Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, an issue that concerns me a great deal has come before us here this evening. That subject matter is partial birth abortion.

Given that the Committee on the Judiciary marked up the Partial Birth Abortion Act last week and that it will be debated on the floor soon, I would like to bring our attention back to the fundamental principles and facts of the issue.

I have here a picture of an unborn baby 19 weeks old. Unborn 19- and 20-week-old boys and girls are often victims of partial birth abortion, though many abortionists will abort unborn babies up to 24 weeks old and older.

At 20 weeks old, this baby's body does not need to form new parts or develop new body systems. Instead, she will use the remaining time in her mother's womb to grow over the next 4\1/2\ months. She can dream, and she has REM sleep, just like you or me. At 20 weeks, she recognizes her mother's voice. Unborn babies, born prematurely at 21 or 22 weeks, can routinely be saved. Sometimes they can be saved even younger.

If we open up the phone book, we will find in the Yellow Pages, and particularly here in Washington, D.C., advertisements offering to abort unborn babies up to 24 weeks.

Many people recognize that this unborn baby's life should be protected. States have tried to outlaw these abortions, and many States have banned late-term abortion. But the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton created a mandatory loophole in all State laws that protect unborn children from abortion that allows abortionists to drive a truck through. The Supreme Court added an exception for the health of the mother to Georgia's law protecting unborn children that went far beyond an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother.

Here is what they said: ``We agree with the District Court that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors-- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and a woman's age-- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.'' That is a quote from the case.

Abortionists continue to get around State bans on late-term abortions by finding excuses and justifications relating to emotional, psychological, and familial health. However, they neglect entirely the health of the unborn baby and his or her physical, emotional, psychological, and familial well-being.

Dr. Warren Hern of Colorado, the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures, who also performs many third-trimester abortions, has stated: ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' Any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life, according to Dr. Hern.

Statements like those of Dr. Hern's that any pregnancy injures a woman's health underscore the need for a partial birth abortion ban at the Federal level. I hope Members will take my words to heart as we consider partial birth abortion and the right to life for all human beings, born and unborn.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise because something has been weighing on my mind since last week, and as I have watched the pressure in the streets of America and around the world, I thought I would observe the protests that were taking place a week ago last Saturday that gathered around the Washington Monument.

I walked around for an hour and a half amongst the people, and the mood was something like I imagine Woodstock was. But as I looked at the signs and I read the profanity, I began to try to sort the people out and what they believed in, and I saw the desecrated American flags in their ranks. There were quite a number of people there.

Then I went up to the White House for a little while and ended up down by Pershing Park on what I call the grassy knoll. I watched probably 50,000 people come streaming by that corner in what I would call a river of discontent. As I looked at the flags and the signs and I watched the people, I saw some things that, of course, I hope was not on television, if your children are watching, but I also saw Communist flags, socialist flags.

I had made the statement a couple of weeks ago that these people were anti-American and that you would not find a single undesecrated American flag in the bunch, but I looked closely through and found about a dozen. For every undesecrated American flag, and some of them were on their way to desecration, there were at least 10 others that were already desecrated marched through. There were probably 10 Palestinian flags for each American flag undesecrated.

The people sorted out into some categories as you watched them go by. Out-and-out Communists, proud and avowed socialists, radical fundamental Islamists, the angriest of the group by my opinion, and regular liberals and pacifists. I deal pretty well with the pacifists. They have a political opinion and a right to speak, as does anyone in this country constitutionally; but when it undermines our war effort, it concerns me greatly.

And so I left that sea of discontent thinking, well, I'll come back to Congress where it will be logical and it will

be reasonable and I can deal with people who have the best interests of America in mind. We entered into a debate last Thursday night, a simple resolution to support our troops. This is the Congressional Record of that debate that ran on until about 3 o'clock on last Friday morning and some of the things that I heard here are the kind of things that I would have expected to hear from the people that were in the middle of the street.

For example, the gentlewoman from California: ``I believed and still believe that diplomatic alternatives existed. The inspection process was working.''

That debate was over.

The gentleman from Washington said:

The leadership should be ashamed of bringing this

resolution to the floor. I for one will not be forced to

praise the President's reckless decisions. I cannot endorse

the administration's policy of unilateral military action

without international sanctions. This is a war of choice.

Unilateral military action with 47 nations signed on. I could go on and on. I have marked these in the book over and over again.

If you are on the front lines in Iraq, if you have volunteered to risk your life to protect the liberties of this great Nation and you see the discontent in the streets of America and around the world of people that cannot answer the simple question, has there ever been a just war, and they will not answer that question because they know that if they do, they will have to say the Revolutionary War was not a just one by their logic and they would be kneeling to a King George.

So we have George W. Bush President and a great one, one who has laid out a vision for this country. It is a vision that is in this document, this document that hardly anyone reads, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. I have gone through that and taken out some excerpts that I think are important that the public understand and know. This is policy that is being applied I believe today in Iraq:

We do not use our strength to press for unilateral

advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that

favors human freedom. The United States must defend liberty

and justice because these principles are right and true for

all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations and

no nation is exempt from them.

