Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 81, final passage of H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. Please record that I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of the late Ira Albert Beach of Arkansas City Kansas, who passed away on February 3rd 2006.

Ira, known as ``Sonny'' to his friends, was a model American. Sonny was born without legs and with a deformed right arm. He spent the first years of his life in the Children's Hospital in Wichita, KS. After graduating from Winfield High School, he went on to junior college. At age 10, Sonny learned to drive a tractor with mechanical aides on his father's farm. Despite his disability, Sonny insisted on contributing to society with his work and his charitable ways.

Sonny paid his way through junior college by hauling five gallon milk cans around his neighborhood. After college he married and had four children. His motto was, ``If man made it, man could fix it.'' Sonny made a living insulating homes, doing construction work, operating heavy equipment and backhoes, and picking up dead animals from farmers all over Oklahoma and Kansas and delivering them to rendering companies. Eventually Sonny sought out a position at General Electric. After a 36 year career, he retired from GE as a jet engine inspector. Sonny also served as an accountant for an oilman in eastern Kansas. At one time Sonny owned and operated a garbage collection business. Sonny was well known as a generous man who had a positive attitude towards life.

Although Sonny was born disabled, he insisted that he was not handicapped. He refused to park in handicap parking, and insisted on never accepting any form of government benefit available to the handicapped or unemployed. Despite hardships Sonny Beach was

able to overcome obstacles, work in numerous careers, and raise four beautiful children who survive him today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gordon Roger Alexander Buchanan Parks and to extend my condolences to his family and friends on his death this week.

Mr. Parks was born in 1912 in Fort Scott, Kansas, where he also spent his childhood years. His life was an example of hope, tenacity, courage and accomplishment. He inspired many with thought-provoking photographs and images as seen through his lenses. He captured the poverty of many Americans, highlighted racism, and made us aware of people largely ignored.

He also captured inspiring images of beauty and courage that attested to the freedom of the human spirit. Mr. Parks was a man who found beauty nearly everywhere he went. His work told the story of freedom, of breaking boundaries and of hope in difficult times.

Freedom was, in Mr. Parks' own words, what his work was about. He helped African Americans gain new ground in their struggle for recognition of their civil rights. He helped make America aware of the gang wars within some of our urban cities. And he captured beauty wherever he saw it.

He brought to America many untold stories from other parts of the world, including his famous Life magazine account of Flavio da Silva, the young Brazilian boy suffering from tuberculosis. Like other works of Mr. Parks, his pictures elicited action. Approximately $30,000 was sent from readers to help bring Flavio to America where he was soon cured of tuberculosis.

Mr. Parks' success was not just in his numerous honors and awards for a lifetime of outstanding work as a photojournalist, author, film director, and musician, but also as an individual who triumphed over racism, poverty and a lack of formal education. Rather than lashing out in anger at the injustice he both experienced and witnessed though much of his life, he chose to challenge the status quo through his photography, his writings and his stories.

Kansans learned many important lessons from Mr. Parks. It took a lot of grace and courage for him to address the injustices of his past, and for that we are grateful. America needs more people who will strive to do good in the face of adversity. Our country and the world are a better place because of his example.

In 1986 Kansas honored Mr. Parks by naming him Kansan of the Year. Then in 1988, President Ronald Reagan awarded him with the National Medal of Arts. More recently, he received the University of Kansas' William Allen White Foundation National Citation for journalistic merit in 2006.

I hope the House of Representatives will quickly pass the resolution in honor of Mr. Parks sponsored by my Kansas colleague, Jim Ryun. It is appropriate that Congress acknowledge his life and many positive contributions to our country.

I hope the memory of Mr. Parks will live on for generations and that his family and friends will find solace in the legacy he leaves behind. May Gordon Parks rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, for yielding me time.

I want to just look at the facts that are presented as modified in the amendment. Now, Senator Roberts has been part of this, and I have deep respect for Senator Roberts from Kansas. He is a great American. He has served in the marines, and I think he makes clear sense. But what we have in this amendment says we want reported on ``any clandestine prison or detention facility currently or formerly operated by the United Stated Government, regardless of location, where detainees in the global war on terrorism are or were being held.''

Now, terrorism is something that we have tried to define, to be interpreted in current terms. But are we talking about terrorism in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam conflict or Operation Iraqi Freedom? It is not really clear in this piece of legislation.

