Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Eighth District of Texas. We have had many homes and businesses destroyed in Tropical Storm Allison. Let me tell the Members, the last thing people in Houston need are politicians trying to score points off our misery. That is exactly what we have heard here today. I am 100 percent certain, and FEMA is 100 percent certain, that there is today and will continue to be sufficient funding within our Federal aid and FEMA to ensure disaster aid to victims of Tropical Storm Allison. My colleagues in Congress who are using scare tactics to needlessly heap even more misery onto the families and businesses harmed by Allison ought to be ashamed of themselves. The only debate is whether Congress will fund future FEMA emergencies, future FEMA emergencies out of this bill now, or within the FEMA budget that will be taken up in a few short weeks. I believe that playing petty politics when people's lives have been destroyed is absolutely despicable. My advice to my friends on the other side is to knock it off. Let us work together for the sake of our State and communities. Let us stop pointing fingers. Let us join hands, Republicans and Democrats alike, to help those in our Houston region, the Texas Medical Center, our families, and our businesses that desperately need help today, and to knock off the politics and stop trying to score points off their misery.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). This is truly a unique time in the history of our Nation's military. The time of the National Guard being used solely for the purpose of missions within the U.S. borders is over. That is not to say the Guard does not play a vital role in our domestic situation, such as the flood recovery in my home area of Houston from the Storm Allison. In fact, and thank goodness, nearly 400 Guard members were called to active duty to assist the victims, my neighbors, in this devastation. But that is not all they do. With the decreasing size of our active duty military, the role of the National Guard has never been more important. All too often we forget about the important service our Guard units play in protecting our Nation's interests abroad. Last year in February, National Guardsmen began pulling active duty overseas for the first time since the Korean War. And, for the first time since American soldiers went to Bosnia in late 1995, an Army National Guard unit performed the headquarters function and provided the true component for the peacekeeping mission there. Madam Speaker, I am proud that the approximately 750 men and women who served in this precedent-setting mission were from the Texas 49th Armored Division, the Fighting 49th of the Texas National Guard, also known as the Lone Star Division. This unit returned home in October of last year following an 8-month peacekeeping duty in Bosnia. I had the pleasure of enjoying Easter Sunday services with our troops in Bosnia. I cannot tell my colleagues how impressed I was with the dedication and the professionalism and their dedication to the mission, our country, and their families. This resolution today also hits home because one of my staff people, David Drake McGraw, will be commanding the Alpha Troop of the Maryland National Guard when it is deployed to Bosnia in a few months. My office is dealing with the same challenges as thousands of other employers across our country when employees, key employees are deployed as part of these units. Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that it is not easy, but it is worthwhile. The sacrifice members of the National Guard make each year in order to serve their country through the military is in addition to working full-time jobs. It is great and must not be forgotten. I am proud of Drake, not only for his outstanding service to the residents of my district of Texas, but also for the sacrifice and service to our Nation. Captain McGraw serves in the Maryland Army National Guard. His unit, the first of the 1/58 Cavalry, will be going to Bosnia on September 18 for about 7 months. He will be leaving behind his wife, Barbra and his young son, David. It is important to remember the sacrifice they are making while Drake is serving his country. Madam Speaker, it is for these reasons that I proudly support this resolution.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and outstanding Texan, Mr. Elmer Beckendorf. This Saturday, June 16, 2001, Elmer a member of the North Harris Montgomery Community College District Board of Trustees will receive the Association of Community College Trustee's Regional Trustee Leadership Award. His commitment to public service and above all his dedication and support for education earned him this rightly deserved honor. Born December 14, 1921 in Harris County, Texas, Elmer is a fifth generation resident of Harris County, Texas. He graduated from Addicks High School and attended the University of Houston. During World War II, Elmer served in United States Army Signal Corp attached to the Air Force installing and maintaining radio equipment providing communications for an Air Force Fighter Wing in the Pacific area of operations, Okinawa and surrounding areas. After the war, he returned to Texas where he married Dorothy Heldberg. They have three children, six grandchildren and two great grandchildren. In 1954 Mr. Beckendorf formed E.L. Beckendorf and Sons, Inc., an independent dairy farm. Elmer Beckendorf has been a true leader in his community, having served on public boards for 47 years. He has served on the North Harris Montgomery Community College District (NHMCCD) Board of Trustees for sixteen years including two two-year terms as chair and two two-year terms as vice chair. During his service, the college district has grown from two campuses serving four school districts to four, soon to be five, comprehensive campuses and six educational centers serving nine school districts in a 1400 square mile area with a population of over 1 million citizens. He was elected to and has served on