People everywhere want to be able to speak freely, choose

who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their

children, male and female, own property and enjoy the

benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right

and true for every person in every society, and the duty of

protecting these values against their enemies is the common

calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across

the ages.

That is our calling. It is a calling to end this war on tyranny at some point. It is a call to provide for the safety of the American people.

In conclusion, I would use these words from the President's State of the Union address January 28:

Americans are a free people who know that freedom is the

right of every person and the future of every nation. The

liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is

God's gift to humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to make English the official

language of the United States Government. The English language is the carrier of liberty and freedom throughout history and the world. For centuries, our common tongue, English, has been the uniting force in this great nation, knocking down ethnic and religious barriers to make us truly one nation. Today, as we rally for unity and patriotism a common means of communication propels us toward our goal.

The English Language Unity Act declares English the language of the United States. Like its predecessors, it does not affect the teaching and study of other languages. It does not deter the use of other languages in the home, community, church, or elsewhere. The Act includes commonsense exceptions to the policy, for international relations, national security, teaching of languages, and preservation of Native Alaskan or Native American languages.

A common language has enabled generations of Americans to realize the dream of American opportunity and freedom. Studies continue to prove those who know English get better jobs, earn more money and receive better health care than those who cannot speak the language. As a result, an emphasis on English decreases reliance on the federal government.

The need for official English appears in our newspapers every day-- injuries in the workplace, mistranslations at hospitals, people who are unable to support themselves and their families--all because they could not speak English.

Recognizing a common language is neither racist nor exclusionary. It is a principle enacted by 177 countries worldwide to allow for the transmission of ideas and customs and to allow people of multiple cultures to come together. This bill does not inhibit people from speaking other languages, nor does it attempt to place any limits on culture, religion or customs.

The Unity Act gives newcomers an opportunity to succeed in the United States. It bonds the newcomer with his fellow Americans, allowing both to reach for the highest rung on the economic ladder and provide for a family.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, those with limited English proficiency are less likely to be employed, less likely to be employed continuously, tend to work in the least desirable sectors and earn less than those who speak English. Annual earnings by limited English proficient adults were approximately half of the earnings of the total population surveyed.

Few doubt this reality. In a 1995 poll by the Luntz Research firm, more than 80 percent of immigrants supported making English the official language of the United States. They are joined by 86 percent of all Americans who agree with English as the official language of the United States.

Similar English legislation in the 104th Congress, H.R. 123, drew 197 bipartisan House cosponsors and won a bipartisan vote on August 1, 1996. That spirited effort, led by our late colleague Bill Emerson, is unfinished business that we must attend to for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that the following document, prepared by the national group U.S. ENGLISH, Inc. be inserted into the Record. This document is a compilation of news stories from major newspapers across the United States which highlights numerous incidents where the inability to speak English has resulted in very serious consequences.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor The English Language Unity Act of 2003 in the 108th Congress so that we can ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to attain the American dream.

Language Barrier Dangerous, Often Deadly, for Immigrants

The high rate of immigration to the United States is

rapidly changing the face of America, primarily due to the

massive numbers of limited-English speakers arriving daily to

our shores. There are 21.3 million people living here today

who do not speak English ``very well.''

Following are but a few recent snapshots of appalling

episodes that occur regularly in communities around the U.S.

Tragic situations like these can be averted if immigrants are

given every opportunity to learn English:

Philadelphia Struggles Under Language Barriers

Language has become a big problem in Philadelphia, with

about 65,810 Philadelphians, or 4.6 percent of the city's

population, being isolated by language barriers. Two recent

examples of linguistic troubles:

Elderly Russian-speaking residents were ``clueless'' after

being thrown out of their adult day care center because they

didn't understand recent eligibility changes that had been

sent to them in the mail and were written in English.

Dominican Republic shopkeepers couldn't meet requirements

of food inspectors because they didn't speak English.

(Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 25, 2002, originally reported by Scott

Flander)

Crash Caused by Language Gap

An accident on a state highway in New Hampshire was caused

when an English speaking passenger said, ``You're going to

take a left at exit 5,'' while trying to teach a Spanish

speaking driver how to operate a motor vehicle. The driver

proceeded to make a sharp left and collide with a tree. The

car was totaled, but both occupants escaped unharmed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time and also for his work on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of H.R. 5. Many of the people I represent in Iowa have to drive a long ways to see a doctor and even further to see a specialist. Thankfully, the health care access prices in Iowa may not be as severe as they are in some of the other States, and we have heard some of that this afternoon. However, I know that rural States like Iowa need to do everything they can do to improve access to health care.

Rising medical liability premiums due to lawsuits make it harder for doctors to stay in business and continue to see patients. As I said before, sometimes it is easier to sue a doctor than it is to see one. The health care access crisis hits rural Iowa hard because we have to drive further to seek medical attention. The people in my district cannot afford to lose a single OB-GYN or ER doctor to the rising medical insurance premiums; and if we do, our families will suffer.

