Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to honor an east Texan, Don Legg of Kemp, who is a legendary hometown figure. Don was recognized this year at a county-wide celebration of his 90th birthday and of the many years spent in service to the people of Kemp, TX, and Kaufman County. Don has served his community in a variety of ways over the years. He has served multiple years on the Kemp City Council, the Kaufman County Improvement Commission, the county board of the Visiting Nurses Association, the Kaufman County Senior Citizens Advisory Committee, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments. He has served as either president or secretary of the Kemp Chamber of Commerce since 1970, has been a deputy voter registrar and even has helped take the census. Since 1992 Don has served as a reporter, photographer, and proofreader for the Monitor, Kemp's newspaper. He is still an active, working member of the press. Don also served his Nation well. During World War II he was the director of personnel of the American Red Cross and was responsible for the entire Pacific Theater. He supervised the efforts of almost 2,000 Red Cross workers and served with the Red Cross for 17 years. At 90 years of age, Don is still an active supporter of school functions and area students activities. During his younger years he was a teacher and a coach, and he has been an active member of the Kemp Athletic Boosters Club for many years. He has received numerous awards from State and local officials but says that the honors he most cherishes are those given by students, as they are our Nation's future leaders. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join Don Legg's many friends and supporters in celebration of his 90th birthday this year and in wishing him continued health and happiness for many years to come.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Colorado has pointed out, H.R. 848 would authorize FERC to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of the 800-kilowatt AuSable project to be located in New York. Mr. Speaker, FERC of course has the authority to extend the initial deadline but for no longer than 2 years. If additional time is needed, Congress can enact legislation to extend that deadline. I think I should also point out that it is not without warranted reason that these hydroelectric projects are in need of license extensions. In the case of the project in New York, it is very difficult to find a sponsor to secure financing until it has a power sales contract in hand. Generally a licensee cannot secure a contract until it has been granted a license. These circumstances make it critical for a construction license to be granted. There is no one opposed to it. It is an easy bill with no objection from FERC. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 848.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1184, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. The bill allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of the Bear Creek hydroelectric project in Washington State. I have had the pleasure of working with the gentleman from Washington, a noted author and a very respected Member of this Congress. I have sat in on many financial meetings with him and have the highest regard for him. He has done a good job on H.R. 1184. It allows FERC simply to extend the commencement of construction for the project for not more than three consecutive 2-year periods. This extension bill faces no opposition. In keeping with the practice of granting license extensions, H.R. 1184 is a noncontroversial, easy yes vote, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1184. Mr. Speaker, finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this important legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. Hall of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1217, which, like the previous bill, was introduced by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], my good friend. This bill is exactly like the previous non-controversial hydroelectric project extension, but it is very important to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] and is important to his district and his State. As proven in the past, congressional extension legislation has been noncontroversial and without opposition from FERC. This practice holds true with H.R. 1217. These are easy yes votes, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join in supporting the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] in H.R. 1217.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving in this body since 1981, and one of the first bills that I supported 16 years ago was a balanced budget. This is a goal that I have worked for year after year--and it is a goal that has eluded us until now. So I am gratified that the Congress has taken a dramatic first step this week toward achieving that goal by passing the budget resolution. It has taken us years to come this far--and it is a testament to the hard work and dedication of many current and former Members of Congress that this goal is finally within our grasp. We have a chance to return fiscal accountability and responsibility to the Federal Government and set a course that will ensure our Nation's well-being into the 21st century. We have a chance to preserve the American dream for our children and grandchildren and help ensure that their future is as bright with promise as was ours. I thank all my colleagues who have worked so hard to achieve this goal, and I command the coalition leadership which has played an important role in this endeavor in both the 104th and 105th Congresses. But we must be careful that what we do in the final analysis will be fair to all Americans, will be equitable, and will be enforceable. The tough choices lie ahead in the coming weeks, so we have much work yet to do. This week marks an important beginning--but a beginning that has an achievable end in sight. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues for their commitment to balancing the budget and their work thus far, and I want to urge continued bipartisan support as we try to make the right choices in the coming weeks and choose the best means to accomplish that goal.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special East Texan, Misty Putman, a senior at Arp High School who recently was awarded the Horatio-Alger Scholarship for her uncommon valor and perseverance in the face of difficult circumstances. She was invited to Washington this week for a conference in recognition of this impressive award. Americans, young and old alike, could learn a great deal from this young woman. Three years ago, Misty's father, Terry, died of a heart attack. As we know, the death of a family member can be a crippling blow, yet Misty's response revealed her strength of character and resolve. She came to the assistance of her mother, Donna, who was facing difficult financial circumstances. Misty began working almost forty hours a week at Brookshire's Grocery in Overton and continued as a full-time student at Arp High School, while her mother also held three jobs in order to meet their expenses. Misty's perseverance and hard work resulted in her being awarded the $5,000 Horatio-Alger Scholarship. In doing so, she also gained the respect of her peers and her community, and she was recently honored during an awards ceremony at Arp High School. Misty plans to use this prestigious scholarship to attend either Tyler Junior College or Kilgore College in the fall, with plans for a future transfer to Stephen F. Austin University. She plans to major in sociology or criminal justice with hopes of becoming a probation officer, where she plans to use her life experiences to help those in need. We can anticipate that she will be most successful in whatever she pursues. Mr. Speaker, there is no way to measure the positive impact Misty has had on her family, her school and her community. Young people like Misty are our Nation's future leaders, and their efforts will help keep America great. It is a privilege for me to represent such an outstanding young person from the Fourth District of Texas, Misty Putman.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 363. It is a bill to reauthorize the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Program. This important 5-year program, this very important 5-year program was first authorized by Congress in 1992 in response to public concerns about the possible adverse health effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields. The program first received appropriations in fiscal year 1994 rather than 1993, yet the authorization will expire at the end of this year. Now, this reauthorization for fiscal year 1998 is necessary to complete the fifth and final year of funding and to fulfill the program's original objectives. These objectives are to determine whether or not exposure to electric and magnetic fields affects human health, to conduct research with respect to technologies to mitigate any adverse human health effects, and to disseminate this information to the public. Without this funding, the risk assessment portion of the program would be completed without the research due to be provided in mid-1997. More importantly though than that, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences, which is conducting this program jointly with the Department of Energy, will have to produce risk assessment through a closed process rather than through the public process currently planned. The program's cost will be much less than originally projected. It was authorized at $65 million over the 5-year period, but it is now projected to cost nearly $20 million less than originally estimated, about $46 million. Fifty percent of the funding comes from non-Federal sources, including electric utilities, electrical equipment manufacturers and realtors. The cost to the Federal Government will be $23 million over the 5-year period. Supporters of the reauthorization include the American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, among others. Mr. Speaker, the program's research is on target and will be successfully completed by 1998, at which time the final report will be issued concerning potential health effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields. Our citizens are depending on us to give them complete and accurate information, and the credibility of the final report would be compromised without this 5th and final year of funding. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 363 so that this important program can achieve the objectives that Congress intended and provide the public with the information they deserve to have. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member on the Committee on Science, and a very venerable former chairman of Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, once again we have a bad amendment offered by some good guys. Mr. Chairman, opponents of the space station say the station is going to cost the American taxpayers $94 billion by 2012, as Chairman Brown has pointed out and Chairman Sensenbrenner has pointed out, rather than the $8 billion for construction in 1994. What are the facts? I think we need to go back over the facts one more time. The redesign over the past couple of years has lowered the expected cost. That is a hard, cold fact. The project is two-thirds completed. It is a matter of math. The $94 billion figure is an overstatement because it adds projected operating expenses to the cost of construction. As the chairman has noted in a Dear Colleague that we received some time ago, American