John Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to the Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 25 years of service to the Hispanic community. Then Mayor, James M. Inhofe, and Jack and Aurora Ramirez Helton formed the Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission in 1979. A city ordinance and county resolution were enacted so that the Commission would continue in the future. In 1979 only a few cities in the United States had such a commission. The Commission's current work includes annual youth exchanges and adult exchanges, which are an established part of their partnership with Tulsa's Eisenhower International School. Eisenhower has the United States' only elementary school international exchange program in its relationship with San Luis Potosi's Instituto Cervantes. May the commission have many more years of such valuable community service and prosperity.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Oklahoma Expos, who won the age 14 and under United States Specialty Sports Association's USSSA youth baseball championship on July 18. This fine group of kids from the First District of Oklahoma was able to defeat close to 90 teams from 15 states in order to win their division's World Series. Needless to say, I am very proud of every member of the roster, all of whom can rightfully call themselves champions. Of course, they were only able to accomplish this feat through years of hard work and dedication, not to mention teamwork. During their time together, not only did these kids learn how to win at the game of baseball, but also how to win at the game of life. For, whether it be on the baseball fields of Tulsa, Oklahoma or here in the House of Representatives, magical things can happen when people put aside their differences and work together for a common cause. In fact, as I stand here today, I wonder if some of the members of this great body couldn't learn a thing or two from these kids about teamwork. As we all know, getting a group of 14 year olds to come together as a team does not happen just by chance, there has to be a guiding force. Thus, I would also like to acknowledge the coaches and parents of the Oklahoma Expos for spending so much time with these boys in order to help mold them into champions on the field and off. Your unquestioned dedication to giving back to the community and raising tomorrow's leaders is commendable.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 106. Today, public support for protecting marriage is strong. Forty-four States have enacted laws that provide that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. These States constitute more than 75 percent of States required to approve a constitutional amendment and they include 86 percent of the U.S. population. Today, Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate among those that the American people have elected to represent them. More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by judicial fiat. Our society relies on strong family structure. As trends challenge the family, we need to do all we can to strengthen it and oppose trends that weaken this ideal. Redefining marriage hurts our children because it hurts the institution we rely on to raise our children. We certainly do not want judges changing the definition of marriage for us today and for our children tomorrow.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that will rightfully restore the second amendment rights of Americans living in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members of this House who support gun control. The issue today, however, is not gun control but it is self- defense. The right to be able to protect yourself and your family is always important, but the right to do so in your home is the most important of all. In America, we consider the home a special place and give greater weight to people's liberties in the home. The faulty bureaucratic logic of allowing District of Columbia residents to defend themselves is refuted by common sense. D.C. has some of the strongest gun laws in the Nation, and yet the recent FBI figures show that the District has regained its former title as the murder capital of the Nation for 14 of the last 15 years. Common sense and the love of life and liberty tells us that D.C. residents should have the right to defend themselves in their own home. According to the FBI, the street and highway robbery rate has decreased by 59 percent, which is a greater decrease than other types of robbery, so the theory that gun-related street crimes will increase because of this bill is not supported by the facts nor by common sense. That leaves with us only one question really: Are law-abiding residents of this city entitled to the same rights as other Americans? I think our answer can be nothing other than a resounding yes.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act of 2004. H.R. 2028 is a commonsense piece of legislation that reserves to the state courts the authority to decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance is valid within each state's boundaries. It will place final authority over a state's pledge policy in the hands of the states themselves, where it belongs. The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Integral to our American Constitutional system is each branch of government's responsibility to use its powers to prevent overreaching by the other branches. Passage of H.R. 2028, will send a strong signal to the federal judiciary that the will of the people will prevail against judicial activism on the Pledge of Allegiance. In a Nation where the vast majority of Americans believe in a divine power, it is un-American to place our pledge in the hands of the Federal Judiciary. I believe that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is not only a right, but also a responsibility. While no one is forced to recite it, neither should anyone be prohibited from pledging allegiance to our great country. It is wrong for any court to impose its will on whether the overwhelming majority of Americans can publicly express a fundamental belief. The people have spoken through their elected representatives on both the federal and state levels on this issue. I urge passage of this legislation to send a strong message of judicial restraint, and of empowerment of the people in their own government, to protect the Pledge of Allegiance for all Americans.