Jo Ann Emerson

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Teacher Appreciation Week, I want to pay tribute to two very special teachers from the Eighth Congressional District of Missouri. First, there's Mrs. Cindy Thresher. Mrs. Thresher is Missouri's 1997 Teacher of the Year recipient. She has taught for 29 years--the past 16 years at Lucy Wortham James Elementary School in Saint James School District. Mrs. Thresher is known for her hands-on approach to teaching and learning, a style that sometimes requires students to create unique learning environments. For example she has transformed her classroom into a rain forest, a desert, and the surface of the moon. In these projects she involves other faculty members, visitors from the community, and most importantly, parents. For the past 3 years, Mrs. Thresher has led several statewide school improvement initiatives. She's a member of the original group of teachers and educators who helped write the ``Show-me Standards''-- Missouri's statewide academic standards. Today I also want to pay tribute to Mr. Allen Winchester, a government teacher at Gideon High School. Mr. Winchester has inspired and pushed students to play an active role in taking pride in and attracting new business to their community. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper even highlighted his achievements in Gideon. Mr. Winchester has always stressed to his students, ``We have all the potential in the world. We just have to think big. If you think you can succeed you will. You just can't quit. If you can't climb over a brick wall, keep hitting it until it falls. Change the way people think.'' With this tenacity he is finding success by bringing the real world into the classroom. Mr. Winchester refers to his teaching style as ``authentic learning,'' which he says trains students in the basics and then lets them apply what they've learned. His students took that to heart, and in the last year, through their efforts, the town of Gideon helped renovate the community from the inside out by cleaning up public property and tearing down old buildings. To put a new face on this community spirit, Mr. Winchester's students erected a new welcome sign, planted flowers, and even created an Internet Web page showing off the town and school district to new businesses and other visitors. Mr. Speaker, with teachers like Cindy Thresher and Allen Winchester guiding and teaching our students, our future looks much brighter. I commend them and all of our Nation's educators who prepare our children today to be the leaders of tomorrow.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to prohibit National Science Foundation funds to be used for purposes relating to the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program. On behalf of many of my constituents in southern Missouri, I commend Mr. Coburn's efforts to prevent future funding for this program. Mr. Chairman, large portions of my district in southern Missouri have been designated by the Man and Biosphere Program as a proposed site. Fortunately, after a groundswell of opposition and strong grassroots on the part of property owners throughout our region, the proposed Ozark Highlands Man and Biosphere has been dropped. However, that is not to say that future proposals will not emerge that could again potentially pose problems for private land owners throughout my congressional district and the Nation. It is important to understand that Congress has no direct oversight, input, or direction over this program. It has never been authorized by Congress and therefore should not be funded. Just as important, the public and local governments are rarely consulted. This is wrong and should not be funded with taxpayers' dollars. The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program goes to the heart of a larger problem in this country--that is land management restrictions for both our Nation's public and private lands. In fact, many folks would be surprised to know that within the last 25 years, more and more of our Nation's land has become subject to international land-use restrictions. Right now, a total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as United Nations Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage sites. While there is no current U.N. involvement in our domestic land management decisions, we should not be establishing additional forums that could eventually lead to international input in our own domestic decisions regarding this country's public and private lands. I want to, again, reiterate my strong support of the amendment by Mr. Coburn to prohibit funding for this unauthorized program and appreciate his efforts on behalf of private property owners throughout this country.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary citizen who has given much to his community. Mr. John Forthman, who resides in Lilbourn, MO, in my congressional district, is an exceptional individual and a role model to every American. Mr. Forthman has worked with the New Madrid County Civil Defense for 9 years. His services have included storm spotting, emergency organization, and disaster relief. In 1992, he obtained his EMT license in order to better respond to medical emergencies within the community. Since then, he has been working with the New Madrid County ambulance service and attending continuing education classes in emergency medicine. He has also been a volunteer firefighter for the city of Lilbourn for over 8 years. For the last 2 years, he has filled the position of fire chief, playing an integral role in building a much- needed fire station for his hometown of Lilbourn. Mr. Forthman's service to the community doesn't stop there; he is also a reserve deputy for the New Madrid County Sheriff's Department. He is a commissioned deputy and works to assist the full-time officers to prevent crime in the area. It would seem that with these numerous activities, Mr. Forthman would have time for nothing else. Yet, he is involved in the area Little League and various high school athletics and works full time for the Electric Cooperative New Madrid Powerplant, where he has been for the last 20 years. He also spends much time with his wife and two children. Citizens such as Mr. Forthman are unfortunately few and far between. The people of Lilbourn are lucky to know John Forthman, and I am proud to recognize him for his many achievements.