taxpayers have invested about $18 billion in the international space station, and we are more than halfway through building the hardware we need. We will spend another $10 billion to complete the space station in 2002, and $13 billion to operate it until the year 2012, Mr. Chairman, for a total of $23 billion. This year's funding, like last year's funding, cost each American an average of 2.2 cents a day. If Members want to hear a real outcry from young America, cancel this space station. The cost of terminating the project would be far greater, thousands of jobs would be lost, and the potential for creating new high-technology industry would absolutely be lost. We also would lose the hope of curing diseases and making other scientific discoveries that could save or enhance the lives of everyone in our planet. We lose far more by terminating the space station than we do by keeping it. Opponents of that have stated that reliance on unstable partners like Russia could jeopardize the project. Of course, I have concern over their instability. But the truth is that Russian participation is still needed. It is very important, because of the expertise they bring to the project. The Committee on Science unanimously adopted an amendment offered by the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from California, [George Brown], that addresses the Russian problem. Their amendment prohibits U.S. funding of work pledged to be done by Russia. It requires NASA to develop a contingency plan should the Russians default, and requires the President to make a decision by August 1, 1997, on whether to proceed with permanent replacements for the Russian items. I think they have covered the waterfront. It also directs NASA to certify that Mir meets U.S. safety standards. We also have to consider that we have other partners who have committed billions of dollars toward the space station: Japan, Canada, and the European community. This is an international station. Russia is only one of the many worthy participants. The opponents also argue that the project has questionable scientific merit. What are the facts? Biomedical and materials research in space has very impressive results. The ability to provide a permanent manned platform for conducting research has the potential for far greater rewards. We need to remember that we must pursue our dream. We must pursue this dream. Out of splitting the atom we got the MRI and the CAT scan. We have to keep going forward. We have to keep our heads up. We have to keep following the star that might really be a deliverance to all of the people, to young and old, future and present. The space station began as a dream, but through hard work, careful planning and the financial commitment of many nations, it became a reality. The space station represents an investment in our future. As we prepare for the many challenges of the 21st century and continue to battle many of the problems of the 20th century, the space station represents the combined hopes of many nations that we will find some of the answers beyond the Earth's atmosphere. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Roemer-Ganske amendment and support the international space station.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation amendment. Today is a day that a lot of hard-working Americans, honest and decent people, have come to view with a sense of despair, hopelessness, and some even fear. It is not a sense of selfishness but rather a sense of disenfranchisement with the process which causes so many millions of Americans to believe that Government spending and taxes are out of control. If we had had this amendment back 3 years ago, we would not have had the largest tax increase in the history of this country. If we had had this in 1986, when we had Chairman Rostenkowski and President Reagan pushing for a tax bill, for a new tax reform act, we would not have had this. That is the worst thing, in my opinion, that has hit this Congress since I have been up here. Today we have an obligation to our constituents to let them know that we are listening to what they say and that we are willing to take some responsibility by endorsing a very concrete step toward slowing the rate of growth in spending and moving closer always toward the goal of what we have all been seeking, what the President says he wants, what the House and Senate say they want, and that is a balanced budget. Today we are asked to vote for or against the tax limitation amendment, House Joint Resolution 62. This proposal would amend the Constitution so as to require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both Chambers of Congress as a prerequisite for passage of any legislation which would raise taxes by more than a de minimis amount. This resolution covers income taxes, estate and gift taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes. It does not cover tariffs, user fees, voluntary premiums, and other items which are not part of the internal revenue laws. Currently, just such a rule is in place in the House to make certain that we all go on record when a tax increase is proposed. However, this rule does not apply to the U.S. Senate; it only applies this term to the House. We are just asking to bring some discipline into the process. We are asking to make it a little bit harder to tax the American people. This is a day to make it a little bit harder to tax the American people, the day when they are parting with their money, 40 percent, upper or lower, depending on their bracket or their area, of all the money they have made all of last year. The many good people in my district, the 4th Congressional District, have been unified and very clear in communicating to me their desire to see Congress balance the budget. The tax limitation amendment would simply challenge Congress