Max Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize what we have heard from the new Members of Congress. The death tax as we know it is wrong. It is immoral. It is something that we must repeal permanently. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to suggest that the substitute is the better approach, but it establishes a permanent death tax. The farmers and ranchers and the small business people of America are opposed to any death tax. I would remind Members that the American Farm Bureau is supportive of the repeal of the death tax permanently, as are numerous other organizations that recognize how onerous this burden is to America. I would like to add my support to the underlying bill, H.R. 8. Let us kill the death tax today. Let us make it permanent. Let us ensure the future of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and that she may control that time.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding me the time; and Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, as introduced by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and in opposition to the Pomeroy substitute amendment. In 2001, Congress repealed the death tax temporarily. It is scheduled to resurface and haunt farmers and small business owners again in 2011. My constituents in the 12th district of Georgia are not rich; but they own farms, they own small businesses, where family ownership still means a great deal. H.R. 8 helps to ensure their survival. The underlying bill that I am proud to cosponsor is good for small businesses. It is good for family ownership. It is good for family farms. The amendment crafted by the opponents of H.R. 8 would gut the bill and would reinstitute the double taxation of a person's earnings over a lifetime. This is a veiled attempt to increase the taxation burden on our small businesses and family farms. Do not be deceived. The death tax stifles economic growth. It is counterproductive to the American Dream, and it is an unfair and immoral tax on our small and minority business owners. The substitute amendment reinstates the death tax and ensures its hindrance on the family businesses and the farmers. We must vote ``no'' on the substitute. H.R. 8 does just the opposite. It kills the death tax permanently. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the substitute amendment and to vote for the underlying bill that ensures the viability of our small businesses and our family farms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner). (Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the conference report on S. 342, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. As a member of the conference committee, I am proud that it reauthorizes several programs that are critical to families in our country. The bill focuses resources on preventing child abuse, improving opportunities for adoption of foster children, and protecting families from violence. It does so by providing necessary funds to identify and address issues of child abuse and neglect and working to stop family violence before it occurs. These issues know no party or boundary. This bipartisan legislation recognizes that we must address the problems in a comprehensive way. It shows that we can bring public and private resources to bear in this fight by promoting partnerships between child protective services and community-based organizations. The conference report also gives priority to the training, recruitment, and retention of those who provide services for the victims of violence and abuse. We must not lose the benefits of the experience of these individuals. Our families and children form the basis of our society and the future of our country. By providing a national clearinghouse of effective child abuse prevention programs and training resources for law enforcement and social service personnel, we can help State and local programs operate more effectively. This bill demonstrates our national commitment to the welfare of those most vulnerable of our citizens. We have an opportunity to help break the cycle of domestic violence and abuse and give a better future to children who would have had no future at all. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for the conference report and pass this legislation today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, we enjoy in the freshman class two distinguished colleagues within the medical profession. Tonight I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a medical physician who has treated thousands of patients and can speak authoritatively to this subject.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for his input and, like him, I look forward to the discussions and debates over the next several weeks as we work through this challenging process. I have a colleague I would like to recognize now. I know the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, a physician, someone who again has treated thousands of patients in Georgia and understands the prescription medication field, understands Medicare, and can speak directly to the challenges we face. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, since we do have two fine representatives of the medical profession with us tonight, I would like to have an opportunity to engage in a bit of a dialogue as we discuss the critical issue of prescription drug benefits and Medicare reform. First of all, I would like to get the input on access. How important is it for our seniors to choose their physicians? And that is, I believe, a key point in the legislation that we are considering now. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. BURNS. Is it not correct that the proposals we are considering have not yet been cast in stone? They are still quite malleable; they are still under debate, and we are considering multiple options? And as a point of emphasis, I want to recognize that our neediest citizens, those who would be at or below poverty level, would have full benefit coverage. They would not have a need to pay any of the up-front costs. The premium would be waived, any of the co-pays would be waived as well as the $250 deductible. So I believe what we are doing here is looking at the alternatives in this plan, debating it, discussing it, and making sure that what comes out is really in the best interest of America and of our seniors.

Mr. BURNS. I agree. I think the gentleman is 100 percent right. The proposals I have reviewed indeed focus this benefit on the neediest of America's seniors and ensures that, as the gentleman has suggested, they do not have to make a choice between paying the rent, buying the food, and then providing the prescription drugs that they need to have a high quality of life. I thank the gentleman for his input, and I thank my good friend from Georgia for his point as far as making emphasis to ensure that America understands what we are talking about here.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for his input, and I now would like to recognize the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to give us a perspective from our western States.