Expectant mothers will have to drive further to see their obstetricians, accident victims will spend critical minutes and hours in transportation, seniors will have to drive further and sometimes will not receive the care that they need. Access is critical. The people I represent should not have to spend more time on the road than in a doctor's office.

The health care access crisis is further exaggerated in my district because we have the lowest reimbursement rate of the 50 States for Medicare reimbursement rates, and that means we have a thinner margin to play with.

I would point out also that, if the folks that are seriously opposing this bill were defending just the interests of the patients, we would have seen an amendment that would have waived contingency fees on noneconomic damages.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding, and it is a privilege for me to be here this evening to address this subject matter with my physician colleagues, of which we have many in the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. The rising cost of health care has become an unrelenting problem. As I have said before, it has become easier to sue a doctor than see one. When access to health care is jeopardized, patients suffer. Doctors are leaving practice, and emergency rooms are closing their doors because of the astronomical increase in malpractice insurance premiums.

Health care costs are rising faster than they have in a decade, largely because the medical liability system is broken. Americans spend more per person in the cost of litigation than any other country in the world.

Unrestrained escalation in jury awards is the primary cause of the emerging medical liability crisis. The median medical liability award jumped from $700,000 in 1999 to $1 million in the year 2000. That is a 43 percent increase. Today the average award is $3.5 million. Members can do the math on what that does to medical liability premiums.

As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have had an opportunity to mark up this legislation, which will grant better access to health care by fixing some of the broken medical liability systems that are driving doctors out of business. H.R. 5 is an effective bipartisan bill. It allows for unlimited economic damages such as medical expenses and loss of earnings. But it establishes a reasonable limit on noneconomic damages, commonly referred to as ``pain and suffering.'' It also factors in degree of fault, eliminating the incentive to look for the deep pockets that makes one party unfairly responsible for another's negligence.

It is modeled after California's liability reform law passed in the early 1970s, which stabilized the State's medical liability insurance market and increased patient access to care and saves more than $1 billion a year in liability premiums.

The MICRA Act was passed nearly 30 years ago; and in all that time Congress has sat back and watched its success, while at the same time watching the health care crisis grow across the Nation.

Last year the House passed legislation identical to H.R. 5, but the Senate refused to act. With 18 States facing severe patient access crises, and my own State of Iowa showing problem signs, it is time that we take some action. In Iowa's case, we do not have room to spare. We sit last in Medicare reimbursement rates, and we are 50th out of the 50 States. It is a long ways up to 49. Our margin is very, very slim. Additionally, though, we have been able to improve the quality of our care, but access is a critical issue. Many of our health care services have gone out of State because of our low Medicare reimbursement rate; and with the additional cost of premium and the distance between people, it is critical that we pass H.R. 5.

This measure will help our struggling rural hospitals increase availability of medical services and lower health care costs. We need to do more to lift the burden of rampant, frivolous litigation off the backs of the American people; and this is a good start.

My daughter-in-law, Heather, is in medical school now and plans to build a future in the profession that many of my colleagues have chosen. The decision for her is can she withstand the rising cost of malpractice premiums.

Last weekend, I caught a ride on a plane back to Iowa. I happened to sit across the aisle from an OB-GYN with her baby on her lap. And in the 3 years she has practiced in this region, her premiums have gone from $10,000 to $60,000 per year. We hear higher numbers, but I do not know if I have heard a higher percentage increase, and that is with no claims against her practice.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill with great faith that it will be a significant first step for this Congress to address the impending health care crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.J. Res. 27, commending and expressing the gratitude of a grateful Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces, and particularly the members from the State of Iowa, which has a long history of combat in every single major battle that has taken place since 1846, when Iowa became a State.

Mr. Speaker, Iowa has 16 National Guard bases simply in just the Fifth District of Iowa, and many of those men and women are off now, away from their jobs and family, making their sacrifices and meeting their commitment as they volunteer alongside our full-time members of the Armed Services.

Iowans have suffered greatly over the years in defending our freedom and our

liberty. In particular, the small but mighty town of Red Oak, Iowa, which suffered the highest number of fatalities in combat in World War II on a per capita basis of any community in the United States of America. They were called together one night as a community to receive the announcement as a community that they had lost 20 members of that small community in one single battle in World War II.

That is the level of commitment that Iowa has had from all of its people in supporting our military, and we have strongly supported the members of our Armed Forces. Also, during the Civil War, our percentage of losses as a percentage of the population overall were higher than any other State in the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the members of this Nation also that our President made a statement the other day in which he said there is only one person that orders our Armed forces into battle, and that is the one who hugs the widows and widowers of those who do not come back home. We also understand that is the same person who hugs the widows and widowers of those lost in the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, and from the crash in Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, while only one person orders them into battle, we all pray for their safety and their safe return.

Our Armed forces are a vanguard for freedom, and the sacrifices they give give hope to all people. There is no training and no equipment too good for our Armed Forces, and I stand here in great appreciation to Iowans and Americans who are defending our freedom and our liberty.

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 4, my voting card did not function properly. Had it worked properly, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against: