Nancy Boyda

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Absolutely. I think that really speaks for it. In July, what, 114 Members in the House also signed an urgent, urgent letter to the President, Mr. Speaker, just calling on him to stop this pilot program until these safety concerns were met. Is this about jobs? Sure. Is it about safety? Absolutely. And ultimately that is why I had to stand up and say something. This is about safety, and 114 Members of this House right here, absolutely bipartisan, wrote a letter to the President imploring that he stop this program before it gets started. And so in the House we have passed the Safe American Roads Act; we have signed on to some statements in the supplemental asking for the President, telling the President and/or law to stop this. We have written a letter. I am hoping that our colleagues in the Senate, certainly I am calling on my colleagues from Kansas, to stand up and to really get behind this issue very clearly, very forcefully, and impress in whatever way we can to influence the President of the United States, and to see that we bring this extremely ill conceived project to a halt. The horse has not left the barn, but it is getting ready to. Now, that is what we say in Kansas.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. We have lots of horses in Kansas. The horse has left the barn. It has not left the barn; it is getting ready to. And then we are going to hear that it is going to be impossible to pull back. And this is what we have to do, and it just cannot be allowed to go further. Some of the independent truckers in my district were so concerned because they knew that this pilot program was being discussed; and yet time after time they were told, no, don't worry about it, this is not going to happen. And I agree with you, Mr. Ryan, that just the issue of trust has so much to do with this right now. And I think the American people are just deeply offended that the President has said ``trust me'' one more time, and they are just not able to. This is not about race, it is not about Mexico, it is not about anything other than keeping our families safe when we get out on the road that we could be assured that every safety precaution, every reasonable safety precaution has been met, and that the force of law is behind it and the American people, their tax dollars are going to make sure that this is being enforced, and they can get out on the roads, take the kids to wherever they are going, over the river and through the woods, and know that they are going to be safe.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. It seems like it should make sense. In the State of Kansas, I don't know in Ohio but in the State of Kansas we do triples. Do you do triples, triple trailers? We do triple trailers across Kansas. One truck pulls three trailers. And I don't mind saying, as a mom, when you have got kids in the back seat, it is unnerving. Now, I have come to understand that triple trailers in fact are safe and there is data out there to prove that in fact they are safe, but I don't mind saying it is unnerving. The concept that we would be doing triple trailers, I would assume that if triple trailers are allowed, then Mexican triple trailers are going to be allowed across Kansas. I am telling you, I don't think many people in Kansas are going to sit still very long. So are we saying that our own truckers then should start to dummy down their standards, that they shouldn't be able to do things because these other trucks are coming in and they might not be as safe? Actually, when my kids were small and they were in that back seat and we were traveling across I-70, we went from Kansas across to St. Louis, Missouri, across I-70, I am sure fathers as well as mothers just have that sense of dread when you are so close to those big trucks. And, unfortunately, there are accidents. I can't imagine driving my grandkids now across I-70, wondering if these trucks are going to be safe. We had a news conference, Mr. Speaker, about a month, maybe 3 weeks, ago and this woman I thought was incredibly brave. She told the story that was an absolute, it was literally tear jerking. She had just gotten married on her parents' 45th wedding anniversary. They were so very close. And to make a long story short, not long after she was married, her parents were in their car going down the highway in California with her nephew when the drive train fell out of the car. Needless to say, what happened after that was just, you couldn't even describe. And she was so brave. And this truck was from Mexico; and she said not only had they lived through this terrible, and of course wondering what her parents' last moments were like and the terror that resulted from it, but then the legal nightmare. Mr. Speaker, trying to find the driver and trying to find the company, trying to find anybody who could give them information about, first of all, what had happened, who owned this truck, who was this person. And obviously the truck driver lived; her mom and dad of course did not. Getting any kind of compensation has been a nightmare. Now, again, we are taking a fairly small, limited sample. And I am sure that we both agree that within this first year we both want this first year to be completely accident free. We should all want that. But what is it going to tell us if it is accident free? What knowledge are we going to have gained 12 months from now if it has been accident free? This is what concerns me, that they take the entire program, put a great big Good Housekeeping stamp of approval on it and call it good and open it up. And then we are going to see what really happens.