Jim Ryun

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment to establish the oath of renunciation and allegiance as Federal law so that it cannot be changed without an act of Congress. The oath of renunciation and allegiance is a solemn vow taken by thousands of immigrants each year to become a United States citizen. The oath is the fundamental statement of allegiance to the United States, and this allegiance is what unites America. We are not a Nation based upon race and creed or religion. We are a Nation based upon loyalty and allegiance to our country and her principles. As a gateway to the United States citizenship, the oath should be given the same respect and protection as our other national symbols, such as the American flag, our national anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Furthermore, given its title 1 authority over naturalization, Congress has the authority and obligation to protect the oath. The oath took its current form in the 1950s, but parts of the oath date back to 1790. In 2003, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services proposed changes that would have significantly weakened the oath and its historical significance. Specifically, the proposed changes would have eliminated the call to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Eliminating these words would have inherently diminished the force of the Constitution, and any measure that reduces the importance of the Constitution is a blow to all American rights. Fortunately, because of public backlash, the Bureau did not institute these changes of the oath. However, when the Bureau announced its changes, we saw the integrity and the oath was in danger. Accordingly, the House passed an amendment last year making sure that no funds would be used by the Department of Homeland Security to alter the language of the oath. This prohibition should be made permanent. The oath is currently in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and can be changed at any time by this or future administrations. My amendment would codify the oath of renunciation of allegiance so that Congress would have the sole authority to alter its language. My amendment would also require the Department of Homeland Security to notify a foreign embassy when an individual from that country takes the oath and swears allegiance to the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment establishing the oath of allegiance as the law of the land.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Deficit Reduction Act, I think there are a few things that Americans should know. This bill has been demonized, demonized by those who want to ignore the growing Federal deficit, the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that exist in several Federal Government programs. But we all know that entitlement spending is growing at nearly three times the rate of inflation and that we simply cannot sustain that growth. Entitlement spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security make up 54 percent of the government spending now, and it is projected to double in the next decade. Medicare is growing at over 7 percent annually and Medicaid is at 8 percent annually. There are no easy answers to this problem, Mr. Speaker, but if we do not act on these programs now, they will only grow worse. The Deficit Reduction Act simply starts with the most obvious, commonsense reforms to save taxpayer dollars by finding waste and abuse in entitlement programs and eliminating them so that the funds that we put into these programs go to people who really need them. In my State of Kansas, a pharmacy recently received a Medicaid payment of $1 million for eardrops that only cost $1.95. Mistakes happen, Mr. Speaker. But in a program that is growing at an unsustainable rate, we need to do all that we can to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. The Deficit Reduction Act takes a very important first step to pay for entitlement spending by making common-sense reforms to outdated programs so that we can help those most in need instead of enriching those who abuse the program. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Deficit Reduction Act.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the House will vote this week on H.R. 4128, the Property Protection Act, to secure all Americans' rights to what they have earned. On June 23 of this year, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in the decision of Kelo v. City of New London that economic development can be a public use under the fifth amendment's taking clause. The public reaction to this decision was both swift and decisive. In Kansas, people are outraged. In a polling conducted by the Wall Street Journal, 11 out of 12 Americans said they oppose the taking of private property, even if it is for public economic good. H.R. 4128 would prohibit the Federal Government from taking personal property, private property for economic development purposes. The bill would also deny States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds if they abuse their eminent domain power. H.R. 4128 would negate this unfortunate ruling and restore Americans' constitutional right to be secure in the property that they have worked hard to obtain. I urge the House to stand with me and protect private property rights.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. On Monday, October 17, 2005, I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes: Journal vote (rollcall 521), H. Res. 457 (rollcall 522), H. Res. 491 (rollcall 523). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 521. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 522. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 523.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to restate Congress's commitment to protecting children on the Internet and to condemn a recent judicial decision that, if left standing, would impede the work of law enforcement in tracking down pedophiles on the Internet. Recently, Jan Helder, a resident of Mission Hills, Kansas, was convicted by a jury for attempting to solicit a minor over the Internet. Notwithstanding the jury's verdict, the U.S. District Judge, Dean Whipple, acquitted Jan Helder, saying that he did not commit a crime because he was not communicating with a minor but, in fact, was communicating with an undercover agent posing as a minor. Judge Whipple clearly ignored the law's intent and contradicted well- established case law addressing the issue. In United States v. Jeffrey Meek, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically addressed the question of whether a crime of attempting to solicit a minor on the Internet applies when the actual victim is an adult rather than a minor. In this case, the Court concurred with the decisions of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts in finding that an actual minor victim is not required for an attempted conviction under this section.