I think if you visit Iraq and the facilities that we have to hold prisoners of war or enemy combatants or if you have visited Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, and the facilities we have there, I have been to both locations, and from my observation and my perspective as a Member of Congress from Kansas and the oversight that I have tried to conduct, we have conducted our incarceration of these people at a level that exceeds the Geneva Convention requirements. We have treated these people over and above those requirements so I am not really sure what I am trying to get to.

Even in Gitmo, or Guantanamo Bay, if these enemy combatants have tried to take their own life through starvation, we have gone over and above any requirements that are included in the Geneva Convention to keep these people alive. We even put them in the type of container so that we can give them food and nourishment to keep them alive. We have gone over and above.

So what we are trying to do, I think, in this language and with great respect to the gentleman from Missouri is something I think that goes beyond what we need to expose to public debate in order to keep this country safe.

We have tried to explain to the American public that we are going to do everything that is necessary to keep the American public from exposure to terrorist attacks. Part of that requirement says that we must take detainees, enemy combatants who have chosen to inflict harm on the American public, to a situation where we can get information from them to keep from further attacks occurring in America.

Now, in order to do that we have to put them in facilities, treat them with respect, give them access to any religious capabilities, but doing that in a fashion that we still keep them in a position where they can yield to us information that will keep Americans safe from attack from terrorists.

Now, this has gotten a great deal of public attention from headlines in the national media. Part of the problems that we face as Members of Congress is that we do not react to headlines, but react to proper policy. Headlines can be without substantiation. Headlines can be based on partial facts. Headlines can be based on things that are not complete in their basis of intention. So what we have to do is, as Members of Congress, is take out all of the problems that are taken through these headlines that are not related to the facts, move that aside, and base our decisions on the facts.

What we are trying to do is protect the American public, number one. Number two, make sure that we treat these people with respect who are enemy combatants. And, number three, remember the point that it is against the law in America, no matter where you are on the face of the globe, if you are an American citizen you cannot torture an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. It is against the law. If you do it, it is against the law. If it is a secret prison, whether they exist or not, it is against the law. If it is Gitmo, if it is Iraq it is again the law to torture anybody.

So to inform that we are doing that in some secret prisons and somewhere in Europe or in Asia or somewhere on the face of the globe is absolutely wrong because if you do commit torture as an American citizen, it is against the law.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the two points I want to make in conclusion are very clear. Number one, it is against the law to torture anybody. If you are held in detention as an enemy combatant or prisoner of war or even in our civil prison system, it is against the law to torture anyone. Number two, after my personal review of Guantanamo in Cuba and the prisons in Iraq, we have exceeded the requirement of the Geneva Convention. We have taken care of our prisoners better than the requirements in the Geneva Convention.

If you go to Guantanamo Bay today and you walk through the prison cells, you will see that we have indicated the direction of Mecca. We have given them the ability to have a Koran which is not touched by the hands of infidels. We give them all respect to their religion, to them as human beings. They are properly fed. We will not even allow them to starve themselves to death because we believe that it is more important to keep these people alive than it is to take their life because they are enemy combatants. We have gone over and above the requirements. And I think as Americans we should be proud of what our troops have done in containing these enemy combatants, in containing prisoners of war.

Wherever it is on the globe, we do not commit torture because it is against the law. We exceed the requirements of the Geneva Convention. So I think that this piece of legislation as modified from the Senate is not required. It is, I think, inefficient and it should not be voted into law. I think that what we have done is proper and within the law and with respect to all human beings on the face of the Earth.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the devastation we will cause by passing this small little act tonight. In fact, we are trying to further reform welfare and improve the system of delivery of the services and goods for those in our society who need them most.

Something that really surprises me, though, is there is really no plan from the other side. I have noticed in our hallways the Democrats' signs crying for action on the Federal deficit, but I have yet to see their plan to deal with the deficit.

Blue Dog Democrats have billboards in front of their offices declaring how much each family owes on the federal debt, but they have no plan to reduce it. There are more plans on the television show West Wing than the Democrats have here in the United States House of Representatives. There are more plans on the other political shows about how to deal with the problems of today, but we get no plans or help from the other side.

We need some Blue Dog Democrats that that will actually hunt. We need dogs with bite rather than a large bark. Right now all we hear is a lot of noise from the Blue Dogs, but there is no action and there is no plan. All we hear are complaints about trying to improve the system.