the Tomball Independent School District Board of Trustees for 22 years, holding various offices including president during Civic organizations on which he has served include the Tomball Regional Hospital Authority Board of Directors, member since 1975, chairman since 1982; the Cypress Creek Branch of Greater Houston YMCA, board member 1975-1986 receiving the Volunteer of the Year in 1979; the Rotary Club of Tomball, member 1955 to present; the Greater Tomball Chamber of Commerce member since 1975 receiving the Citizen of Year in 1979; the Texas Forage and Grassland Council, Charter member, 1979 to present and President from 1981-1984; the Houston Milk Producers Federal Credit Union as an Officer of the board for 29 years; the Association of Community College Trustees as a Lifetime member; the Dairy Shrine Club as a Lifetime member and the Tomball Future Farmers of America as an Honorary Chapter Farmer. Additionally, Elmer Beckendorf has been a champion of education supporting and leading initiatives in the area of economic development, workforce development and K-16 partnerships. With his support, NHMCCD has established Center for Business and Economic Development (CBED), a center focused on economic development initiatives and workforce development needs of our region. His support for K-16 partnerships, initiatives and agreements has led to the seamless flow of curriculum, program and services from public school through community colleges and universities. The Association of Community College Trustees could not have picked a more outstanding person for this award. Elmer Beckendorf is a very special person and one who exemplifies the true public citizen willing to give tirelessly of himself in order that others may benefit. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives and the citizens of the 8th Congressional District of Texas, I offer our warmest congratulations.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the students and faculty of Magnolia Junior High School of Magnolia, Texas to Washington, DC. I would also like to recognize the students from Maywood Middle School who are visiting with them from my colleague, Congressman Doug Ose's, district in California. These students have traveled over great distances to enjoy the many national museums and learn the significance behind the many historic monuments that are in this great city. I would like to wish them all the best and hope they relish this tremendous educational opportunity.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his delighted friends and neighbors in The Woodlands, Texas, and all the constituents of the 8th Congressional District of Texas, I rise today to proudly congratulate Thomas E. White on becoming the 18th Secretary of the Army. Rebuilding America's national security for the 21st Century is a top priority for President George W. Bush. Seeking vision, executive leadership, and Army experience, our President chose wisely in his nomination for Secretary of the Army--as did the United States Senate in confirming Secretary White. This Detroit, Michigan native will lead a dedicated work force of more than one million active duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve soldiers who, with the support of 270,000 civilian employees, proudly comprise the U.S. Army today. As the former Chairman and CEO for Enron Operations Corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, Secretary White now holds the responsibility for all matters relating to Army manpower, personnel, reserve affairs, installations, environmental issues, weapons systems and equipment acquisition, communications, and financial management. The seriousness and respect with which he approaches this awesome responsibility was reflected during his Senate confirmation hearings when he stated, ``Taking care of people is a sacred duty I will bear if confirmed as Secretary.'' A proud graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the four objectives Secretary White has identified for his tenure are right on target: investing in people, assuring readiness, transforming every aspect of the entire Army--doctrine, training, leadership, infrastructure, and more--in a holistic manner, and adopting sound business practices. Secretary White is exceptionally well qualified for this job. Commissioned in the U.S. Army in 1967, he rose to the rank of Brigadier General in 1990. His distinguished 23-year career as an Army officer included two tours of service in Vietnam, command of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany, a number of assignments on the Army Staff, and finally, service as Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell. Finally, and perhaps more important than all of these things, Secretary White believes strongly in his family, describing them as ``my supporting foundation.'' His devotion to his wife Susan and three children--Katie, Tommy, and Chuck--is worthy of imitation in our country today. On behalf of the entire congressional delegation from the great State of Texas, and for those who wish to restore a strong and vigorous national defense led by the United States Army, I wish the very best for this extremely capable and dedicated public servant. I am confident that Secretary White will serve this nation with honor, integrity, and success.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have passed this exact language twice through this House, Republicans and Democrats. We have protected equally from frivolous lawsuits our teachers, our principals, our educators, and our school boards. Our principals and teachers tell us that is so important, because if the school board does not back up the principals and teachers, all we have done is open a loophole for more violence, more bullying, more threats, and more harassing lawsuits. At a time when we always fear another Columbine, the last thing we need is an open loophole, an invitation to harassing lawsuits against the educators who need to maintain order in their classroom. Let me close with this. Members of Congress are often asked: ``What are you doing to stop school violence? What are you doing to make our schools safer?'' Today we have the opportunity to answer, because today we have a clear choice, a choice between dedicated teachers and students who want to learn, or threatening, disruptive bullies and their reckless attorneys. It is time to take the lawyers out of the classroom and to restore order and discipline so our teachers can teach, our children can learn, in truly safe schools. That is the right choice.