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the creative and innovative work of the Wayne County Health Center, a hospital located in the 8th District of Missouri. Wayne County Health Center was recently presented with the American Star, an award given to 100 civic organizations each year by the America The Beautiful Fund of Washington, DC. I would especially like to extend my congratulations to Mrs. Velma Osborne, who has played an instrumental role in the success of Wayne County Health Center's extraordinary citizen service. Wayne County Health Center established a program that assists over 400 low-income families in the area grow their own fresh food. The families involved in the project are learning the importance of good nutrition, as well as how to grow their own fresh fruits and vegetables. This program has taken a giant step in helping to fight hunger in Wayne County. It will continue to benefit the families involved as children grow up with the knowledge of good nutrition and the skills to grow their own healthy food. The Wayne County Health Center is certainly deserving of an award as prestigious as the America The Beautiful American Star. The accomplishments of Velma Osborne and the many others who have worked for the success of this program should serve as a reminder of the spirit that founded this country and the role that each and every one of us play in keeping that spirit alive.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleague from California, Representative Gary Condit, in proudly introducing a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution to provide the President of the United States with line-item veto authority. On April 10, the U.S. District Court ruled unconstitutional the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 which was a statutory version of this much needed authority to rein-in Federal spending. On the eve of the deadline for hard-working folks to file their Federal income taxes, this court's ruling denied American taxpayers an important protection against wasteful spending. It is time to put to rest the constitutional questions surrounding the line-item veto by passing the constitutional amendment we are introducing today to give the President the explicit authority to zero-out special interest goodies tucked away in the fine print of large spending bills. Forty-three of our Nation's governors have a line-item veto at their disposal, and it works. Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson used the line-item veto hundreds of times to save the taxpayers of Wisconsin close to $3 billion. In Massachusetts, Governor William Weld used the line-item veto to help eliminate an $850 million deficit in his first month in office and resolve a $1.8 billion structural deficit within the first 6 months of his term. While Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton repeatedly balanced his State's budget, and an important tool that helped him do so was the line-item veto. The evidence is clear and convincing that the line-item veto saves taxpayers money, and the Congress should answer the 14-year-old call issued by President Reagan to pass the line-item veto amendment. Mr. Speaker, we tried the legal approach and a Federal court said it will not work. We have yet to hear from the Supreme Court, but the prospects look bleak. So, here we are at the end of tax season and the American public is denied line-item veto protection by a Federal court. We must put an end to the constitutional debate by providing the President the explicit authority of the line-item veto. What would have been good for Presidents Reagan and Bush would be good for President Clinton and every future American President. The line-item veto amendment we are introducing today will guarantee the validity of Harry Truman's adage that ``the Buck Stops Here''--right at the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to adopt this most important fiscal tool to ensure that taxpayers never again witness the day when wasteful special interest spending can sneak its way into law.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and say thanks to a 31-year veteran educator in our public school system. The superintendent of Sikeston schools, Dr. Robert ``Bob'' Buchanan, has decided to move on to life's next challenge. Bob's retirement closes a remarkable chapter in Sikeston, Missouri's Public R-VI School District. As a teacher, coach, principal, and ultimately superintendent, Bob Buchanan has done it all in his 25 years in Sikeston. Moreover, he's been a positive influence on so many kids and touched many of their families over the past 31 years of dedication to education. Bob's long and winding road in education started in January 1966 when he first was hired as a social studies instructor in Harrisburg, AR. He then moved across the border to his home State to teach social studies in Bernie, MO--his original hometown--and just down the road in Charleston, MO, before planting new and, as we know today, deep roots in Sikeston in 1972. Bob Buchanan is a leader by example. His community service record is exemplary. For instance, Bob is a member of Sikeston's chamber of commerce quality of life committee. He's also on the physicians medical organization board, Missouri Delta medical center board, Sikeston area development council board, and in the mid-eighties, he served as chairman of the board of adjustment. Bob also knows that you must keep learning in life so that you're prepared for the next