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. It is disciplined.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. It is called cherry-picking where I come from.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Another Special Order on food safety and different standards of food. We have standards for food in this country. But we bring in food that doesn't even meet our own standards. Now, tell me if that makes any sense. Is it safer to eat something that comes in from someplace else? It is just that the hypocrisy here is becoming, I think, very, very clear to the American people, Mr. Speaker. They have had enough. They are speaking up and telling us they want change. One thing that concerns me, too, and especially with what is going on tomorrow. There is going to be one truck from America and one truck from Mexico that is going to be inspected. Now, my background is in the pharmaceutical industry. I was in the research and development side. When we did studies, you can believe how much time went into that protocol to say is this going to be safe and effective. Those same kinds of standards apply to this very project right here. So if we are going to do this pilot program, certainly there must have been some kind of a protocol put together that says, here is how we are going to study this, and at the end here is how we are going to know if in fact we have the data, we have collected the data to tell us if we are now safe. There hasn't been anything that has been done in that regard, that hasn't been looked at as is this a statistically significant sample? Are we testing it? Is it rigorous? When we are done with this, really there is one of two things that can happen a year from now when this pilot program is finished. We will have had 500 trucks on the road for a year. And if there is no incident, will we know at that time do we just open up the borders? Now, let me tell you that I would rather that there is not an incident with those 500 trucks, but the fact of looking at 500 trucks, you could keep an eye on each one of those individually for one year, this isn't difficult. At the end of the year, are they going to tell us, if there isn't any problem that it is now safe and we have demonstrated that this has been a pilot program? That is kind of like saying we are going to give a drug to 500 people, and if nobody dies on it, let's put it out to the American people and market it. Now, that is not the way I did business and certainly not the way the pharmaceutical industry would even want to do business, but legally would not be allowed to, but they wouldn't want to do it that way. Why is it that we are taking a small sample that we know probably is going to be handpicked and watched closely for a year, and then use that to determine what goes on?

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. You just have to wonder who said no, and then it went to the Senate, and the Senate basically said we'll take something and we'll put it into the supplemental bill. And it also, of course, then passed as well. And again, we now have a law that's, in fact, in force today as we speak, and it's very difficult in my district to ask people to believe that there's any real meaning when it comes to enforcement of these laws. And it's one of the real outrages in my district is with immigration, and that's why it all comes together in saying this is yet another law that they're not even trying to enforce it.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Don't you wonder who the three were?

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. So when you first started learning about this, I'm sure you thought the same that I did. Certainly, maybe we're just overreacting, maybe there are standards there, and those standards are being met and we shouldn't worry. Then you come to find out that they don't even have drug testing facilities. They don't even have drug testing facilities in which to perform these. The whole recordkeeping, the hours of service is just extremely worrisome. There's no way to even begin to verify that when someone comes across the border, we don't know how many hours of service that they've had already. So this is not even an attempt to meaningfully enforce these laws, and they will tell you that, in fact, these systems are not put in place, the same standards that we have, we've come to expect in this country, training, recordkeeping, sleep, drug testing. And certainly if we're going to talk about drugs, I don't know about in your area, but in mine, we are finally getting the meth labs in the rural parts of my district, we're getting those under control, only to have huge meth shipments coming in from where? From Mexico. And this, again, will just exacerbate that situation and make it harder and harder and harder to control the influx of drugs into this country. This is not a partisan issue. This is not anything that is being done politically.