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), one of our newer Members interested in safe and orderly schools.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Safe schools for students and teachers concerns us all, and from the shootings in Columbine to the recent shootings at Santana High School, all of us debate in this Chamber how to make our schools safer, how to make sure that our teachers and students are safe and return home safely each year. While we may disagree on some of the ways to do that, we are, in a bipartisan way, strongly supportive of returning order and discipline to our classrooms, and that is what this amendment is about: protecting teachers and schools from frivolous lawsuits when they responsibly maintain order and discipline in the classroom. Schools are becoming more and more dangerous. Teachers tell us they do not feel safe in their own school. They tell us they are afraid to discipline unruly students, afraid to stop fights among those students, afraid to even defend themselves. The reason is that teachers may face an expensive and career-damaging lawsuit by overzealous lawyers. And, worse yet, there is a good chance they will be humiliated again when their responsible decision to maintain order in the classroom is not backed up by the principals and the school boards who face constant threats of expensive, frivolous, harassing lawsuits. In the end, it is the children who suffer. As the American Federation of Teachers have said in their report on how to prevent violence in our schools, it is low-performing schools who suffer from the lack of safe and orderly learning environments. Teaching and learning are almost impossible to achieve in an environment of disorder, disrespect and fear. As our teachers tell us, no one has ever learned in the classroom where one or two kids take up 90 percent of the time through disruption, violence or threats of violence. That is why in poll after poll, educators rank discipline and safety high on their list of education concerns. So do we as parents, and so do the students. This is what this bill does. This bill ensures that dedicated teachers trying to maintain a safe classroom are not afraid of being hauled into court for doing the responsible thing. This measure establishes a national shield to protect teachers, principals and other education professionals, including our school boards, who take responsible actions. The amendment does not protect educators or school boards when they engage in willful, reckless or criminal misconduct, when they engage in criminal acts, in violations of State or Federal civil rights laws, inappropriate use of drugs or alcohol, or behave with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of an individual harmed. We preserve States' rights with an easy opt-out, and we do not affect State law or local rules regarding corporal punishment. Let me tell my colleagues what one teacher from Houston wrote me. ``In another classroom,'' he wrote, ``two girls had a fight today. The teacher got knocked down, was hit twice in the head and when he fell to the ground, was kicked twice by the girls. This teacher could not touch these girls to separate them. We have been told over and over again, do not touch the students, even to defend yourself. It is recommended that you do not touch the child. Seven little letters tell us why: Lawsuit.'' This teacher wrote, ``Do they have any idea what teachers go through on a daily basis? We only want to be protected. Is a little peace of mind in the classroom too much to ask?'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this bill holds all teachers, all school boards, all educators equally accountable for willful, reckless, criminal misconduct, criminal acts, negligence, gross negligence, violations of State and Federal laws. I would point out, it is endorsed by our secondary school principals, our elementary school principals, and many teachers and parents. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I think the President is taking, and this Republican Congress is taking a very responsible approach to tax relief in America today. The tax relief under this proposal starts slow and it builds. It grows. As we pay off more and more of the public debt, and as the surplus grows, tax relief grows with it. We do not have a budget surplus in Washington, because I guarantee my colleagues that Washington will spend every dime the taxpayers send up here, but we do have an actual tax surplus because people are paying too much into government for what they are getting for it. There are people I think in Washington who are still out of touch with the real world, who think we just do not tax people enough, and if we did, that would solve everything. But look at the way real families are taxed in America: When they start their day, they get up in the morning and get a roll or a coffee and pay a sales tax; step in the shower, pay a water tax; jump in the car to go to work, pay a fuel tax. At work, at the office, they pay an income tax and a payroll tax. At the end of the day, they get back and drive to their home, on which they pay property taxes. They open the door, flip on the light and pay an electricity tax; turn on the television, pay a television tax; pick up the phone, pay a telephone tax. If they are married, when they kiss their spouse good night, they pay a marriage penalty tax, and on and on, until at the end of their life, they die and pay a death tax. No wonder people have such a