annual review of the Internal Revenue Service, I took part in what is an absolutely essential function of Congress: oversight and reform.

Too often, both Members of Congress and voters forget that this body is not here just to pass new laws and spend more money. We are here to review and to reform the programs that we have already created and the money that we have already spent on those programs.

In 2001, the Federal Government could not account for $17.3 billion, according to the Treasury Department. That is 17.3 billion taxpayer dollars.

The U.S. General Accounting Office, the GAO, has refused to certify the Federal Government's own accounting books because the bookkeeping is so poor, and 21 of the 26 departments and major agencies received the lowest rating possible for their financial management, meaning that auditors cannot even express an opinion on their financial statements.

Clearly, we are talking about significant sums of money. I think many of my colleagues would agree that when it comes to hard-earned taxpayer dollars, there is no such thing as insignificant waste. Congress must live up to its obligation to provide stronger financial management oversight for Federal programs that are costing us billions of dollars, and that is billions with a B, every single year.

I know that the Committee on Government Reform and Congress are committed to reducing waste, fraud and abuse of current programs. More importantly, we should take the time and effort not just to chase after losses, but to overhaul a system that allows so much waste, fraud and abuse to exist.

Mr. Speaker, last September the U.S. Census Bureau released figures that showed that the number of Americans who do not have health insurance has increased to more than 41 million Americans. Of those, 60 percent are employed by small businesses. We know that a great number of these small business owners do want to offer their employees health insurance coverage; but with health insurance costs rising 14.7 percent just in 2002 alone, they are struggling to meet this cost.

House Resolution 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, opens the door for small business owners, providing the chance to give their employees high-quality health insurance at an affordable price by allowing associations to form large regional or national groups that can purchase fully insured health insurance which would put growing businesses on a level playing field for larger corporations.

Those opposed to AHPs, as they are called, claim that they will allow ``cherry picking'' or selecting only employees that are young and/or healthy for coverage. In reality, this legislation prohibits an AHP from denying health insurance on the basis of health status. They must follow the same rules on portability, preexisting conditions, and nondiscrimination that large employers must follow.

This legislation also contains solvency provisions that protect employees against the risk of health claims. These health plans must certify through a qualified actuary that an AHP is financially sound.

To conclude, what businesses want is to offer health coverage to their workers. House Resolution 660 gives employers the ability to provide this coverage by allowing small businesses to band together as a trade association to become larger purchasers of health insurance. By saving small businesses, an estimated 15 to 30 percent, compared to the cost of purchasing coverage directly from an insurance company, associated health plans will give more Americans the health benefits they need to provide for themselves and for their families.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. For too long Federal law has failed to recognize what is obvious to so many Americans, that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, there are two human victims, not just one.

Already 26 States have enacted criminal penalties. Now Congress must lead a national effort to bring justice to criminals who would harm pregnant women and their children. To those who would perform these heinous acts, we should say we, as Americans, will no longer tolerate your callous disregard for human life and for the families that you devastate.

Mr. Speaker, this bill requires the Federal law recognize an unborn child as a victim if he or she is harmed during a Federal crime by letting the assailant be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child, the exact charge depending on degree of harm done to the child.

We should all take a moment and reflect on the profound loss and sorrow suffered by a family and their community when a new life is extinguished by an act of violence and let that thought guide this debate.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress can take action to give employees more options in how to manage their 401(k)s and other investment plans. H.R. 1, the Pension Security Act, includes important financial safeguards and new disclosure protections for America's workers. It will help ensure that employees receive the advice they need to plan and invest for their future, and it provides Americans the power they need and deserve to manage their retirement funds.

This bill helps American workers in three important ways: First, it provides companies with guidelines on how to advise workers about investing. To enhance investment plan protections, this bill requires that financial advisers let people know that they have the right to third-party advisers, enabling employees to get the advice that they need. Today we are giving employees the power to choose alternative advisers.

In addition, H.R. 1000 works to provide the educational tools for employees who are investing in the companies they are working for. It significantly improves an employee's access to information regarding their accounts by requiring that they be provided with quarterly statements. By educating America's workers on investing, they will be better able to plan for their own retirement.

Third, this legislation helps make it clear to employees that diversifying their investments is absolutely essential. Each quarterly statement will reiterate the point. Too many people are unaware of the risks they take by holding large portions of stock in a single company.

Most employers want to do right by their employees, but there are exceptions, either by accident or gross negligence. The tools of advice, education and diversification, all of which H.R. 1000 provides for, will enable employees to make informed decisions about their investments and their 401(k)s. This bill recognizes that no one will guard their financial future as well as they will do for themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This bill has a directed focus: Strengthening local participation and streamlining the current WIA funding process. The primary purpose is to achieve more efficient and results-oriented services for the program's participants. This is important because in the past the WIA system has been hampered by duplicative and redundant bureaucracy, preventing it from being as effective as it should be for retraining workers.

WIA provides workforce services in programs through One-Stop Career centers. These centers have several important goals. They offer information on jobs, provide education and training resources, and aid employee retention. Further, they train workers in occupational skills needed to get a job, or for those already employed the centers help workers acquire the skills necessary to move upward and on to higher paying jobs.

Last year alone over 30,000 Tennesseans enrolled for workforce investment services through 14 One-Stop Career Centers and the 55 affiliate sites located throughout the State. This bill strengthens the mission of these centers by playing a critical role in helping people who seek to improve their skills, their jobs, their careers and their incomes. It provides them with the tools and training necessary to be competitive in the 21st century workforce.

Further, it strengthens education programs by providing a way to enhance and refresh competency skills. It is my firm belief that with the employment services the centers provide, Tennessee workers will have access to the training needed to thrive in an ever-increasing technology-driven economy.