to balance the budget without gouging hard- working individuals with regular tax increases. Contrary to some arguments made by pro-spending opponents of this resolution, the tax limitation amendment does not hamper efforts to close so-called loopholes, because tax increases below a small amount are not subject to the two-thirds requirement. Those of us who are working toward fundamental tax reform will not be impeded either, because so long as the end result does not increase the tax burden, tax reform bills will not be subjected to the supermajority requirement. The tax limitation amendment makes good sense. It restores discipline on a system which has spun out of control. Our constituents are overburdened now by a system which has for years left the doors wide open for tax increases to be slipped in as riders to all kinds of legislation. We have to reverse our course and restore a sound business approach to the Government by passing the tax limitation amendment, thereby committing ourselves to going on record so that our constituents can see us vote either yes or no when their pocketbooks are at stake. I am proud to be the lead Democrat on this bill, along with the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, and I urge all my colleagues to deliver some relief to the overtaxed and disenfranchised constituents today by voting the passage of the tax limitation amendment. Mr. Speaker, we have people from all walks of life who support this. We have the American Conservative Union, the Americans For Tax Reform. We talk about senior citizens. The Senior Coalition, United Seniors Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and I could go on and on. People want us to bring some discipline to this House and discipline to the taxation that takes away the money that they work so hard for. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 1003. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], and I appreciate getting to work with him in the committee, both the subcommittee and in the full committee. The part of his speech that I listened to more closely than any was that he voted for this on both occasions, and he intends to vote for it today. I am grateful for that, because we need this support. We would like to have a resounding vote and send it over to the Senate, and say to the world, to poor people, to hardworking people, we do not want to spend your tax dollars helping people commit suicide. Mr. Speaker, I think the bill does not in any way affect the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship or the right of the patient to receive pain medication or reject or discontinue any medical treatment. It does not do anything. It does one simple thing: It says to the people of this country, we are not going to spend tax dollars to help people kill themselves. I keep coming back to that and coming back to that. It is a simple message. This bill could have been one sentence: ``There ain't going to be any tax dollars spent for assisted suicide.'' But in an abundance of caution we put a lot of other things on it. We listed those specific things it could not be used for. Today's vote is very important in light of recent decisions by the Federal courts of appeal that rule that assisted suicide is a constitutional right. There is a danger here. The Court lurks over there, right today, waiting to render. They heard arguments January 8 of this year. I think there is certainly need for this legislation. It is proactive in that it would preempt the use of Federal funding, regardless of how the Court rules. They get last guess, Mr. Speaker, as to what the law is. If they guess wrong on this, you can open up the Treasury to every Dr. Kevorkian all across the country, every crossroads in Rockwall County, TX, and all the other 254 counties of Texas would have a Dr. Kevorkian there, because it gives them a chance to get their hand into the Medicare funds that are needed, the Medicaid funds that are needed. It would say to this country that while we are trying to help people, poor people live, that we are going to spend a lot of their money helping people die. That just absolutely does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been said that the nobility of a culture is marked by how it treats its weakest members. That cries out to us here. There is a lesson to this. Where does it take us? Where does it lead? The Netherlands report presents some alarming facts. In 1990 alone, 2,300 people were killed by doctors in The Netherlands in their euthanasia program. Even more shocking, Mr. Speaker, in the same year more than 1,300 people were euthanized without their consent; 140 of these cases involved fully competent people who were never given a choice. That is a clear and present danger. I hope the Supreme Court listens to this argument today, and I hope they listen to the argument and the speeches that the President of the United States sent to them, his brief. I hope they listen to the Wirthlin report, where 87 percent of the people said they were opposed to assisted suicide. I hope they will listen to the American people. I hope they will listen to this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this bill.