hard time making it, why there is not enough money left at the end of the month just to meet the needs of their children, just to provide for retirement, for college, and the day-to-day necessities. Washington needs to get out of the way to give people back more of what they have earned, not what Washington has earned. We need to give them the power to make their decisions for their children, for their schools, for their health care, because we are overtaxing real families in America. In fact, Tax Freedom Day was just a week or so ago, May 3. That means for most of our families, they worked from New Year's Day to May 3 just to pay their taxes, and then they started working for themselves. So they have worked 5 months into the year before they start working for their children, their family, their own American dream. The Republican tax relief plan, the President's tax relief plan is a responsible one, one that has more faith in our families than in Washington to squander those dollars. I am convinced, and I am a new member of the committee, that our Tax Code is too complex. I do not agree with the instructions here dictating what that bill will do, because I think bipartisan Members from the House and Senate ought to sit down and ought to work through the complexities of this. This is not the time to dictate. This is not the time to destroy the bipartisanship. This is like getting to the end of the marriage vows and the minister starts making things up. Mr. Speaker, this ought not be the time we do that. Let us keep a strong, steady path and come forward with a bipartisan tax relief bill that we can all be proud of.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill creates the vehicle for tax relief for Americans. As we sent it to the Senate, as we talked through the principal items we talked about, that is what this bill is about. The gentleman knows it and may not like it, but he understands it.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think too many people in Washington are out of touch with the real world and the way families have to struggle these days. It is true that tax relief under this plan starts pretty modestly and grows. It is done so that it increases as we pay off more of our national debt; and as our surplus increases, the tax relief increases. That is the responsible way to do it. But they will tell us it is only for the wealthy. But if we look at families today, we just had tax freedom day, which meant, from January 1 to May 3, the average American family worked for that time period just to pay their taxes. Starting last week, we started to work for ourselves. No wonder it is so hard for families to make ends meet. Under the President's proposal and under the Republican proposal here today, in this first year, for a teacher whose husband works at the auto dealership as a mechanic, who has two kids, it means tax relief for about $500 this first year; and it increases each year to about $1,600. Now, in Washington, people do not think that counts. But I can tell my colleagues, when one is raising children, an extra $120 or $140 a month for school clothes or to fix the car or to pay for utilities or all the things that come up for health care when your child is sick, that is real money. My colleagues will hear today about a rebate scheme. But let me tell them, they will love the rebate scheme as long as they do not mind overpaying at the cashier, at the counter, and watching the clerk hand the change to the next guy in line. They will love rebates. But if my colleagues think if one overpays that the change ought to come back to one in proportion of what one overpaid, then my colleagues are going to support the President's plan and the principles in the Republican plan. What is wrong with eliminating the marriage penalty? What is wrong with not taxing people at death? What is wrong with encouraging small businesses to create new jobs? We know if we head into recession, we will lose 3 million jobs in America. That is 3 million families that are going to hurt very badly. If we can make changes today, maybe we cannot save all those jobs, but we can save some of them, and we ought to try.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr BRADY of Texas

Mr BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the principles of this bill----

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for two amendments that we have offered as part of the en bloc proposal today. The first deals with fugitives who continue to flee America and American justice. The world has gotten smaller and the number of criminals fleeing America continues to grow. With this amendment, Congress takes another step towards the days when there is nowhere in the world for fugitives to hide. According to the Department of Justice, more than 3,000 indicted criminals have fled and remain out of our American reach. Their crimes include murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, child abduction, financial fraud, and cyber crime. Our extradition agreements are terribly outdated. Half of them predate World War II, and we do not have agreements with over 40 percent of the world, so there are safe havens throughout the globe. Mr. Chairman, our goal with this amendment is to ensure that the State Department creates a process for updating our outdated extradition agreements and starting a process to incur new agreements to return these criminals to face American justice and to work with the Department of Justice in doing so. The second amendment is designed to express a sense of our Congress which is absolutely committed to ensuring the truth of the murder of a Texan American, John Elvis, who was brutally murdered last November in Baku, Azerbaijan. He was finishing a 4-year commitment to the International Republican Institute for Fair and Free Elections, and had only 2 weeks left before he returned home to Texas and his family. We appreciate the support the government of Azerbaijan has provided us, the FBI, and our Ambassador onsite to attempt to solve this murder. This young man was a friend, a colleague and a true freedom fighter for America. President Bush and others continue to urge Azerbaijan to cooperate with us to ultimately find this murderer or murderers, and bring them to justice.