Robert Aderholt

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the many Veterans who live in north Alabama, and of the many men and women who are currently serving in the armed forces. I am honored to be a guest Saturday of The Gadsden-Etowah Patriots Association, who are currently raising funds for a new outdoor museum. This museum will be a valuable addition, a way of celebrating the American way of life and the blessings of being part of a community. It is also a means of teaching young people that the freedom we enjoy has come at a price. I commend the President of the association, Andy Chaffin, and the members whose teamwork is making this memorial a reality. Memorial Day brings to mind the opportunity to lay flowers at monuments and at graves. It is also, however, an opportunity to thank veterans who are still with us, such as General Clarence Rhea, Congressional Medal of Honor winner Olan Mize, and State of Alabama Veterans Association Representative Rick Vaughn. Although the date and location of the first Memorial Day is disputed, I am just grateful each year for the opportunity to pause and reflect on the gift of freedom bestowed upon us by our veterans.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on the policy of launching U.S. satellites with Chinese missiles, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger says, ``The telecommunications industry has a tremendous need to put satellites up into the air, and that exceeds the launch capacity of the United States.'' It is shameful that this administration's answer to the problem was a transfer of dangerous missile technology to a Communist government which has 13 nuclear missiles aimed at us. I encourage the President to review his budget and that he work with Congress to increase funding for U.S. missile and space launch research. Defense is not an option. The space program is not a luxury. The United States is the greatest technological and manufacturing nation in the world. Let us build U.S. rockets to launch U.S. satellites and spend what is necessary to maintain our Nation's defense. Finally, all Americans need to see this administration cooperate fully with the committee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) so that we can have a full accounting of the damage already done to our national security.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, tritium production is necessary for our national defense; and it is certainly reasonable to select the safest, most economical source of production. The Markey amendment which we have discussed today would force the Department of Energy to select an unproven accelerator option that is three times the cost of proven commercial lot water reactor technology. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste opposes the Markey amendment, and with good reason. Should the accelerator option not perform well or suffer delays in development, the government could be forced to purchase a light-water reactor in addition to the accelerator in order not to hamper our national security. We can safely spend $1.8 to $2 billion on a commercial light-water reactor or risk $4 billion to $6 billion on the accelerator option. Unless the Markey amendment is removed, I must vote against the en bloc amendments and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and all the other Members of this House and this body who have worked to fight against the persecution of people of faith throughout the world. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, because I believe that we can no longer ignore the cruelty of some government authorities around the world that has been directed towards people whose only crime is faith in God. We must not forget that there are those who are suffering in other countries; people are being tortured, enslaved, and killed for their beliefs. This bill will send a clear and resounding message that the United States does not support this violation of human rights and religious freedom. Abraham Lincoln, the President who is probably best noted for his work to free those who were enslaved and mistreated, once said, ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it.'' If enacted into law, this bill will impose immediate sanctions on those countries that have mistreated and abused Christians and people of other faiths, time and time again. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1872 which would open the international satellite market to full competition and encourage the long-overdue privatization of Intelsat and Inmarsat. H.R. 1872 is a good bill, and it has been endorsed by a wide variety of concerned citizen groups, including Americans for Tax Reform, which notes that ``this bill will lower the costs of satellite communications to government--money that would otherwise come out of the pockets of hard-working Americans.'' And if saving the American taxpayer money is not in and of itself sufficient reason to vote for H.R. 1872, Americans for Tax Reform also correctly notes that we should be trying to expand the reach of the free market, not letting United Nations-like organizations and state- owned foreign telephone companies keep U.S. firms from gaining access to foreign markets. H.R. 1872 would solve these problems and get the government out of the way so that America's telecommunications and aerospace industries can provide new and innovative services to consumers around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1872.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the Committee on the Judiciary study the situation in DeKalb County, Alabama, which has occurred as a result of Judge DeMent's ruling. I do not object to the unanimous consent at this time, but I would like to ask that that be studied.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I have come to the House floor to call for an end to the unlimited power of Federal judges to legislate from the Federal bench and then send State and local taxpayers the bill. I want to make certain that Federal judges like some in Alabama, like Judge Ira DeMent, so they cannot use the people's hard-earned tax dollars for things like court-appointed prayer monitors and sensitivity training for teachers on how to keep prayer out of schools. In Dekalb County, Alabama, which I am privileged to represent, the Fourth Congressional District, Judge DeMent has been decided to be a legislator and appropriate from the Federal bench. He ordered county school funds that should be going to the classrooms to go to pay for court-appointed monitors who will go into the schools and to make sure that there is no prayer. Although I disagree with Judge DeMent's ruling, there may be some here today who agree with it, but when a Federal judge has free rein to take control and take local school funds away from local officials and then use them to pay for whatever he deems necessary, that is going too far. We need to have checks and balances. Our Nation was founded on this principle, and unfortunately we have drifted far away from this. Taxation without representation has been a cause for revolt in this country since the beginning of the American Revolution, and we are still fighting this battle today. This amendment that I am offering today would re-insert and clarify the original language in section 5 of H.R. 1252 to ensure that certain criteria are met before the courts can disburse existing local and State taxpayer dollars in constitutional cases. The underlying bill has stated that a judge must meet certain criteria in order to raise or assess taxes. My amendment will give Federal judges the same pause for thought before using existing State and local revenues in constitutional cases. This amendment does not say a Federal judge can never use State and local funds, it merely states that before he acts he must make sure that he is doing the right thing. An unelected official should not be allowed to impose a tax on the people without first giving careful consideration to their actions. Likewise, if a Federal judge takes away local resources to enforce a ruling, especially in constitutional cases, there need to be protections built into the system to ensure that judges do not overstep their bounds and make decisions that are clearly out of the scope of their authority. Using existing funds collected from honest taxpaying citizens for purposes that a judge who has clearly over stepped his bounds, they should be prohibited, and that is what my amendment aims to do. I urge my colleagues to put a stop to the court systems in America that are running amok and vote in favor of my amendment to H.R. 1252.

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. I commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work in crafting legislation that meets the transportation needs of this nation. For the last six years Alabama has received an average of $330 billion per year for transportation. When this bill becomes law Alabama will receive $552 billion per year. This will mean a 67% increase and brings a level of fairness for Alabama since we have been getting the short end of the stick on transportation funding. Fairness in this process is crucial to ensure our roads and bridges are as we move into the 21st Century. However, I am most pleased with the creation of a specific category for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) for the first time. The Fourth Congressional District of Alabama contains very few miles of four lane highways. Unfortunately, the Interstate Highway System did not include a route to connect Birmingham, Alabama with Memphis, Tennessee. This is an unacceptable omission from the Interstate Highway System Thankfully, the Appalachian Development Highway System includes Corridor X which will connect these two cities, and runs through North Alabama, In addition, the system includes Corridor V which connects with Corridor X in Alabama and runs through North Alabama to Chattanooga, Tennessee is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Category funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System is crucial to expedite completion of these two highways. Traditionally, the Appalachian Development Highway System has had to rely on the annual appropriations process. Corridor X and Corridor V fared well in some years, but other years they received little, if any funds. This made it difficult for long term planning and has needlessly delayed completion of both highways. In fact the Appalachian Development Highway System is only 78% complete while the Interstate Highway System is 99% complete. Category funding ensures a stable source of funding that will complete the corridors in Alabama and throughout the thirteen states of Appalachia. I urge all Members to move this bill to Conference so we can complete this process before we lose additional time during the annual construction season.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for his leadership on the issue of Medicare coverage for venipuncture. Since Christmas, I have received hundreds of letters and numerous phone calls at both my home and office on home care and the health of our elderly. Most of these people calling and writing are scared. They are afraid for themselves and for their loved ones. Why are they afraid? Because the recently passed Balanced Budget Act will change their lives in a way that could be devastating. This change in coverage under Medicare for a service known as venipuncture or, more simply, the drawing of blood, was made without even a score from the Congressional Budget Office. No hearings were held; no specific clinical examples were used. We are being told that this will not have a strong impact on the lives of those who receive this service because they can qualify in some other way for venipuncture services. But what if they cannot? What if even a handful cannot get the services they need anymore? People could die. People could actually die if we are not sure about the impact of this change which became effective last week. In the court system in this country the jury must have evidence that can leave no reasonable doubt of guilt to make a decision. How can we sentence our seniors to this harsh change if we do not have assurance that they will be protected from harm? For this reason I have introduced H.R. 3137, the Medicare Venipuncture Seniors Protection Act, which will delay the implementation of this legislation for 18 months, giving us more time to study the impact of this change in coverage on our elderly and frail. This bill will also request specific information from Health and Human Services on the hardships of those in rural areas and what they will endure due to the effect of this new law. I fear that those who recommended this change were thinking more of places like New York City than rural parts of Alabama, West Virginia and Texas, where people may not be physically able to get to a doctor's office or to have their blood drawn. This small 29-word provision that was inserted into the Balanced Budget Act rather hastily did not take into account the situation of States like Tennessee, for instance, where under their State law lab technicians by law cannot leave the health care facility, leaving any home-bound person truly in need of venipuncture with very limited options. We are all in favor of cutting out waste, fraud and abuse, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater by punishing the elderly and the frail who have come to depend on these services. Waste, fraud and abuse in a Medicare system that has just been saved from the brink of bankruptcy cannot be tolerated, but a truly home-bound elderly Medicare recipient should not be punished for the fraud their health care provider is engaged in. I ask my colleagues to join with me in fighting to protect our seniors.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject matter of my special order.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, last week on February 4th during Roll Call Vote No. 7, on H.J. Res. 107, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the record reflect this.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Medicare Venipuncture Seniors Protection Act. This bill will delay the implementation of a section in the Balanced Budget Act which changes the Medicare coverage for venipuncture, or the drawing of blood. By delaying the implementation of this provision for 18 months, we will be able to study the impact of this change on the elderly and the frail more closely. I fear that, without closer examination, we may make a rash decision which could be devastating to the health care needs of many of our country's seniors. I fully support eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse from the Medicare program, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the answer, and that is exactly what the change in venipuncture coverage may do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in fighting to make sure that our seniors are protected during this change and that no one who depends on this home health care service is left out in the cold.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Col. Andrew Chaffin, chairman of the Selection Committee of the Gadsden-Etowah Patriots Association, as well those who are members of this association, and those who participated in the induction ceremonies yesterday, November 12, 1997. I salute the great American patriots, Lt. Gen. Clark Griffith, Peter Gregerson, Charles Nelson, John Udaka, and Hazel Brannon Smith who were inducted into the Patriots Hall of Honor. I add my voice to yours in gratitude to these people for their lives of service. Last week we celebrated the contributions that veterans have made for our country. Veterans Day, with its related events, means many things. It is an opportunity to say thank you to those who are presently serving in our Armed Forces, and an opportunity to honor both the veterans who are with us and those who have passed away. Finally, it is an opportunity to celebrate our communities and this great Nation, a time to thank God for our past, our present, and to ask His guidance and blessing on our future. Memorials are important. When times are good, it is easy for us to forget that our present peace comes at a price. If it were not for the sacrifices made by veterans, we would not now be free. The same values and goals that were fought for in the past are still worth fighting for today. In Washington, we have recently passed legislation that honors and protects veterans. The House of Representatives passed the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997. It significantly increases penalties for persons convicted of vandalism at a veterans cemetery. This has been sent to the President's desk for his signature, and I urge him to sign this important legislation. The House also passed a bill to create a constitutional amendment protecting the flag from physical desecration. We are now waiting for the Senate to take action. I feel very strongly about free speech, but protecting the flag does not harm free speech. Again, I salute the Gadsden-Etowah Patriots Association, and the five American patriots who were honored at the Twenty-Second Annual Patriots Day celebration.