challenge or hurdle. His personal achievements in his academic pursuits are impressive. After graduating from Bernie High School in 1961, Bob graduated from Arkansas State University with a bachelor of science in education. He earned his master in education administration from Southeast Missouri State University in my hometown of Cape Girardeau in 1971. He graduated with honors 10 years later in 1981 with a specialist in education administration from Southeast Missouri State. Then, in 1987, he earned his doctor of philosophy from the Department of Educational Leadership at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. Remember, most of these scholastic achievements came about in his spare time because Bob's full-time job was educating our children and helping to provide them a better, brighter future. Although this will be the last school year for Bob as superintendent of Sikeston schools, I'm sure folks will still find him going to every Bulldog game he and his wife Glenda can attend. Most importantly, I hope that the enthusiastic spirit and drive for excellence that Dr. Buchanan brings to the classrooms under his charge lives on for future generations. Bob Buchanan will be missed, but I truly believe his legacy will live on.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my full support to H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. I thank Mr. Hall for his sponsorship of this legislation, and I urge this body to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the life of each and every individual. Assisted suicide is an abominable act. Despite claims that it is a matter of mercy or dignity, an assisted suicide is nothing more than the murder of some of our most vulnerable citizens, persons who are ailing and sometimes unable to voice their will. These individuals deserve every chance at life and all the support and assistance that we can provide, not some misguided notion of a so-called honorable death. An assisted suicide must not be deemed an acceptable medical procedure, or the grave consequences will be the lives of our sick and elderly. The first and sacred rule of medicine is to preserve the life of the patient. That is why physician-assisted suicide is opposed by the American Medical Association and numerous other doctor and nurse associations. The House has the opportunity today to reaffirm this fundamental tenet of the health profession, making the law reflect what doctors, nurses, and most Americans already know intuitively. Mr. Speaker, America is a nation of justice and of compassion. Both justice and compassion tell us to pass H.R. 1003, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my absolute support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for all of his hard work on this bill, and I join all of those who believe in the basic value of human life in working for passage of this important legislation. The truth of the matter is that partial-birth abortion is a horrendous act of murder. It is not a late-term abortion, it is not a necessary medical procedure. Such phrases conceal the brutal and inhumane reality. The details of a partial-birth abortion are horrible beyond words, and the law must not continue to condone so terrible an atrocity. Today this Congress and this Nation has the opportunity to take an affirmative stand for the basic value of human life. We might talk for hours about the medical evidence, the detailed studies, and the expert testimony, all of which would tell us that the ban on partial-birth abortions is the right and just thing. However, we must always keep in mind that the fundamental issue is the life of an unborn child and the value that our Nation places on that life. This is the matter before the Congress, which is why we must make certain to pass the ban. To ban the partial-birth abortion is to say that America will not tolerate the cruelty and inhumanity that it represents.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my absolute opposition to the President's proposal to send taxpayer dollars overseas to promote abortions. We simply cannot allow the administration to continue its policy of ignoring the fundamental rights of the unborn. The argument has been made that family planning funds serve to decrease the number of abortions performed in developing countries. If this is the case and if we are to ensure that family planning programs respect the basic right to life, then the President should not object to the pro-life safeguards on four separate occasions in the last Congress, standing up emphatically for the rights of the unborn. The President's refusal to accept these reasonable safeguards is proof of the underlying abortion agenda of this administration and the international groups which support a similar position. I urge this body to say no to a plan that exports abortion policies to developing countries. The right thing to do is to support the alternative resolution, offered by Representative Chris Smith, which reinstates the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy protecting the unborn.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, term limit supporters across Missouri-- like me--are rightfully disappointed that the vote on congressional term limits is doomed to failure. I am a cosponsor of a constitutional amendment calling for tough, 12-year term limits for Senators and Representatives, alike. It had been my hope that a united stand for term limits would finally lead to real limits with teeth. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives will vote on term limits and it appears my vote in favor will be for naught, thanks to a problem that has grown out of control--division among conservative ranks. Last November, voters in Missouri and eight other States approved so- called scarlet letter constitutional amendments. These scarlet letter amendments require Members of Congress from Missouri and the other affected States to vote for term limits of 6 years in the House and 12 in the Senate. If Members don't vote for these particular limits, or if Members vote for different limits, the phrase ``disregarded voter instruction on term limits'' will appear next to their names on the next ballot if they choose to seek re-election. Disregarding for a moment the fact that ballots will soon be cluttered with inaccurate information, this sounds like a good idea. Why not put a little muscle behind the campaign to enact term limits which, after all, are supported by 70 percent of Americans, ourselves included. A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the vote on term limits. As sure as the Mississippi flows south, the vote on term limits today will fail. It won't fail for lack of general term limit support, but will fail because of the handcuffs placed on the 30 Members of Congress who come from States where the scarlet letter initiative passed. Each State constitutional amendment--they are all different--requires that Members from those States vote for different versions of term limits. Even though term limit supporters garnered 227 votes in the last Congress (it takes two-thirds of Congress, or 290 votes, to pass a constitutional amendment) and even though more supporters of term limits were elected to Congress last November, there's no chance that tough, commonsense congressional limits can not pass. Missouri's scarlet letter amendment has joined with similar, but different, amendments in other States and backfired against the shared goal of conservatives to enact tough term limits. So how did this mess come to be? Most Missouri voters will probably be surprised to learn that the scarlet letter amendment, when it appeared on the ballot in the voting booth, deceptively asked if voters support term limits, but did not state that Members would be prohibited from supporting other term limit bills if the three term limit fails. In fact, the fine print of this amendment explicitly instructs Members to vote against all other term limit bills. Put simply, the amendment reburies limits of three terms in the House, or nothing at all. With that in mind, I intend to vote for every single reasonable measure that would limit congressional terms to either 6, 8, 10 or 12 years when the House considers term limit legislation. I campaigned in support of term limits and intend to carry through on that commitment. Term limit supporters should consider this farce. The scarlet letter will likely be invoked even if I vote for the 6-year term limit, which is certain to fail despite my support. The scarlet letter will be invoked simply because I later vote for a different term limit bill that has a realistic chance of passing. As if that weren't enough, different versions of the scarlet letter laws passed in each of the nine States. Thus, if Members from those States precisely follow those instructions, they must all vote for a different version of term limits--and against any others. It's the equivalent of asking the offensive line of the St. Louis Rams to sack their own quarterback each time they take to the field. In the end, I will vote in favor of each and every serious term limit amendment brought before the House this week. If that means I invoke a misleading scarlet letter, then so be it. Those of us charged with the responsibility of dealing with the legislative agenda of the people on a practical basis are duty-bound to deliver what is feasible, and that includes term limits that stand a chance of passing Congress. We will never succeed in passing real term limits as long as outside groups continue to divide conservatives who support them. In our efforts to pass term limits with teeth, we should remember that when united, we win, when divided, we fail.

Mr. EMERSON

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an organization that is working hard to bring about economic and spiritual renewal in rural America. Headquartered in Sikeston, MO in my congressional district, the Adopt a Farm Family of America organization has been a tremendous force for good in southern Missouri and throughout the country. The volunteers and coordinators of Adopt a Farm Family are sponsoring a rural restoration conference in Sikeston next week, continuing their tradition of spiritual outreach and support for farm families. America's farmers and ranchers are the best in the world, but they face an increasingly complex set of challenges. Uncertain markets, changing environmental conditions, and new government policies all contribute to the challenge of operating a farm in rural America. The job calls for long hours, old-fashioned values, and a strong faith in God. Adopt a Farm Family has stood by our Nation's farmers since its inception in 1988. Today, it continues to provide the kind of assistance and expertise that makes a real difference in the lives of thousands of Americans. At next week's rural restoration conference, from Sunday February 16 to Tuesday February 18, Adopt a Farm Family will invite farmers to come together as a group to discuss methods of improving farm life. The entire Sikeston community, many of whom are providing financial and other support to the conference, is participating in a concerted effort to make the event educational and rewarding. Seminars and speakers will address a broad variety of topics, including farm finances, soil nutrition, marketing techniques, and family issues. I should also note that I have the high honor of speaking at the conference, and I am looking forward to contributing to the special purpose of the occasion. Mr. Speaker, Adopt a Farm Family of America is one of the best examples in America of a group of people determined to help, and who then make it happen. You can see it in founder and current director of ministry, Mrs. Mary W. Myers, in her husband and current President Peter, and in the many folks who play a part in Adopt a Farm Family programs--the belief in the idea that through hard work and faith in God, good things are possible. I commend the people who are part of the Adopt a Farm Family of America organization, and express the hope that we can help them fulfill their mission of fighting to keep farm and ranch families on the land.