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I would absolutely agree with that. So on June 8, the statement was made, yeah, good job, all the safety standards have been met, and the public comment period is starting. That was June 8. It was over on June 28, 20 calendar days, 10 short of what's considered to be the very minimum. You know, it was just a slap in the face of the American people. Basically, it said that you had to comply with the rules that are already out there. We have section 350 of the FMCA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act; you can't bring this new pilot program in until you at least meet those requirements. Well, the fact is that they have not met those requirements either. That has to do with bus inspections. This makes a difference. These aren't just petty little infringements. This is real big business here. Bus inspection facilities still have not been met. Hazardous materials transportation, still we have an F here. How about keeping the promise of inspecting every truck every time? Well, I think as we noted tomorrow, the Secretary of Transportation is having a press conference with the Secretary of Transportation from Mexico. They're going to be having a press event. Oh, did I say ``press event''? I meant they're going to be doing inspections, I'm sorry. They're going to be doing inspections. They're going to inspect one truck from Mexico and one truck from the United States. Now, I don't know how you feel about that, but I am not convinced that we take a look at one truck and then deem the whole program safe, and I am deeply concerned again that we are heading in a direction that it's going to be harder and harder and harder to pull back on this thing. We all know once it's out of the door, once the horse is out of the barn, it's harder and harder to pull this back, and they're just going off in a direction, again that's clearly, clearly opposite the will of the American people.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I know a lot of good people are concerned about their jobs. Our trucking industry, while I'm sure you've heard the same thing as well, as of January I had to put on some pretty strict environmental controls, and they did it. They went out and spent the money. They maintain their trucks. They keep them up to standard, so that when you and I are out there with our families, we don't have to breathe as much smog and we know that trucks that are out there are, in fact, safe. Those men and women who have purchased those trucks at great expense are now going, What did I do that for? Why is it that I'm required to meet a standard and yet our companions to the south are not, in fact, required to do that? Something is just definitely awry here, and the American people have stood up and said enough is enough. Let me make this real clear. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. We both happen to represent the heartland, but this is an issue that speaks across not only party lines but across our geographic districts and speaks to people up and down the United States. What the Safe American Roads Act basically did was say NAFTA provided for a pilot program, but it said there had to be some standards, let's have some standards here, and there had to be a public comment period. Well, we have a grade card here, and I'd like to pull that up for a minute. Mr. Speaker, here is that grade card. First of all, it said that we had to have a public comment period. Now, traditionally, the minimum comment period is 30 days. Did this get 30 days? No. On June 8, after the Safe American Roads Act was passed, on June 8 there was an announcement that, by the way, all the safety standards had now been met. A simple statement, by the way, they've been met. I compare that to, you know, giving a third-grader 5 hours of homework and 5 minutes later they're running out the door saying, I got it done.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to speak on behalf of so many in the 2nd District of Kansas who are as concerned as I am about what's happening with the trucks coming in from Mexico. I have stood strong and said from the beginning what on Earth are we doing here. We have a rule of law in this country, and some way or another it is once again being completely disregarded, the will of the American people, the rule of law, and I stand before you here tonight to say the people of the 2nd District want me to say something, and that is, enough is enough. My Safe American Roads Act basically said this pilot program is not going to keep our families safe. It, in fact, will make our highways more dangerous, and asks the President, please, Mr. President, stop this program now. We had a bill that was voted on this very floor right here, 411-3, virtually unanimously, and yet on Labor Day weekend, just a stunning, a stunning reversal of what the American people had asked our President, on Labor Day weekend it was announced that these trucks coming up from Mexico would be allowed that weekend, and in fact, the first trucks started to roll. Tonight we want to talk about what's going on and why we are so concerned, and I'm joined here with my friend and colleague Mr. Ryan from Ohio, and I will just turn it over to you for a few minutes.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I thank you very much. I think we both asked the American people to stand up and to make their voices heard. Everyone plays a part in our democracy. That is the beauty of our democracy. So, Mr. Speaker, I implore the good people of America to stand up and very clearly and forthrightly, respectfully of course, very respectfully, say that they cannot support this, nor can they support people who are unwilling to stand up and take a stand on this. With that, I thank my colleague from Ohio for joining me this evening, and I certainly am hoping that very, very soon we will have good news and this program will be put to rest.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on October 4, 2007, I had the great pleasure of seeing one of the finest constituents of the Second District of Kansas honored as an Angel in Adoption. This award was given by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, of which I am proud to be a member. The story of the Second District's Angel in Adoption, Stuart Griffiths, is a story of hard work, commitment, and humility. It is a story that I am proud to share today. Stuart started working with children during college when he was a wrestling coach. He gave rides to and from practice to a young man living in a group home and decided there was more that he could do to help. He began volunteering at the young man's group home--helping with homework, playing ball, whatever was needed--until he was asked to become the assistant director. After working in public schools in Lawrence, Kansas, he returned to his hometown of Clay Center and became a foster parent. Over the years Stuart has hosted 32 foster children. Eventually he was told by a caseworker, ``You ought to become a social worker because you're already doing it so you might as well get paid for it.'' So Stuart returned to school and earned a degree in social work. He jokes that he made this decision before anyone told him how much social workers earn. All joking aside, he has devoted the last 8 years of his life to working in child protective services. Part of what makes Stuart's story unique is that he has made a conscious effort to help children with special needs. He told caseworkers he ``wanted the kids nobody else wants,'' and they listened. He was contacted by social workers from surrounding communities to help children who needed extra care and attention. Over the years, he has helped children who were victims of abuse or had behavioral problems grow and mature into successful and talented adults. Stuart now has five adopted sons, ranging in age from 14 to 19. Another remarkable aspect of his story is that he is a single parent. In addition to his job and responsibilities as a parent, Stuart also runs the football little league in his community and coaches his own team. He is the epitome of a public servant. Despite his tremendous contribution to the community, Stuart is incredibly humble. In his stories he continually talks about the many accomplishments of his sons. When asked about the incredible commitment he has made, he simply says, ``I wanted to take the next step.'' I was thrilled to meet with Stuart and his five sons in Washington on Thursday. I know we both hope that this award and Stuart's recognition will raise awareness about the importance of adoption and foster care. Stuart has been able to create a stable, brighter future for his children, who might otherwise have drifted from family to family in the foster care system, never really having someone to call ``Dad.'' For me, Stuart's words have the most resonance--``I just hope this encourages other folks to adopt.''

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I commend the House of Representatives for the passage of this important resolution to honor the Little Rock Nine. As a Kansan, I am proud to be a resident of one of the places where the road to justice began. For Kansans, the story of the Little Rock Nine begins with the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. This case began in 1950 when 13 parents took their children to the schools in their neighborhoods for white children and attempted to enroll. All were refused admission, and for most, this meant traveling across town to attend the few available schools for African Americans. These courageous parents filed suit against the Topeka Board of Education on behalf of their 20 children. When the parents agreed to become involved in the case, it's likely they never imagined they would change history in such a significant and meaningful way. The people who make up this story were ordinary--their story is anything but. Oliver Brown, who the case was later named after, was a Topeka minister who simply knew that it was not too much to ask that his country treat his children equally. On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court announced in Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483) that, ``in the field of education, the doctrine `of separate but equal' has no place.'' The Court recognized the psychological effects of segregation and that separate is inherently unequal. In 1957, 3 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, 9 brave students in Little Rock, Arkansas, continued the struggle that Oliver Brown and his daughter started. They endured a hostile school environment and a local government that was once again not supportive of their belief that equal treatment is a basic principle of a democratic society. The story of Brown v. Board of Education is one of hope and courage. On this 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, I am proud to take time to remember the contributions of students across the country--from Kansas to Arkansas--that fought for integration. I also hope that we can recommit ourselves to honoring the legacy that the Brown v. Board of Education decision left for us--to continue working to provide a world-class education for all children.