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule considering H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. This is a critical piece of legislation that will prevent unelected, lifetime appointed Federal judges from arbitrarily determining the definition of marriage for the American people. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. Defense of marriage firmly states that no State shall be required to accept the same-sex marriage licenses granted by other States. To this day, 38 States have passed similar defense of marriage laws, demonstrating the overwhelming consensus for the protection of the institution of marriage. The role of Congress has always been clear on the limitation of jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. The Marriage Protection Act is an exercise of Congress's authority and is an appropriate remedy to address the abuses of Federal judges on this issue. States with defense of marriage statutes or constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage should not be forced to accept same-sex marriages from other States. Today the Federal courts are being used by activist judges to redefine marriage for the American people, completely apart from public debate upon those that the American people have elected to represent them. More than 200 years of American law and thousands of years of human experience should not be arbitrarily changed by a handful of unelected judges. The issue of marriage is too important to be decided by judicial fiat. The American people must have a voice on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3313.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 857 and H.R. 1078.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment for the record regarding yesterday's passage of the Maloney Amendment to H.R. 4766, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. The Maloney amendment, which was adopted yesterday by the House by voice vote, stated that no funds may be used to keep a contraception drug as prescription-only if it has been determined to be safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. Let the record state that there is not an oral contraceptive that has been determined to be safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. Current law already requires FDA to make products available over the-counter only when they are found to be safe and effective. On May 7, 2004, the FDA rejected an over-the-counter application from Barr Pharmaceuticals for the morning after pill because and I quote: ``. . . we have concluded that you have not provided adequate data to support a conclusion that Plan B can be used safely by young adolescent women for emergency contraception without the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer the drug.'' The petitioners for over-the-counter status could not prove that the drug was safe and effective without a doctor's supervision. It is important to note that the Maloney amendment has no effect on current law and merely restates current FDA law and policy regarding prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. I am concerned that my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are attempting to use this amendment to chastise the FDA for its refusal to allow morning-after birth control pills to be sold without a doctor's prescription. I understand that the FDA is being lobbied heavily by the business community and social liberal groups for acceptance of Plan B and other over-the-counter pills that would seek to terminate a pregnancy. I'm encouraged that the FDA is willing to place the concerns of public health above other considerations and I am hopeful that the FDA will continue to resist pressure from these outside interests.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for all his work on this very important measure. Unfortunately, the chairman is right, how this gets demagogued. I go back to my district, and seniors are excited about this, but unfortunately they get things in the mail and they hear all this misinformation. And this is a great bill. This is a historic measure and something that is very important. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an often overlooked provision in H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, that will better the lives of America America's seniors. As a result of the Medicare reform law, Medicare beneficiaries will receive an expansion of coverage that will help them to prevent and manage many life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disorders, without incurring large medical bills. For instance, H.R. 1 provides for an extensive initial medical preventative physical examination. This free exam includes measurements of height, weight, blood pressure and an electrocardiogram. Health care professionals will be on hand during these physicals to offer education, counseling and referrals related to other preventative services covered by Medicare. These preventative services include but are not limited to vaccinations, screening, mammography, prostate and colon cancer screening, as well as cardiovascular and diabetes screening. It is worth noting that cardiovascular and diabetes screening tests do not have deductible copays, so beneficiaries do not have to incur any cost. This is an additional incentive for those with limited resources to go to the doctor and have these vital tests performed so that these diseases can be detected as early as possible. Many of these diseases, if caught early, can be treated and effectively managed resulting in far fewer serious health consequences. Such conditions as obesity, diabetes and heart disease could be far less severe for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. These are diseases that are impacting millions of Americans every year. For example, approximately 129 million U.S. adults are overweight or obese. Additionally, an estimated 18 million, or 6.2 percent of the United States population, have diabetes. This is not to mention the fact that heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States. In 2003 alone, 1.1 million Americans will have a heart attack. By providing an initial physical examination for all newly enrolled Medicare beneficiaries, seniors and disabled Americans will have an opportunity to discuss with their physician the importance of preventative care and living a healthy lifestyle. These examinations will not only save lives, but also save the United States Government hundreds of millions of dollars, as catching these diseases early lessens the cost of treatment. One program that will help many seniors towards the realization of a better quality of life is the Chronic Care Improvement Program, which was announced as a pilot project by CMS in April. It establishes and implements a Chronic Care Improvement Program under fee-for-service Medicare to improve clinical quality and beneficiary satisfaction, while also achieving spending targets for beneficiaries with certain chronic health conditions. This program will help patients manage their diseases in a way that will help improve case outcomes and patient care when they need it most. As a member of Speaker Hastert's Prescription Drug Task Force, I have spent many hours meeting with senior citizens and listening to their concerns. I know the Medicare reform law we passed in November is already having a positive effect on many seniors as they are seeing their drug prices fall and their health improve. We should all be proud of the fact that we delivered our promise to seniors to give them a prescription drug benefit. We should also be proud about giving them an opportunity to live happier and healthier lives in their golden years by expanding their benefit to include the prevention and management of serious diseases. Thus, it is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that more American senior citizens will take advantage of the prescription drug benefit, as well as the preventative service Medicare offers, as they could truly help prolong millions of people's lives.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to discuss the state of America's energy industry, we need to take a hard look at our ability to add value to oil through refinement. Our refining situation in the energy industry is dismal. We have not built a new refinery in 25 years. Experts will tell you that U.S. refineries are unlikely to spend capital on expansion because they have already earmarked $20 billion to comply with burdensome government regulations. There just is not enough money left over to expand. We are maxed out. Our refineries are operating at 95 percent. Even if we recover more oil, even if we spur domestic production and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, we cannot refine it. We actually, if we do refine some extra oil, we have to send it to a foreign country to add value to it, and we have to buy it back like a Third World country. Due to our shortage in refining capacity, simple disruption can lead to wild price swings. For example, as refineries switch from winter to summer gasoline blends, prices in California increased by 40 cents a gallon. In 2000, gas prices in Chicago shot up by 50 cents a gallon due to refining problems. We are neglecting the state of our refining ability, but today we can do something about it. The Refinery Revitalization Act will streamline the regulatory and approval process for the restarting of refineries and construction of new refineries. It is just unbelievable we have not modernized our refineries. Mr. Speaker, could you imagine if we did not build a microchip processing plant or an auto assembly line for the next 25 years? Where would those industries be? By passing this legislation, we will update our ability to add value to our oil, reduce the cost of gasoline, and stabilize our energy economy. This is a smart solution for a Nation suffering from sky-high prices at the gasoline stations. I am looking forward to going home so I can tell my constituents that I did what I could to ease the high cost of gasoline. I hope that my colleagues will join me.