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525, which would authorize small businesses around the country to establish Association Health Plans. An estimated 45 million people are uninsured in the United States, and the number has grown since 1989. Eighty-five percent of these people are in working families where the price of premiums have increased so much that they cannot afford the coverage that will give them peace of mind. The majority of Americans receive health insurance coverage through their employers, but with rising health care costs, many small businesses can no longer afford to provide coverage for their employees. H.R. 525 would remedy this by allowing small businesses to band together to garner greater buying power when bargaining with health care providers. Let's give Americans access to more affordable health care and support Association Health Plans.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the next step in the ongoing struggle to reform medical malpractice liability. Skyrocketing insurance premiums are debilitating our Nation's health care delivery system and liability insurers are either leaving the market or raising rates to excessive levels. In turn, more physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are severely limiting their practices, moving to other states, or simply not providing care. Without a change, the exodus of these providers from the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed health care. H.R. 5 would help to lower the costs associated with health care coverage by encouraging the speedy resolution of claims, limiting lawyers' fees, and imposing caps on non-economic damages. I urge the House to once again pass medical malpractice reform to help lower the cost of quality health care and make it accessible to more Americans.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2005, I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes: H. Res. 328, H. Con. Res. 175, H. Res. 364. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 328. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 175. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 364.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. This legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Kentucky, would establish procedures to protect our servicemembers from predatory practices sometimes employed by members of the financial services industry. I want to specifically express support for Section 110 of the bill, which establishes a method for our military base commanders to obtain the information that they need to keep these problematic agents off their installations without neglecting their servicemembers of access to legitimate financial service providers. Specifically, Section 110 creates a registry at the Department of Defense to list any agent that has been barred from entry onto any military installation. This registry will be made available to base commanders everywhere, empowering them to deny access to an agent known to employ predatory practices elsewhere. I want to thank Mr. Davis and Chairman Oxley for including the language I authored in Section 110. This language, coupled with the other provisions in the bill, will go a long way towards protecting our servicemembers from those who would prey on them financially. I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today against this recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which grossly misrepresents the intent and historical precedent regarding government taking of private property. Our Founding Fathers intended to protect private property by limiting government authority. One would expect that private property taken by eminent domain would become land available for public use such as parks and roads. Unfortunately, this decision creates a loophole for government to manipulate the definition of public use simply to generate greater tax revenue. Protection of private property is a fundamental right protected in a strong democracy. The Supreme Court's ruling is an insult to all Americans who have worked hard to have a home to call their own. It is a ruling that encourages the strong to take from the weak and flies in the face of what government is intended to do, that is, to protect the lives and property of all American citizens.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gene Bicknell of Pittsburg, Kansas for his dedication to giving back to his community. Gene has remained an active contributor to the Pittsburg community, and has greatly impacted his neighbors through his generous efforts at Pittsburg State University and the city as a whole. Gene's devotion to charitable causes is recognized by many as truly inspirational. The weekend of July 8, 2005 marks the fifteenth and final Gene Bicknell Charity Golf Classic, which benefits Pittsburg's Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center and Pittsburg State University, Gene's alma mater. The tournament has raised over $1.2 million since its first year, and supporters hope to raise an additional $100,000 this summer. I congratulate Gene on the great success of this annual function and celebrate his humanitarian passion that has touched so many lives.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is an unnecessary amendment. We must not turn our military installations into abortion clinics. Our military doctors did not sign up to perform abortions, and we must not put them in that position. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, how much time have I remaining?

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. JoAnn Davis).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Davis amendment. Allowing self- funded abortions would simply turn our military hospitals overseas into abortion clinics. This amendment is not about equal access to health care; it is simply offered to make a political point. Female military personnel who are stationed overseas already have access to abortion clinics where they are legal. In some cases, women prefer to have abortions in the United States, and that option is available under the current law that is now in operation. Furthermore, overseas military hospitals already offer self-funded abortions when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Abortion services are already available, and there is no demonstrated need for expanding abortion access. Furthermore, this amendment does not seek to address operational requirements or ensure access to an entitlement. Although this amendment is presented as providing for solely self- funded abortion, the fact is that American taxpayers will be forced to pay for the use of military facilities, the procurement of additional equipment needed to perform abortions, and the use of needed military personnel to perform these abortions. Military doctors signed up to save the lives of our dedicated servicemen and women, not to end the lives of babies. Many military doctors, even those who are pro-choice, would not want to perform abortions. I think it is important to note that this amendment was offered in the Committee on Armed Services where only 19 of the committee's 64 members supported it. I ask my colleagues to vote against turning our military hospitals into abortion clinics and to vote against the Davis amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).