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, in order to commemorate September 11 day in Kansas, I was unable to cast my vote for H. Res. 643. Had I been present for Rollcall Vote 866, I would have voted in the affirmative. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I am honored and humbled to support a resolution to honor the victims of that terrible day. I ask that this House also pause to honor America's troops, who even now risk their lives to prevent the horror of September 11th from ever striking again, and our first responders, who willingly face danger to protect our safety. On September 11th, our Nation experienced a grief broader than any we'd known before, one that reached beyond individuals and families, beyond even cities and states. For a few weeks in 2001, our country was united in mourning. We grieved for 3,000 souls abruptly taken, for a Nation forever changed, for an innocence forever lost. Tragedy has a way of bringing people together. It doesn't minimize our differences; it magnifies what we have in common. It reminds us that, above all else, we are all Americans. As the days since September 11th continue to tick by, I hope we remember not only the grief of that day but also that extraordinary sense of community. Even 6 years later, we still grieve together for our fallen. We still pray together for our soldiers. We are--and will remain--one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. I support the resolution that so eloquently states the House of Representatives gratitude for those that protect us and remind us never to forget that terrible day. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on June 26th, rains began to fall in eastern Kansas, and they barely paused for the next 3 days. Storms dumped as much as 21 inches of rain in some places, triggering floods that washed over dozens of counties. When the rains finally stopped, I joined Mr. Moore, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Moran, and our governor, Kathleen Sebelius, to tour the flood-damaged regions. We saw heartbreaking sights: homes covered in water, streets rendered inaccessible by floods, and the populations of whole towns camping in middle schools. We also saw countless acts of kindness, from the very large to the very small. Friends and neighbors gave generously of their time, their shelter, their food, and their hearts. As devastating as the floods were, they brought out the very best in Kansans. I'm pleased that the House is pausing today to reflect upon what we've lost and to honor the hard work of rebuilding Kansas. Votes such as this are sometimes called ``symbolic,'' but that is not the same thing as ``meaningless.'' To the Americans who have heard little news from Kansas since the flood waters receded, this vote serves as notice that we're rebuilding, stronger than ever before. And to the thousands of Kansans who lost everything, it is a show of support from their community and their country. Today, 2 months after the rain stopped, eastern Kansas is well on its way to recovery. For that, we owe our deepest thanks to our friends and neighbors, to the emergency personnel who worked so tirelessly for so long, and to FEMA for its helping hand. You've shown us how to meet a disaster with courage and compassion, and you've shown America the very best of Kansas.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on May 29th, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled on Ledbetter vs. Goodyear. Lilly Ledbetter was a 19-year employee of the Goodyear Tire Plant in Gadsden, AL. After discovering a substantive wage gap between herself and her seemingly equal, male co- workers, Ledbetter filed suit claiming gender wage discrimination. While Ledbetter won the case in a Federal court, Goodyear appealed and the case made it to the Supreme Court. In a thin margin, 5-4, the Supreme Court decided that Ledbetter had missed her legal window. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employees have 180 days after an alleged act of discrimination takes place to file a complaint. While this 180-day deadline has commonly been interpreted to start over with each additional paycheck, the Supreme Court limited this right and claimed that only the first paycheck counts as the act of discrimination. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the four Supreme Court justices who disagreed with the ruling, and she called upon Congress to act. H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is Congress's response. This bill will reverse this Supreme Court decision by making the original Congressional intent clear--renewing the 180-day deadline every time a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck. This strengthens measures to ensure paycheck fairness and to address unfair wage gaps through legal measures, as well as strengthens the rights of employees. This ruling is in blatant disregard of how the average employment environment functions. It means that unless employees discover a potentially discriminatory action within the first 180 days of their first paycheck, or last pay change, they have no legal ground to challenge it. This ruling was made with the assumption that new employees enter their workplace with a clear knowledge of what their coworkers earn and that more established employees already know the wages of their coworkers. This is not the case. Many employees do not feel comfortable talking about their