I will give you one quick example. In Kansas, Medicaid claims are only correct 3 out of 4 times. One out of 4 times the payment is inaccurate. We need to reform that system. You would not get on an airplane today if you had a 3 out of 4 chance of getting to your destination. You would not start a trip today if you had only a 3 out of 4 chance of getting to your destination. When we make a Medicaid payment in the State of Kansas, it is wrong 24 percent of the time. This legislation includes reform to help improve our Medicaid system, so those who are truly in need get the services they require.

But the other side doesn't want to do that. We need to pass this legislation, reform the welfare system, and do the right thing about the Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to light an issue that several of my colleagues on the subcommittee and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) feel should be a critical concern of the American taxpayer. I want to ensure that the IRS understands the intent of Congress that is stated in the report language of this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is it the chairman's understanding that the IRS is bound from setting up tax preparation services, and does the chairman agree that it is the intent of the subcommittee that the Treasury and the IRS must abide by the Free File agreement and not go into the business of preparing taxes for taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for addressing this important issue to the American taxpayer. If the IRS does deviate from this agreement, then we will seek to stop them through statutory language to prevent tax preparation originating within the IRS.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has a lot of passion; and when a lot of passion is embracing an issue, things are said that are very harsh and I think at times untrue.

Earlier we heard that there were quote/unquote dirty, nasty remarks against him, referring to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). No one is saying that about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has a great deal of respect on both sides of the aisle and across the Nation.

This resolution is very simple. It is expressing a sense of the House. It has three lines to it. It says: ``Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.''

We are in a war for the Free World, and I think part of what we have to do and understand is the enemy himself. Al Qaeda is not fighting for a religion. They are fighting for political power by using a religion. Their targets on Americans, Jews, secular Muslims, and other Islamists like Shiites and Sunni Muslims.

They have killed and maimed innocent men and women and children from many faiths and walks of life. Their goals are measured in steps that include Iraq and every country from Spain to the Philippines, all under one theocratic government.

They oppose the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to vote, women's rights, education for women, religious freedom. They oppose music, movies, even the right to choose your own clothing, your own education, even who gets to drive. They despise who we are and what we stand for as Americans. And it is spelled out on their Web sites, their videos, their cassette tapes. It is written in their material. It is on the laptops that we have captured, and it is undeniable.

Al Qaeda's goals are confirmed in a letter on July 9, 2005, from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zawahiri is the number two man in al Qaeda, the spiritual leader of Osama bin Laden, his advisor. Al-Zarqawi is al Qaeda's director of jihadist attacks. He has been in Iraq since before Operation Iraq Freedom.

In this letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's director of jihadist attacks, al-Zawahiri says, We have four goals. The very first goal is to expel Americans from Iraq.

If this resolution were to pass today, it would be headline news on al Jazeera TV. They would declare victory in al Qaeda, and it would jeopardize every American across the face of the globe. We have to decide where this battle is going to take place. Is it going to be in Iraq where every American carries a gun, or will it be on the streets of New York and Washington, D.C.

I say we vote this resolution down for the safety of our troops and our citizens.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

We have heard a lot about what devastation from this small little act we are going tonight to try to reform welfare and improve the system of delivering the services and goods to those who are truly in trouble in our culture.

One of the things that is surprising to me, though, is that there is really no plan on the other side. I have seen in the hallways of the office buildings that house Members of Congress offices hold billboards that are put up about the Federal deficit and how we must do something about the Federal deficit, but I have yet to see a plan to try to deal with the deficit that the Democrats themselves are complaining about.

Blue Dog Democrats, each in front of their office, have billboards that says the Federal deficit so much for each family to pay back, we have got to do something about it, but there is no plan. There are more plans on the television show West Wing than the Democrats have here in the United States House of Representatives. There are more plans on the other political shows about how to deal with the problems of today but we get no plans or help from the other side.

So what I think we ought to see here is some Blue Dog Democrats that are the type of dogs that will actually hunt. Dogs that we have some bite instead of the bark, because right now all we hear is a lot of noise and we don't have any action or plan. We are hearing complaining about how we are trying to improve the system.

I will give you one example quickly. In Kansas, delivering Medicaid is only correct three out of four times. One out of four times the payment is inaccurate. We need to reform that system. You would not get on an airplane today if you had a three out of four chance of getting to your destination. You would not start a trip today if you had only a three out of four chance of getting to your destination. When we make a Medicaid payment in the State of Kansas, our State government is wrong 24 percent of the time. This legislation has reforms in it to help improve our Medicaid system, so those who are truly in need get the services they require.