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to change the drawback and other trade laws in order to make their interpretation, administration and implementation less cumbersome for the U.S. Customs Service. More importantly, the provisions of this legislation will ease the regulatory and administrative burdens imposed by the current regulatory structure on U.S. companies by making them more competitive in the global marketplace when competing against foreign exports of similar or like products. Since this issue is very technical Mr. Speaker, let me briefly describe what duty drawback is and how this legislation will help. Specifically, duty drawback is the refund of 99% of the duty paid to Customs on an imported product when the imported product, or a product that is substantially similar or commercially interchangeable with the imported product, is later exported from the U.S. For example, a manufacturer of widgets may import a widget into the West Coast of the U.S., paying a duty of US $10. The same company then produces the same type or quality of widget in Texas and exports it to Mexico. The company may claim a refund of US $9 of the duty paid on the West Coast import as it is substantially similar to or commercially interchangeable with the exported widget. Therefore, drawback levels the playing field and allows U.S. companies to remain competitive in the international market when competing against foreign companies for export sales and in export markets. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it enacted into law.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we can see, Washington hates to change, and this Congress and this President is intent on making Washington change the way it works. Look at its impact on the American people today. Tax Freedom Day just occurred May 3. That means for most of our families, we have worked from New Year's Day to May 3, just recently, just to pay our State and local and Federal taxes. That is the highest, that is the longest date ever; and that means that for most families, because we are not working for ourselves until the fifth month, we pay more in taxes than if we put our house payments, all of our groceries and our clothing together. We pay more than that in taxes. No wonder it is hard for families to make ends meet. We wonder, how much of the money we send here actually gets to the people who really need it. Washington recently has funded, and we have read about it, we funded $1 million that the Park Service used to build a two-hole outhouse. We spend $5 billion a year to help salmon swim upstream. In fact, we spend so much we could buy each of those fish a first-class ticket on a plane, fly them to the top of the river and save money doing it. Not only that, we paid one group $350,000 a year to kill the same salmon. We waste dollars up here day and night. This President is intent on Washington not going on a spending spree, on tax relief that grows as we pay off the debt and as our surplus grows, tax relief grows. This President is intent on helping education between the teacher and the student and the student and the parent where it really counts. Washington needs to change, and this budget and this President is intent on doing it.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join others in congratulating the bipartisan authors of this bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), because we make saving so difficult in this country. Every one of us knows that to have a good, safe retirement, we have to have a three-legged stool: Social Security that you can count on, personal savings in the bank, and a retirement plan at work. President Bush has signaled today that he is dead serious about preserving Social Security once and for all. The timing of this bill could not be better because we are trying to address the other two legs of that stool: personal savings and retirement plans at work. Some people call this tax relief. I disagree. I do not know why we tax people at all for savings. I think we ought to encourage them to save for their retirement, for education, for college, for health care. This is merely Washington getting out of the way and allowing people to put money aside. I think the original bill is much stronger for small businesses and for low- and moderate-income savers because of a simple approach. Under the amendment that is proposed right now, we basically say to small businesses, if you are eligible under plan A and institute plans B, C and D, and file under E and F, you may be eligible for a partial tax credit. In other words, we will pay you to file more paperwork to endure all of this paperwork. The Portman plan does the opposite. It says regulation complicates and frustrates savings. We are going to remove the regulation. We are going to encourage small businesses to set up plans for their employees. We know it works because in 1984 when we started regulating these plans, the number of savings plans went from 114,000 to 45,000. We drove proven savers out of the market, and it is time to put those saving plans back into place. Low- and moderate-income people normally do not have the ability to save on their own. They save at work.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 503, The Unborn victims of Violence Act and want to thank my colleague from South Carolina for introducing it. As you know, H.R. 503 would make it a separate Federal crime to hurt or kill an unborn child during the commission of a Federal crime against a pregnant woman. 