wages in the workplace, or disputing their wages too soon after beginning a new job. Moreover, many workplaces discourage their employees from discussing their wages at all. Yet, if employees do discover that they have been discriminated against, and it's past the 180-day deadline, employers have legal immunity. While I respect the Supreme Court, I believe that Justice Ginsburg was correct when she stated that the Court's decision ignored real- world employment practices. This is not a gender issue; all employees should have an equal chance of getting a just wage. I believe that Congress must find a way to fix the problem that the Ledbetter decision poses for employees who have experienced discrimination. However, I do not believe that this bill was the best way to accomplish that. By not establishing any deadlines after the initial hire date, Congress has now gone too far; similar to the Supreme Court decision, they have ignored the realities of the average employment environment. I agree that employees need more time than 180 days, but I also believe that employers need to be afforded some timeline as well. I hope to work with both women's organizations and businesses to find an equal balance--we owe both sides that degree of security about what our anti-discrimination laws mean.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of accountability in Congress. This year, taxpayers will pay the retirement benefits for Dan Rostenkowski, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney. What do these men have in common? All are retired Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. All are convicted criminals. Each abused his office by committing fraud, bribery or conspiracy, and each was found guilty in Federal court. Despite their convictions, these three representatives and over a dozen other former lawmakers remain eligible to draw taxpayer-funded pensions for their service. The exact amount of the payments vary, of course, but the average is about $47,000 per year. That's more than the average American makes. Let me tell you, it's certainly more than the average Kansan makes. Certainly a lot more than the average person in the Second District of Kansas makes. Mr. Speaker, when the new majority was sworn into the House of Representatives, we had a clear mandate from Americans--End the scandals. Clean up Congress. We've already taken meaningful first steps toward reform. In our first days, we passed an ethics package that banned Members from accepting gifts from lobbyists. We blocked representatives from flying on corporate jets. And we prevented Congressmen from pressuring businesspeople to fire or hire for political reasons. That last one to me is especially important. Before this Congress, our Congressmen were out there actually influencing people and saying, if you don't agree with my politics, we're asking you to hire or fire businesspeople. It was so wrong. But our work is not done and it never will be done as long as convicted criminals can draw a congressional pension. Congress can and should revoke the pensions of convicted lawmakers. But for decades now, even as payments have totaled millions of dollars, this body has quietly ignored the problem. But no longer. Today, the bill we will consider this afternoon incorporates legislation that I authored to strip the pensions of these crooked lawmakers. The final bill also sets limits on the so-called revolving door of lawmakers who are turning into lobbyists, and it imposes financial disclosure requirements on the lobbying industry. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and we need a whole lot more transparency still. Taken together, these changes represent the most significant ethics overhaul to pass the Congress in decades. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. By enacting these sweeping reforms, Congress can begin to recover from the long years of scandal and corruption. Congress can begin to earn back Americans' trust.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I thank the chairman for all the hard work that has gone into this bill. I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment. I believe, actually, that they are doing it with the best of intentions, but what will happen to independent and small farmers in Kansas is not a good thing, and I will not be able to support it. But, Madam Chairman, I would also like to talk today about something that I have been speaking about in Kansas for now 4 years, and that is closing the loopholes on these corporations that move offshore just to avoid taxes. The people in Kansas certainly are not happy that this has been allowed to go on for year after year. And I am proud to work on the farm bill, what I thought was a very bipartisan group, and I get to kill two birds with one stone, hopefully, and that is to bring home a farm policy that is going to be a very good thing for our country and for Kansas farmers, and we get to finally close a loophole that should have been closed years and years ago. The bottom line is we can't borrow and spend. We have to pay for the things that we want. It is a bipartisan bill, it is not a tax increase, and I ask my colleagues to support our farm bill.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I have heard concerns about the Cincinnati area's Planned Parenthood Clinic's alleged mishandling of claims of abuse. This is an ongoing legal process, and we must wait for the verdict before determining the truth of the claim. As a mother, I can only imagine how difficult this time must be for the young woman. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri states in their mission that they are ``committed to providing confidential, affordable reproductive health care to all individuals, regardless of their ability to pay.'' Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of basic health care services to both women and men. They offer cancer screening for women and men--we know that early detection can help people fight and win their battle with cancer. They provide confidential screenings for sexually transmitted diseases so that people can get treatment and prevent the further spread of disease. They offer counseling for women going through menopause on what to expect and what types of treatment they could consider. They diagnose infertility problems for women and men trying to build a family. They also conduct workshops for parents and youth to discuss topics related to sexuality. The workshops build self-esteem, promote a positive body image and build communication skills. They also offer a workshop called ``choices and consequences'' that helps youth understand what abstinence means. In the workshop, youth and Planned Parenthood advisors work together to identify the skills and knowledge that someone needs to use abstinence effectively. Despite the numerous types of health care services provided, Planned Parenthood is best known for assistance in family planning. To be clear, Planned Parenthood cannot use any of its Federal funding to perform abortions. The family planning services they provide are critical for women's health. Women depend on contraceptives for better health to regulate their menstrual cycles and treat endometriosis. Access to family planning services helps prevent unintended pregnancy and helps in the timing of planned births. If women can control when they become pregnant, we can significantly reduce the number of abortions--a goal I believe we should all support. Planned Parenthood's services are confidential, and perhaps more importantly, affordable. They provide basic health care to many of my constituents who might not otherwise be able to afford it. In 2005, Planned Parenthood served 13,601 Kansans. I will continue to support funding for health care for my constituents.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, when most of us think about law enforcement, we imagine police patrolling the streets, or we think of lawyers and judges in a courtroom. But there's another chapter to the law enforcement story. Once a criminal has been caught, tried, and convicted in federal court, the U.S. prison system is charged with detaining him--sometimes for the rest of his life. Just as Congress talks about supporting police and protecting judges, we need to talk about supporting our prisons. In recent years we have seen the Federal inmate population grow without a corresponding increase in the number of corrections officers. This is a dangerous situation that we cannot allow to continue. Since 1980, the population of inmates in Federal prisons has increased from 24,000 to almost 200,000--an 830 percent increase. Unfortunately, funding hasn't increased nearly that fast, and too many facilities are facing staffing shortages. Right now, Federal prisons are overcrowded by about 37 percent. Frankly, that isn't right. We can't claim to be tough on crime and neglect our prisons. Congress has to provide enough funding to the Bureau of Prisoners to ensure the safety of our guards and the quality of our prisons. As a member of the House Corrections Caucus, last month I authored a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting increased funding for the Bureau of Prisons. Together, we requested $427 million over 2007 for the Bureau of Prison's ``salaries and expenses'' account and $210 million for the ``buildings and facilities'' account. Unfortunately, resources are stretched thin and that amount could not be met. In order to continue managing the increasing prison population and providing a safe work environment for our correctional officers we need to provide the BOP with the necessary funding. We must ensure that the BOP receives the funds it needs to conduct maintenance on current facilities and build the new facilities necessary to deal with overcrowding. Congress can never remove all of the risk from the job of guarding a prison. Risk accompanies any law enforcement job. But we can provide the resources to help our guards do their jobs as safely as possible and demonstrate that we are tough on crime.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in strong, strong support of this. The House has overwhelmingly voted 411-3 to pass this amendment. To be honest, I think it is just an egregious grab of power by the administration to take the will of the American people and the will of this Congress and completely disregard it. There are not systems or laboratories in place to test for drugs. There isn't documentation in order to make sure that we have inspected our trucks, that we have the training, and that there is drug testing. It is just a complete farce to be told that these safety requirements are going to be met. Mr. Chairman, I know that I, as well as the people of the Second District of Kansas, are strongly urging the President to stop this. I certainly support this bill, which will stop the funding and stop this pilot program.