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues a question. What exactly are we waiting for? What trade practice? What military threat? What human rights atrocity will finally move us to take a stand against the policies of the Chinese Government? America fought a war to end slavery, yet we wink at the sale of human body parts. We stand in line at the Holocaust Museum, yet we also line up to make deals with a government that murders Christians and Buddhists. We had sanctions against South Africa, yet we extend MFN to China. Why? No one has a stronger desire to see U.S. businesses flourish, but profit comes at a price. If it costs a little more to make a product in the United States, I will gladly pay the difference. History will judge us harshly if we fail to take a stand. I urge Members to vote for the Cox package and to support H.R. 1865, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my serious concerns about H.R. 2644. I have heard from many folks in my district who work in the textile industry who oppose this bill in its present form. I have also been contacted by some, such as Fruit of the Loom, who support the Senate version and are hopeful that passage of H.R. 2644 will be a step toward enacting a fairer version of free trade for the Caribbean region. Which brings me to my concern about H.R. 2644 being brought up under the Suspension Calendar. I believe that this bill in its present form raises too many concerns, and that these concerns would be better addressed if H.R. 2644 was to be brought to the floor with a rule allowing the necessary changes to be made. H.R. 2644 in its present form will unilaterally provide Caribbean and Central American countries parity with Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. I fear that this legislation would inflict further damage on our Nation's textile and apparel industries, which have lost 250,000 jobs since 1994. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the premise of this legislation, that Caribbean-Central American countries have been harmed by NAFTA, is erroneous. While U.S. employment, particularly in the apparel industry, is plummeting, apparel imports from Caribbean-Central America are surging. The U.S. textile industry should not be subject to the same upheaval the apparel industry had to go through under NAFTA. Simply put, it is bad economic and trade policy to grant countries unilateral, free access to the U.S. market without obtaining reciprocal access to foreign markets. I support free trade--but in the end--it must be fair trade.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Pastor Billy Robinson and everyone involved with the ``We Want America Back'' rally on October 23, 1997. Over 700 people were there to stand up for the traditional values that made this country great. It is important to note that the mayor of Jasper, Don Goetz, remarked that it was the biggest crowd ever at the Sherer auditorium. It is also noteworthy that this was not a political rally, or a denominational rally. It was an opportunity for people to stand up for what is right. In fact, it was the many people from different denominations and both political parties joining together that made this rally so successful. Although I could not attend in person due to my official duties in Washington, I strongly support the efforts of those I represent to improve the moral climate in this country today, and reassert the vital importance of traditional values. I look forward to continuing to work in support of this cause.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2169, the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1998. Chairman Frank Wolf and Senate Chairman Richard Shelby have worked hard to ensure the transportation infrastructure needs of the country are adequately funded. Funding for surface transportation in this bill has been increased by 20 percent and includes $300 million for the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS]. Funding for the ADHS will help expedite completion of corridor X and corridor V which run through the Fourth Congressional District, that I am privileged to represent. Corridor X is the proposed four-lane superhighway that will connect the cities of Memphis, TN and Birmingham, AL. It is an unthinkable omission from our National Highway System that there is no four-lane route between these two important cities in the Southeast. Corridor V is the proposed highway that begins east of Tupelo, MS, and runs through northern Alabama to Chattanooga, TN. Once completed, this highway will increase economic activity in northern Alabama and provide an important link with corridor X. Traditionally, the entire ADHS has been without a stable and significant funding source and this has resulted in the completion of only 78 percent of the corridors. By contrast, the Interstate Highway System is 99 percent completed. The $300 million provided in H.R. 2169 is a giant step in the right direction for ADHS, corridor X and corridor V. In addition, President Clinton and the Congress have both submitted legislation to reauthorize the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] that include a specific funding category for the ADHS. While there are numerous disputes over funding formulas and overall funding levels in that debate, I am hopeful that whatever version to reauthorize ISTEA becomes law includes a specific category for ADHS. With a steady, stable source of funding, we can ensure that the transportation infrastructure of the Appalachian region is ready to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Once again, I commend Chairman Wolf and Chairman Shelby for their hard work and look forward to working with them next year to build on this year's success.