24 States currently recognize both the mother and the unborn child as victims of violent crimes. And in 1999, this chamber passed this legislation by a vote of 254 to 172. However, it was never brought up for a vote in the Senate. I also strongly oppose the Substitute Amendment being offered by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment fails to recognize the unborn child as a victim of a crime, even in circumstances when the perpetrator acts with specific intent to kill the unborn child. Under her amendment, a criminal could receive a stiffer sentence for interfering with ``the normal course of the pregnancy'' while committing a Federal crime. The premise of this approach is that there has only been one victim, the mother, who has suffered a compound injury. However, if an expectant mother is shot and her baby is born disabled because of the bullet, would anyone say that only the mother and not the child had been injured. However, if the baby dies before being born, the supporters of the substitute amendment say only one person has suffered. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a letter from the National Right to Life Committee in support of H.R. 503 and why the Lofgren Substitute should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to consider the points it raises. National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Washington, DC, April 23, 2001. RE: In opposition to ``one-victim'' substitute amendment to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives prepares to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to reject the assertion of those who say that when a criminal assaults a woman and kills her unborn child, nobody has really died. That is the callous ideological doctrine embodied in the substitute amendment that we anticipate will be offered to H.R. 503 on the House floor (it was offered by Congresswomen Lofgren in the Judiciary Committee, where it was rejected). The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates no new federal crimes. Rather, the bill would come into play only when federal authorities have cause to arrest someone for an offense against a woman in one of 68 already-defined federal crimes of violence, by also allowing them to bring a second charge if there has been a second victim, an unborn child. A document circulated by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America asserts that ``nowhere in the bill is harm against women mentioned,'' but that is a blatantly misleading statement. The bill really mentions harm against women 68 times, as it cites the 68 federal crimes of violence against women in which H.R. 503 would apply. Under the Lofgren Substitute, a criminal could receive a stiffer sentence for interfering with ``the normal course of the pregnancy'' while committing a federal crime, but under the premise that there has only been one victim, the mother, who has suffered a compound injury. This approach is incoherent. In those cases in which the woman dies in the assault, is it not a duplicative charge to prosecute the assailant both for killing the woman and for doing her an additional injury? In other cases, in which the mother survives but the baby dies, the Lofgren Substitute would impose a penalty of life in prison--which seems a harsh penalty, unless somebody has died. Consider the words of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin, who was assaulted in the ninth month of her pregnancy. She was injured and her unborn son, Zachariah, was killed. Because Wisconsin at that time lacked an unborn victims law, the assailant was convicted only for the injury he did to Mrs. Marciniak, and he is already eligible for parole. Mrs. Marciniak explains, ``This one-victim proposal is offensive to me. Its premise is this: On the night my husband beat me, nobody died. But that is not true. That night, there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. Little Zachariah died.'' Mrs. Marciniak urges House members to look at the photo of her holding Zachariah in her arms at his funeral, and asks, ``Can anybody honestly tell me there is only one victim in that picture?'' (The photo is posted at www.nrlc.org, and appears in NRLC ads that are running various publications this week.) H.R. 503 explicitly states that nothing in the bill ``shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman . . . has been obtained.'' Nor does the bill pertain to any action by a woman that results in harm to her own unborn child. Moreover, the laws of 24 states already recognize the ``unborn child'' as a victim of violent crimes for all or some of the baby's period of pre-natal development. These laws are listed at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm. Numerous state and federal courts have ruled that these state unborn victims laws do not contradict Roe v. Wade or otherwise affect legal abortion. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 found no problem with a Missouri law that establishes the ``unborn child'' as a legal member of the human family for purposes far broader than those covered by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Indeed, the April 21 issue of National Journal (page 1173) quotes Heather Boonstra, senior public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, as ``acknowledging that [Rep.] Graham's bill would probably survive a court challenge.'' For further discussion of the constitutional issues, see the Judiciary Committee report at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/hr042.txt. Some opponents of H.R. 503 have objected to the bill's recognition of the ``child in utero'' as a member of the human family. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House by a vote of 417-0 passed a bill that contained the same definition of ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same basic legal principle. The roll call on that bill, and the text of the bill, are appended. In NRLC's scorecard of significant congressional votes for 2001, a vote in favor of a one-victim substitute amendment to H.R. 503 will be accurately described as a vote to declare that when a criminal injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been no loss of a human life. Thank your for your consideration of NRLC's views on this legislation. Sincerely, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director. Patricia Coll, Legislative Assistant.