But we cannot do that according to the other side. We need to pass this legislation, reform the welfare system, and do the right thing about the Federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, the summer invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein in 1990 initiated one of the longest continual military mobilizations in our nation's history. Since then, our military has been continually engaged in the Middle East and other theaters. The attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001 have only served to expand the scope and increase the operational tempo and intensity of our armed forces.

For the past 15 years, our citizen-soldiers, found in the Reserves and Army and Air National Guard, have been increasingly mobilized and deployed. Since the Global War on Terrorism began in 2001, 433,000 members of the reserve component have been mobilized for active duty. These troops, like our active-duty force, risk their lives on the front-lines for our nation's security and freedom while being separated from friends and family. But unique to our National Guardsmen and Reservists, these deployments often involve year-long absences from civilian employment and a corresponding financial hardship.

National Guard and Reserve mobilization also has a dramatic effect on civilian employers. Across the nation businesses are losing their top employees to the call of national service. Despite the strain on their businesses, the vast majority of employers embrace this challenge with pride. Not only do they adhere to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, many businesses go above and beyond in support of their deployed employees and the families left behind. They deserve our nation's respect and thanks.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support House Resolution 302, sponsored by Mr. Pombo of California. This important resolution recognizes and commends the dedication and commitment of employers of the members of the National Guard and the other reserve components. I encourage this entire body to strongly support this resolution, along with the businesses and reservists it commends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005. This bill will provide for fair access to foster care maintenance payments by adding private for-profit agencies to the list of eligible recipients. Currently, State and non-profit agencies are the only therapeutic foster care providers eligible for this funding. Children with special medical, psychological, emotional, and social needs are the most vulnerable in the foster care system. Congress should provide strong support for all agencies willing to be involved in these fragile lives.

For children who enter foster care, separation from birth parents is traumatic, and separation from siblings who share a common history is a devastating, ultimately isolating loss. Since the 1980s, researchers have focused increasing attention on the importance of sibling ties. Siblings who are placed together have been known to transition more smoothly into new homes, and most researchers agree that attachments between siblings are critically important. In recent years, many states have taken action to help siblings stay together.

I am pleased to share with you an encouraging story of hope from my district. The Salvation Army chapter in Wichita, Kansas, conducts an annual birth family Christmas party and a summer picnic at Camp Hiawatha that provides an opportunity to reunite foster care children and their birth families. In addition to these annual events, the staff works with United Methodist Youthville to provide sibling visits a couple times a month. The foster care parents are required to make the connection for these visits with the foster child's siblings and/or parents.

In May of this year, there were 4,789 foster care children in the State of Kansas, and 542,000 in the country. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the average stay for a child in the foster care system is 33 months. About 44 percent of these children reunite with their birth parents. Over 50 percent of foster children become juvenile delinquents, and the same percentage does not complete high school. These statistics speak of the desperate need for a good and solid foster care system, and of the commendable work so many agencies and families are willing to do for these children. Children in the foster care system become the responsibility of us all and their lives are changed forever when Americans begin to take that responsibility personally. My colleague Congressman Tom DeLay has both fostered children and been involved with foster care programs for years and I commend his work on this issue.

I am proud to support this legislation that will increase the access and opportunity for therapeutic foster care for our Nation's children.

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, I missed rollcall vote No. 569. Rollcall vote No. 569 was on agreeing to the conference report making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the House of Representatives is again taking action to curb further abuse of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Ever since the infamous Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision in June, Kansans have voiced their strong opposition to this ruling.

I agree fully with my constituents that governments should not be given the authority to transfer private land from one owner to another for economic development purposes. Securing the right of individuals to own and manage their own property is provided for in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''

Every constituent who talks with me about this issue strongly believes the Supreme Court went too far when it said that a government can transfer private land from one owner to another if the second owner will supposedly generate more tax revenue. The court's decision does not pass the common sense test.

The court's flawed reasoning is precisely what the original Supreme Court, warned against at its inception in 1789 when it called eminent domain a ``despotic power.'' Unfortunately, we have been forced to respond to the 2005 Supreme Court's decision with legislation to deter future land grabs by greedy local governments.

The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4128, would deny federal economic development assistance to any State or local government that chooses to use the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

I strongly support H.R. 4128 and congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this important land-rights issue. I support the bill's passage and am hopeful the Senate will act quickly so we can get it to the President for his signature.

Americans have relied on constitutional protection against abusive land transfers from one person to another for more than two centuries. History reminds us that nations that disregard the rights associated with private property ownership disregard other fundamental rights of the citizenry.