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for his support and for bringing this bill to an early hearing, and I certainly thank the ranking minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] for his good words. I think when the gentleman from Ohio says that we could have done more, perhaps he is correct. I go back to my initial statement, though: Read the bill. The bill simply says no tax dollars shall be spent for assisted suicide. The gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] who is certainly an authority on health matters and a man I greatly admire and respect, went to great length to say what this bill does not do, and perhaps he is correct, but, once again, if he will read the bill, it simply says no tax dollars are going to be spent. No hard-earned tax dollars are going to be spent for assisted suicide. If we listened to the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Eshoo] she says she, of course, does not endorse assisted suicide. Of course she does not, and neither does this bill, nor does this bill preclude assisted suicide if States want to pay for it or families want to pay for it. The gentleman from Washington, [Mr. McDermott] talks about the lack of definitions. And yes, thank goodness we are not hampered down with definitions here, because it is so simple. It simply says no tax dollars will be spent for assisted suicide. He speaks of doctors' positions. Let me talk a moment or so about the physician's position. Where are the physicians on this? The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and at least 30 other professional health care givers, Mr. Speaker, these groups have filed briefs with the Supreme Court in opposition to physician-assisted suicide. They say, by their briefs, no tax dollars should be spent for assisted suicide. Certainly the AMA believes and has stated in their testimony before our committee that physician-assisted suicide is unethical and fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge that physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life and not to death. I think we might also question whether or not there is a danger that Federal funds might be spent if we do nothing. Current Federal law uses broad and general language. For example, Medicare pays for items and services which are, quote, reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. If assisted suicide is legalized by the Supreme Court or in any individual State, all it would take, Mr. Speaker, is for one district court judge to rule that assisted suicide fits under the State's Medicare guidelines. We need to make sure that this does not happen by clarifying Federal law. President Clinton often calls for Congress to spend taxpayers' dollars in a manner that reflects values. We ask the same thing. This bill does exactly that. According to a recent poll, 87 percent of Americans opposed federally funded suicide. They say what this bill says: No tax dollars shall be spent for assisted suicide. This bill honors a value central to all of our heritage, central to our society, that all people are created equal and all people are deserving of protection and assistance. That means that no matter how ill they are, no matter how disabled they are, no matter how elderly they are, no matter how frail they are or how depressed a person is, that we will never allow Federal funds to be used to kill them. Instead, we will continue to devote our effort and our resources to improving the health and prolonging the lives of our patients. This bill simply says, as I close, no hard-earned tax dollars shall be spent for assisted suicide. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 651, introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Rick White. This bill simply extends a construction deadline applicable to hydroelectric projects in the State of Washington, licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The chairman has adequately explained the ramifications of the bill. I think FERC does oppose affording licensees more than a 10-year extension from the issuance date of the license, but in this case H.R. 651 extends the deadline up to 6 years, which in totality would extend the project from the beginning to exactly 10 years, in accordance with the law. In accordance with the 10-year rule, FERC has no objection to the bill. It is not without warranted reason that these hydroelectric projects are in need of license extensions. In the case of the project in Washington State, the lack of power purchase agreements is the main reason construction has not commenced. Without these power purchase agreements, the project is not economically viable because it cannot be financed; all the while the deadline clock is running. And these circumstances make it critical for a construction license to be granted in accordance with the 10-year rule and FERC's agreement. This is an easy bill with no objection from FERC, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today again I rise in support of H.R. 652, also introduced by a fine young man, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Rick White. This bill simply allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the construction deadline for the Hancock Creek project in King County, WA. As the chairman stated, this is exactly like H.R. 651, a similar bill we just finished speaking in support of. H.R. 652 authorizes FERC to extend the commencement of the construction for the 6.3-megawatt project in Washington State for up to 6 years. With this extension, the hydroelectric project would have a full 10 years. I strongly urge Members to vote in support of H.R. 652 and allow this project sufficient time to commence its construction.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call my colleagues attention to the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which I am introducing in the House of Representatives today. This bipartisan bill, which already has 100 cosponsors, will prevent the use of Federal tax dollars to subsidize or promote the practice of assisted suicide. A Wirthlin worldwide poll conducted last November indicated that 87 percent of taxpayers objected to their tax dollars subsidizing assisted suicide. The Supreme Court has heard arguments arising from Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals that ruled that assisted suicide is a constitutional right. Unless the Supreme Court overturns these opinions, physician-assisted suicide could become a legal, routine practice throughout our Nation, and taxpayers could discover that they are funding assisted suicide, regardless of their conscientious objections to the practice. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 will preempt the use of taxpayer dollars by preventing programs funded by the Public Health Service block grants and others, such as Medicaid, Medicare, Indian health care, the military health care system and the Federal Employee Benefit plans, from paying for assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing. The bill does not affect a patient's right to reject or to discontinue medical treatment. It respects the wishes of the patient, and it respects the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. It does not create any limitation regarding the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration, nor does it affect funding for alleviating pain or discomfort for patients. In sum, the bill has the modest goal of keeping the Federal Government out of the business of assisted suicide. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must be proactive in addressing this issue--rather than be forced to deal with it after the fact--and that is what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to give this bill their serious consideration and support.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an old friend and outstanding East Texan, F. Lee Lawrence of Tyler, TX, who died recently at the age of 70. He, his brother Bill, and I were old friends from Southern Methodist University School of Law. Following his graduation from law school in 1950, he began his practice of law in Tyler. Lee was a great lawyer and a senior partner of one of the finest law firms in Texas. Yet he also found time to share his abilities with a number of worthy causes in his community and state. History was his special passion, and on June 13 of this year he was presented the Governor's Award for Historic Preservation. Governor Bush had appointed Lee to the Texas Historical Commission in April, 1995, where he was already serving as a member. Previously, he had served on the Commission's board for 4 years, beginning in 1959, when he collaborated with John Ben Shepperd and Dr. Rupert N. Richardson in originating and developing the present State Historical Marker Program. With Dr. Robert Glover he wrote the first State marker, which was erected at the site of Camp Ford near Tyler. Today, there are 11,000 historical markers in Texas. Lee helped organize historical societies in San Augustine, Shelby, Gregg, and Rusk Counties. He served as President of the Texas State Historical Association, was a member of the Executive Council throughout the 70's and served as president of the Texas Historical Foundation. He was founding member and president of the Smith County Historical Society and founding member and first president of the East Texas Historical Association at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, where he served on the Board continuously since its inception in 1962. He also served on the Texas Civil War Centennial Commission from 1960 to 1965. Lee served on the advisory council for the Center for Historical Resources at Texas A&M University and was a member of the Company of Military Historians, the Manuscript Society, and West Texas Historical Association. He copublished ``Tyler and Smith County, Texas: An Historical Survey'' and coauthored ``Camp Ford, CSA: The Story of Union Prisoners in Texas, 1964.'' He authored and published `'Texas War Horses'' in 1995. Lee received numerous awards for his dedication to historical preservation. The State of Texas presented him the award for Meritorious Service in 1963. He received the Mary Moody Northern Award for 35 years of service from the Texas Historical Foundation in 1994, the Ruth Lester Award for lifetime achievement from the Texas Historical Commission in 1995, the Preservation Award from Historic Tyler in 1995, and the Ralph Steen Award for distinguished service to the East Texas Historical Association and East Texas history. Lee also had served on the Board of Trustees at Texas Christian University since 1972 and on the Executive, Faculty Relations and Fiscal Affairs and Development Committees. In Tyler, he was actively involved in community organizations. He was president of the Texas Rose Festival Association, YMCA of Tyler, vice-president of Tyler Chamber of Commerce, chairman of Carnegie Public Library, and advisor for Texas Junior Quarter Horse Association. He served on numerous boards in Tyler and was serving on the board of Lifeline Underwriters Life Insurance Company at the time of his death. Lee was a member and elder of Fifth Street Presbyterian Church, member of St. John's Lodge; Chapter No. 24, R.A.M.; Geo. M. Patrick Council No. 13; Ascension Commandery No. 25; a 32 degree Scottish Rite and Sharon Temple. Born in Paris, TX on May 21, 1926 to Elizabeth O. Lawrence and the late W. Dewey Lawrence, Lee had lived in Tyler since 1931. He served 2 years in the U.S. Navy during World War II and attended Texas Christian University before graduating from SMU School of Law. Survivors include his wife, Virginia Ann Lawrence; daughters Frances Ann Lawrence and Amy Jane Lawrence Walton and son-in-law Randall H. Walton, all of Albuquerque, NM; daughter Mary Elizabeth Lawrence Cannan of Tyler; his mother Elizabeth; brother and sister-in-law, William D. and Dorothy Lawrence; two grandchildren and other relatives. Mr. Speaker, Lee Lawrence was one of those individuals whose influence was felt in all that he did, and he will be truly missed by all those who knew him. It was a privilege to be his friend--and I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying our last respects to this outstanding American.