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment for the protection of the right to life. Tragically, this most basic of human rights has been disregarded, set aside, abused, spurned, and sometimes altogether forgotten. Even more tragically, the U.S. Government has been a willing partner in this affair, and the sad consequence is the sacrifice of something far more important than just principle. One of the things that sets America apart from the rest of the world is the fact that in this country, everyone is equal before the law. Regardless of race, religion, or background, each person has fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the law. However, we too often overlook the rights of perhaps the most vulnerable among us--the unborn. When abortion is legal and available on demand, then where are the rights of the unborn? When abortion is sanctioned and sometimes paid for by the Government, then how do we measure the degree to which life has been cheapened? When an innocent life is taken before its time, then how can one say that this is justice in America? My amendment would establish beyond a doubt the fundamental right to life. Congress has an obligation to do what it has failed to do for so long, fully protect the unborn. I urge this body to move forward with this legislation to put an end to a most terrible injustice.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to fulfill the pledge I made to the citizens of southern Missouri to introduce and work tirelessly to pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that requires a balanced Federal budget. Over the course of the past several decades, fiscal irresponsibility has produced a Federal debt that is fast approaching $5 trillion. That's trillion, with a ``t,'' Mr. Speaker. A debt of $5 trillion is a mind-boggling figure, but it can be placed in a much clearer perspective. A child born today immediately inherits nearly $20,000 of debt, owed directly to Uncle Sam. The same is true for every American. The era of continuing annual budget deficits must end, and it is clear that the only way to restore conservative fiscal values to the Nation's budget is to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The stakes in this debate could not be more important. The fiscal future of the United States hinges on the ability of Congress and the President to make the difficult choices required to balance the Federal budget. It's more than debating trillion dollar figures. It's about making our economy stronger and providing every working American family with a better chance to make ends meet. A balanced budget will strengthen every sector of our economy with lower interest rates that will help families stretch each paycheck further. Home mortgages, automobiles, and a better education will become more affordable to every working family, making the American Dream closer to reality for all. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues in the new Congress to see that the balanced budget constitutional amendment is passed and sent to the States for ratification. A constitutional amendment is certainly no substitute for direct action on the part of the Congress. However, we have seen time and time again instances where those who object to conservative fiscal responsibility find convenient excuses to deny the American people a balanced budget. An unbreakable enforcement mechanism is clearly needed to ensure that those who would continue to spend our children's future further into debt are not able to do so. I also want to make plain that the Social Security trust fund has no place in this debate. The independent trust fund is a sacred trust between generations and must never be used to balance the budget or hide the true size of the deficit. Commonsense conservatives in Congress and the American people are committed to balancing the budget. I look forward to working throughout this session with all of my colleagues and the White House to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment on a bipartisan basis. The obligations we owe to hard working American families, their children, and our Nation's future generations deserve nothing less than decisive action to preserve our future by balancing the budget. A constitutional amendment will ensure this outcome.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly introduce legislation of the utmost importance to millions of American small businesses and the self-employed. The Health Insurance Fairness Act will once and for all provide small business owners and the self-employed with the same health insurance tax benefits enjoyed by larger corporations--the ability to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premium costs. Making health care costs fully deductible is not an arcane Tax Code issue known only to accountants and IRS auditors. This is an issue that touched the lives of millions of Americans who own or work at a small business. It is especially important to rural areas, like my district in southern Missouri, where small businesses and self-employed individuals, especially farmers and ranchers, form the backbone of the regional economy. However, they have too long been denied access to affordable health insurance for their families, children, and employees because the Tax Code makes it too expensive to purchase. The Health Insurance Fairness Act I am introducing today will help make health insurance more affordable to the self-employed, small business operators, their employees, and equally important, their families. The previous Congress took an important first step, Mr. Speaker, by enacting legislation to ultimately increase the insurance premium deductibility to 80 percent by the year 