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1122 as amended by the Senate. This bill would help to fight what Pope John Paul recently called an abominable crime and the shame of humanity--the crime of abortion. On the Pope's recent visit to Brazil he asked, ``How many times did we hear Mother Teresa's lips proclaim the priceless value of life from the moment of conception in the maternal womb? Death has silenced those lips, but Mother Teresa's message in favor of life continues to be more vigilant and convincing than ever.'' It is my belief that our creator will not hold this Nation guiltless for our contribution to the killing of the unborn. Indeed, the Bible tells us in Proverbs that God hates ``hands that shed innocent blood.'' Certainly, there can be none more innocent than the unborn. And this procedure is particularly horrific. It has been called the closest thing to infanticide. I will not go into the gruesome details of this procedure but I believe that it is telling that many who support abortion on demand, do not support this procedure. There are few moral questions that come before this body that are more clear-cut and simple than this one. The question we will vote on today is whether your support a method of abortion that involves partially delivering a baby and then killing it, or do you support allowing a newborn to live. Pure and simple. I am proud to stand today with those who support life. I urge my colleagues to honor the words of the Pope and Mother Teresa by supporting life--and to vote in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I am truly struck by the volume and breadth of passion displayed by our liberal friends on the other side. Their compassion and zeal for campaign finance reform is touching, to say the least. And when they chant over and over ``the system is rotten to the core,'' I am really impressed. But then I started thinking, something that liberals never want people to do. I started thinking about the system. And you know what, Madam Speaker? Liberals created the system we have. For liberals to come to the floor and bemoan the system is just a little misplaced and more than a little insincere. Madam Speaker, liberals realize the trouble the White House and the DNC are getting into, and they know they have been sold out. The liberals do not want campaign finance reform, they want to change the subject.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak out against an increase in pay for Members of Congress. The Federal Government is still spending more than it takes in. Despite the fact that we have passed the historic balanced budget bill which will balance the budget by 2002, until that date, we are still adding to the national debt that we will pass on to the next generation of Americans. I believe to allow a pay raise for Members of Congress at this point in time is not the responsible thing to do. Congress should not be increasing its pay while we have such a large national debt, especially when we are adding to that debt every day. This is one reason I am cosponsoring H.R. 632, the Balance the Budget First Act of 1997, introduced by Congressman Jon Christensen. This legislation not only repeals the automatic pay increase for Members of Congress, but it also expresses the sense of the Congress that pay of Members of Congress should not be increased until the Federal budget has been balanced. I appreciate that under current law, the pay increase for Members of Congress is tied to the pay increase for the Federal judiciary. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2517, introduced by my colleague from Alabama, Congressman Bob Riley. This legislation, like H.R. 632, would eliminate the automatic pay increase only for Members of Congress, not for members of the Federal judiciary. I hope that we will have the good sense to listen to the American people and prevent this pay increase for Members of Congress.

Mr. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against an increase in pay for Members of Congress. The Federal Government is still spending more than it takes in. Despite the fact that we have passed the historic balanced budget bill which will balance the budget by 2002, until that date, we are still adding to the national debt that we will pass onto the next generation of Americans. I believe to allow a pay raise for Members of Congress at this point in time is not the responsible thing to do. Congress should not be increasing its pay while we have such a large national debt, especially when we are adding to that debt every day. This is one reason I am cosponsoring H.R. 632, the Balance the Budget First Act of 1997, introduced by Congressman Jon Christensen. This legislation not only repeals the automatic pay increase for Members of Congress, but it also expresses the sense of the Congress that pay of Members of Congress should not be increased until the Federal budget has been balanced. I appreciate that under current law, the pay increase for Members of Congress is tied to the pay increase for the Federal Judiciary. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2517, introduced by my colleague from Alabama, Congressman Bob Riley. This legislation, like H.R. 632, would eliminate the automatic pay increase only for Members of Congress, not for Members of the Federal Judiciary. I hope that we will have the good sense to listen to the American people and prevent this pay increase for Members of Congress.