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding the time to me. My Democratic colleagues are right, we do not immediately start repeal of the death tax. This repeal is very graduated. It starts fairly slow, and it grows as we pay down more and more of the debt and as our surpluses grow; that is the responsible way to provide tax relief, while keeping our budget in order and keeping our economy growing. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of reasons to support repeal of the death tax. Let me tell my colleagues one of mine. In my district, I had a local nursery come to me here in my office in Washington; they traveled all the way up here from Texas. They have three children. In the nursery, two of them have worked there ever since their parents founded it. They sat down just at a desk around a table, just worked through the numbers on how the death tax and how the tax affected them; and as we worked through it, it became clear what happens with this tax and how it affects our small businesses and our family farms. Basically, when the numbers were finished, they showed that if they could afford enough life insurance on their parents and if they could get a bank loan, they might be able to keep their own family business. Mr. Speaker, think about what they are saying. If we can make enough money off of our parents' death and if we can go back in to debt, which they had worked their whole life to get out of, they might be able to keep their own family business. The death tax is wrong. It has been ruining lives for four generations in America, and it is time to stop it. There is a difference, though, between the Democratic proposal and the Republicans. Ours goes with the principles that it is flat wrong. Theirs keeps it and keeps it for another principle, that Washington should pick winners and losers in our Tax Code. In their bill, we say to some family farms, you are our type, you win; but to others and to the family grocery store in the same community, you lose. They say to the print shop in the community that is family owned, you win; but to the family newspaper right next to it, you lose. You are not our type. Washington has been picking winners and losers for far too long. We need to be at the least fair, and that is why complete responsible repeal of the death tax is the right thing to do.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Pulmonary Hypertension Act of 2001. In short, this legislation will ensure greater federal resources are devoted to Pulmonary Hypertension research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and complement the private efforts of the PH Community. Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) is a rare lung disorder in which the pressure in the pulmonary artery rises above normal levels and may become life threatening. When pulmonary hypertension occurs in the absence of a known cause, it is referred to as primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). PPH is extremely rare, occurring in about two persons per million population. As of 1998, approximately 5-10 thousand individuals suffered from this disease--the greatest number reported in women between the ages of 21 and 40. Nonetheless we now know that men and women in all age ranges, from very young children to elderly people, can develop PPH. It also affects people of all racial and ethnic origins equally. I first became aware of this illness a couple of years ago when one of my constituents and close friend came to speak to me about a disease his now eight year-old daughter, Emily, had just recently been diagnosed with. At that time, the family was informed that there was no cure for PPH, and that Emily could not be expected to live beyond 3-5 years. I began to think that in order to get Emily and other PH sufferers a chance to really experience life, the federal investment in Pulmonary Hypertension must be expanded to take full advantage of the tremendous potential for finding a cure or effective treatment. Why does the federal government have a role in our fight against Pulmonary Hypertension? Pulmonary hypertension is frequently misdiagnosed and has often progressed to late stage by the time it is accurately diagnosed. More importantly, PH has been historically chronic and incurable. This unpredictable survival rate has not been encouraging to patients, their families or physicians. furthermore, in 1996-97 almost six million, Americans took anorexic drugs which can cause PPH in some people. Thousands now have PPH and are in terminal stages or have already succumbed to the disease. It is anticipated that many more cases of PPH from diet drugs will be diagnosed within the coming years. I also believe that federal resources will complement the dollars and efforts the Pulmonary Hypertension community is doing on their own. This public-private partnership will also help ensure that everyone is working together so that we get the most ``bang for the buck.'' However, thanks to efforts Congress has taken in the past, the efforts of the pulmonary hypertension community, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), that is beginning to change. New treatments are available that now allow some patients to manage the disorder for 15 to 20 years or longer, although most Pulmonary Hypertension sufferers are not that fortunate. I am pleased that in 1981, NHLBI established the first PPH-patient registry in the world. The registry followed 194 people with PPH over a period of at least 1 year and, in some cases, for as long as 7.5 years. Much of what we know about the illness today stems from this study. But, we still do not understand the cause or have a cure for PPH. Mr. Speaker, we are at a fork in the road. We can either take the road that becomes a dead-end, or with the Committee's help, we can take the road that provides a future for the individuals and families of Pulmonary Hypertension.