We have recognized there are times when governments need to purchase private land to build a road or construct a school for use by the general public. Occasionally, this has to be done against a landowner's wishes. But our Founders believed only under extreme circumstances should property be taken from a land owner for the greater public good. The idea that a government would use its eminent domain power to take land from one private owner and transfer it to another land owner for economic development is an abuse of the public good definition.

H.R. 4128 will prohibit States and local governments from exercising eminent domain for

economic development, or for property that is subsequently used for economic development, if the State is a recipient of Federal economic development funds that fiscal year. If a State or local government is in violation of this provision, it would be ineligible for Federal economic development assistance for 2 fiscal years following a final judgment.

Many farmers in my district have expressed particularly how harmful this court ruling could be to them if a local government wants to take their land for development. Many farms have been in the same family for generations. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, a government could forcefully take all or a portion of the family farm so more tax revenue could be generated by a developer. This scenario is a real possibility that demands the Congress take action to prevent such an unjust land grab.

The same situation could arise for a house of worship or other non- profit organization. Entities that do not generate tax revenue are particularly vulnerable to land grabs by governments interested in generating more tax dollars.

Small businesses are also in support of this bill because it protects their property from being handed over to a larger company, or even a competitor. Small shop owners that may be struggling to survive would be an easy target for a local government. It is important we pass legislation that helps protect small businesses. H.R. 4128 does just that by alleviating the threat a local body could pose to small businesses when it comes to supposed economic development.

I look forward to seeing this bill passed and signed into law. Support for this bill is support for home owners, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, houses of worship and anyone who believes in private property rights.

Mr. Speaker, on November 3, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567 and 568.

Rollcall vote No. 562 was on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 563 was on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 564 was on agreeing to the Nadler amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote No. 565 was on agreeing to the Moran (VA) amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote No. 566 was on agreeing to the Turner amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote No. 567 was on agreeing to the Watt amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote No. 568 was on final passage of H.R. 4128. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on October 28, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 555 and 556.

Rollcall vote No. 555 was on agreeging to the conference report making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for thee fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 556 was on condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Children's Safety Act. We have heard heart-wrenching accounts of the devastating effects, both immediate and long-term, of sexual abuse and it is time we pass legislation that would help prevent further cases of abuse.

It is vital that sex offenders are required by law to report to law enforcement nationwide once they move residences. Our children are at risk when these felons are unaccounted for. With a National Sex Offender Registry in place and freely accessible to the public, American families will be safer and parents can further protect their children from sexual predators. We have heard of too many victims that suffered through the horrible acts of sexual abuse by a convicted sex offender who failed to update their registration with the sex offender registry. Too many times sexual offenders have moved out of state and left their hurtful past only to commit the same crimes. Too many times sexual offenders have been released from prison after serving a term for sexual abuse only to disappear because they were never forced to register. Too often parents have found out after the attack that a neighbor or friend has a history of sexual abuse.

The Children's Safety Act would give additional tools to our citizens and law enforcement to track offenders and prevent additional attacks. By expanding the coverage of sex offenders to include any felony sex offender and misdemeanor sex offenses and possession of child pornography, we will be giving our parents and our police the additional information so they are proactive on preventing sexual attacks. The Children's Safety Act also puts into law more common sense, that sex offenders should be forced to register before they are released from prison. And the Children's Safety Act allows states to increase the amount of information that they post on the Nation Sex Offender Registry so families and law enforcement officials can keep track of these predators.

I am disappointed that this bill was brought to the floor of the House with an amendment

expanding federal hate-crimes protections. I voted AGAINST this amendment, but supported the bill to further protect our children against sexual predators, under the assurance the ``hate crimes'' amendment would not survive the Conference between the House and the Senate as was the case last year with the Defense Department Authorizations Bill. The amendment would federalize local crimes if the suspected motive is animosity toward homosexuals or transgenders. While I strongly abhor bigotry and discrimination, hate-crime legislation would require the government to provide for more punishment for any given violent crime or physical assault simply because the government decided that the motive for the crime was more heinous than another. Every citizen must be afforded the same amount of protection and fairness provided for under the law; however, none must be given a ``special'' status. Individuals caught committing a crime must understand that conviction will be certain, sentencing will be swift and punishment will be severe--and now with the passage of the Children's Safety Act, sex offenders will be held to more strict punishment and limitation.

Ensuring the security of our citizens, and especially our children, should be the primary focus of government. The Children's Safety Act helps meet this entrusted obligation, and I am proud to cast my vote in support of this measure.