Mr. BURNS. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out one thing and highlight a comment the gentleman made. Sometimes we get caught up in perfection, and what we need are good commonsense approaches to problems in America. I think some of the critics of these proposals as we debate them would suggest that they do not go far enough or they do not do everything they should do, and indeed we may agree; but yet we must make sure that what we produce is a viable, sustainable, commonsense approach to the problems that your good friend points out in his letter.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his input. I appreciate his comments as we begin the discussion in Medicare reform and in the area of prescription drug benefits. Mr. Speaker, I would like to review the key points that we wanted to discuss tonight and then summarize what we have discussed on the House floor to make sure that the American people and that the Congress understand the challenges that we face. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we understand the principles of strengthening and improving Medicare. We have to guarantee that all citizens, all of our senior citizens, have an affordable prescription drug benefit plan under Medicare. This is an important part, that the seniors that we have now have an affordable prescription drug plan. This needs to be a voluntary plan. Critics would say that we are going to force a senior to do one thing or another. That is not true. The senior can choose which Medicare prescription plan best fits their needs or they can continue in the current plan if they so choose. It helps our seniors to immediately reduce their prescription drug cost. Right now many of our seniors have to go out and they have to buy drugs at the highest price, Mr. Speaker. And this gives us an opportunity to provide them a negotiated prescription drug price so that it will immediately lower their cost. It provides special assistance, Mr. Speaker, and additional assistance to our low-income seniors who need this benefit most to ensure their high quality of life. So, Mr. Speaker, as we begin this debate, let us make sure we understand that the first thing we have to do is to guarantee that all of our senior citizens have an affordable prescription drug benefit plan under Medicare and that it is going to be voluntary, Mr. Speaker. The second principle we want to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we need to protect the senior citizen's right to choose the physician, to choose the medical provider, to choose the druggist, to choose the benefit package that best meets their needs. It is going to provide our seniors with a range of options so that they can best meet their medical requirements. It is going to cap out-of-pocket costs. I think that is extremely important. We have a catastrophic failure of our drug system now where you can just be eaten alive and into bankruptcy because of the prescription drug cost to our seniors. This is going to cap out-of- pocket costs so that our seniors will be protected and their families will be protected so they will not risk bankruptcy in case of a serious illness. Now, we are going to debate the amount. I have seen multiple proposals. The Senate has a proposal. There has been several plans here in the House. But I assure you there will with a catastrophic cap on our seniors' cost for prescription drugs. So that as we protect the senior's right to choose, we give every senior an opportunity to pick the plan that best meets their need. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have to strengthen Medicare. We need to strengthen Medicare for all of our seniors and for future generations. It is 2003; and as we work toward the resolution of this problem, we must ensure that it not only meets the needs of our current seniors but we also need to make sure that it will meet the needs of our future generations. We need to ensure the delivery of the needed health care services in both the rural environment and the urban environment. Mr. Speaker, in the 12th district of Georgia, I have a large number of rural communities that have rural health care systems. I also have multiple urban centers of health excellence. But we have to make sure our rural communities have affordable health care, that they have a Medicare system that allows them to continue in business and service their communities. In order to do that, we will very well need to create some really significant structural improvements so that we can curb the runaway health care costs that have jeopardized Medicare's viability in the past. So we are working on those kinds of things. I would like to emphasize the fact, as we begin and go through this debate, that there is going to be some give and take. There is going to be some discussion. There will be some things that are going to have to be worked out, but we are prepared to do that. The leadership here in this body, the Republicans, have offered a plan; and we will begin that discussion, that debate. This evening we have had an opportunity here from a number of Members who have direct experience with health care. We have heard from the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller); we have heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess). We have heard from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his comments on finalizing our discussion here this evening.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the distinguished colleague from Michigan as she shares with us the challenges that her constituents face. I would like to now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), to gain a perspective from that area. (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to begin the discussion of probably one of the most critical things we will consider during the 108th Congress. Tonight we are going to begin to talk about a need that America has had for a long time, and that is a prescription drug benefit for our seniors and the reform of Medicare. I am delighted that the Speaker has allowed me to represent the leadership tonight, along with other members of the freshman class, as we begin to talk about the things that are important to America, and to begin the discussion, to begin the debate and to work toward a solution to all of our seniors. Mr. Speaker, to begin that discussion, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). (Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for their remarks. I think it is important that we all recognize that the health care profession and the prescription drug industry have a lot at stake as we deal with this challenging issue, but I would like to remind the Chair that what we are dealing with here are some fundamental principles, that of affordability so that our seniors can have an affordable health care prescription drug plan and our seniors will be protected. It will be widely available to all of our seniors. I think it is very important that we understand it is voluntary. I have heard critics of this plan say that we are going to force the senior into one plan or another. That is not true. The senior can choose from remaining in the current Medicare system or perhaps adopting a different approach, but certainly to give them the option of looking at some prescription drug coverage. So this is a voluntary plan. This is a plan that deals with choice so they can choose a physician, choose a health care provider, and then effectively manage their own health care needs, and as my colleagues have also pointed out, that it must be sustainable so we can make sure that this plan is viable not only in 2004, but in 2014 and 2024 and 2048 and beyond. I think these are key things that we have to remember as we continue this discussion and continue this dialogue and debate and mold the future of medical care for our seniors. I would like to now yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley). (Mr. BRADLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 220, introduced by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering.) The resolution before us today commends two wonderful people for their wisdom and their vision. Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow Myrlie Evers-Williams were pioneers in the fight for racial justice. Today, we honor them for their efforts and recognize them for their accomplishments. With a desire to change the conditions facing African Americans in Mississippi, Medgar Evers became the first African American to apply for admission to the University of Mississippi Law School. But in 1954, even after the United States Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional, Mr. Evers was denied admission. With his wife at his side, Medgar Evers began a movement to register voters in Mississippi. In spite of personal threats, he persevered. His dedication to the improvement of education for all children, regardless of race, led him to challenge the segregationist systems in Jackson, Mississippi public schools. He continued to challenge segregation at every level from educational services to bus seating. Although Mr. Evers' life was tragically brought to a premature end, his widow Myrlie Evers-Williams remains an effective voice against discrimination and injustice. Through the establishment of the Evers Collection and the Medgar Evers Institute, she advances the knowledge of the many lessons learned through their lives and through their experiences. This resolution is a way in which to remember the challenges that Myrlie Evers-Williams and Medgar Evers faced and overcame. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate their work. I appreciate their sacrifice. I appreciate the fact that they pursued a life to improve the lives of African Americans, certainly in this Nation, but they also improved the lives of men, women and children of all races and all faces around the globe. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.