2006. Regrettably, this increase is phased-in too slowly, and will hamper the important work we must do to make health care less expensive and easier to get for all Americans--not through Government-run health care, but through private market incentives. The Health Insurance Fairness Act will increase the premium deductibility rate to 100 percent in the first taxable year after enactment. Millions of self-employed, small business operators, workers and their families will be able to immediately enjoy the security afforded by a health insurance policy. It represents the type of results-oriented legislation the American public has asked this Congress to produce, and I ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing long-overdue legislation to correct an injustice done to well over 6 million senior citizens by the Social Security Amendments of 1977. My legislation, the Notch Baby Act of 1997, will adopt a transitional computation method to assure that America's ``Notch Babies'' born between 1917 and 1921 receive equitable Social Security benefits. Contrary to what many think, Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Notch is a simple problem that is greatly in need of an obvious solution. Seniors born in the 5-year period after 1916 have seen lower average Social Security benefit payments than those born shortly before or after. This disparity is directly attributable to the revised benefit calculation formula that resulted from the Social Security Amendments of 1977. The facts are clear and Congress must take action to correct this unintended error. In December 1994, the Commission on the Social Security Notch issued its final report and recommendation to Congress. The commission cited an example of two workers who retired at the same age with the same average career earnings. One of these workers was born on December 31, 1916. The other was born 48 hours later, on January 2, 1917. If both retired in 1982 at age 65, the worker born in 1917 would receive $110 less in monthly Social Security benefits. And yet the Commission on the Social Security Notch concluded that ``benefits paid to those in the `Notch' years are equitable, and no remedial legislation is in order.'' Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. One-hundred and ten dollars per month represents a lot of money to any family, but even more so to the millions of retirees who live on a limited, fixed monthly income. The time for Congress to take action to correct the ``Notch'' injustice is long overdue. I urge all of my colleagues to review the Notch Baby Act of 1997 and cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment to ensure that students can choose to pray in school. Regrettably, the notion of the separation of church and state has been widely misrepresented in recent years, and the Government has strayed far from the vision of America as established by the Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers had the foresight and wisdom to understand that a Government cannot secure the freedom of religion if at the same time it favors one religion over another through official actions. Their philosophy was one of evenhanded treatment of the different faiths practiced in America, a philosophy that was at the very core of what their new Nation was to be about. Somehow, this philosophy is often interpreted today to mean that religion has no place at all in public life, no matter what its form. President Reagan summarized the situation well when he remarked, ``The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of the country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.'' And this is what voluntary school prayer is about, making sure that prayer, regardless of its denomination, is protected. There can be little doubt that no student should be forced to pray in a certain fashion or be forced to pray at all. At the same time, a student should not be prohibited from praying, just because he-she is attending a public school. This straightforward principle is lost on the liberal courts and high-minded bureaucrats who have systematically eroded the right to voluntary school prayer, and it is now necessary to correct the situation through a constitutional amendment. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make a strong statement in support of the freedom of religion.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment for the protection of our Nation's flag. The flag is a revered symbol of America's great tradition of liberty and democratic government, and it ought to be protected from acts of desecration that diminish us all. As you know, there have been several attempts to outlaw by statute the desecration of the flag. Both Congress and State legislatures have passed such measures in recent years, only to be overruled later by decisions of the Supreme Court. It is clear that nothing short of an amendment to the Constitution will ensure that Old Glory has the complete and unqualified protection of the law. The most common objection to this kind of amendment is that it unduly infringes on the freedom of speech. However, this objection disregards the fact that our freedoms are not practiced beyond the bounds of common sense and reason. As is often the case, there are reasonable exceptions to the freedom of speech, such as libel, obscenity, trademarks, and the like. Desecration of the flag is this kind of act, something that goes well beyond the legitimate exercising of a right. It is a wholly disgraceful and unacceptable form of behavior, an affront to the proud heritage and tradition of America. Make no mistake, this constitutional amendment should be at the very top of the agenda of this Congress. We owe it to every citizen of this country, and particularly to those brave men and women who have stood in harm's way so that the flag and what it stands for might endure. I urge this body to take a strong stand for what is right and ensure the protection of our flag.