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation because it will create jobs across the country and make us more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The America that I know strives to be the best in everything. Our people are remarkably driven in their pursuit of excellence. We are home to the top scientists, doctors, inventors, and entrepreneurs. Why, then, do we settle for honorable mention when it comes to our role as a player in the world energy market? Why are we not the gold medallist? Why has our country been without an energy policy for more than a decade? Why do we wait to act as each day puts us more in jeopardy while our foreign counterparts run up the tab at our expense? We import more than half of our oil from foreign sources, and that number will grow to more than 66 percent by the end of the decade if we do not act now. America loses when we import foreign oil. For every $1 billion that we import, we lose more than 12,000 jobs. At today's oil prices, that means we send more than 1.7 million jobs overseas. By passing a comprehensive energy policy, we will create more than 800,000 new jobs in the energy industry. In my home State of Oklahoma, more than 100,000 people are employed by the energy industry. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that these are good, high-wage jobs. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paint a gloom and doom picture of our economy. Well, here is their chance to make a difference. We have a responsibility to pass this legislation and send it to President Bush. Rarely do we have an opportunity to create so many jobs, and it is time to act now. Let us send an energy bill to the President, let us create more than 800,000 new jobs, and let it begin now.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on the passing of President Reagan it is right and good that our Nation gathers for mourning, prayer, and remembrance. As I inventory my memories of Ronald Reagan, I can't help but smile at the recollection of such a good and sensible man. The first time I voted for a President, I voted for Ronald Reagan. Each time since I cast my first ballot, I have compared every candidate to President Reagan. That's because Ronald Reagan set the standard, he personified leadership. He . . . was . . . America. He was our greatness, our promise, our free will, and our character. Ronald Reagan showed us love of family, even in the midst of challenges to our values and barbs to tradition. He and Nancy were unafraid to show their affection, to put their pure love for each other on display. When you saw the Reagans together, you couldn't help but feel part of their family. Their mutual fondness and love brought true meaning to the term ``first family.'' Not only a defender of traditional values, Ronald Reagan brought common sense to bear on government. He reigned in the scope of the federal government, while spurring growth in the private sector. Ronald Reagan changed the world. He spread democracy to places where freedom was a term without meaning. President Reagan stood up to the rising tide of communism, instead presenting the future that liberty ensures. He changed the world by example, showing the power of a free people. He ended the cold war with fearless resolve, lifting our fears of imminent attack by soviet missiles and giving a future to nations ravaged by the ills of communism. Not only did Ronald Reagan change the world, he changed America. He led us back to prosperity. He made us proud to be Americans again. Ronald Reagan brought us closer to his image of a ``shining city on a hill,'' and showed us that we could be great again. Under Reagan's guidance the rest of the world came to look to us for our leadership again. And although we are saddened by his death, we are comforted by the promise he restored in America. President Reagan said ``For while I take inspiration from the past . . . I live for the future.'' So must we.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day, I rise to remember the service and sacrifice of our fallen heroes fighting in the War on Terror and to honor all of the brave men and women who have served in our nation's military. This Memorial Day we recognize the sacrifices of so many brave men and women who gave their lives for the freedom of others around the world and for the defense of our Nation. This past weekend, we celebrated a generation of heroes with the dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. This memorial serves as a fitting tribute to our greatest generation who fought the war and the more than 400,000 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of others enslaved by tyranny and oppression. The memorial will provide future generations of Americans with a real sense of the enormity of the conflict and they will learn how our Nation joined together during the darkest hour in the history of the world, to rise up and defeat the regimes of Germany, Italy and Japan. Much like World War II, we find ourselves a nation at war. However, instead of having a clear picture of our enemy, we find them cloaked and hidden in terrorist camps and harbored by rogue nations. They do not have a country to call their home and their motives cannot be understated. They abhor the human virtues of freedom, liberty, and democracy and aim to destroy America and our way of life. Four Oklahoman's from the 1st Congressional District have died in operations overseas in Iraq. To honor their service and sacrifice, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to them. Army Specialist Kyle A. Brinlee, 21 of Pryor, Oklahoma, died serving his Country in Iraq on May 11, 2004; Army Specialist James E. Marshall, 19 of Tulsa, Oklahoma, died serving his Country in Iraq on May 5, 2004; Army Private Jason M. Ward, 25 of Tulsa, Oklahoma, died serving his Country in Iraq on October 22, 2003; Marine Lance Corporal Thomas A. Blair, 24 of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, died serving his Country in Iraq on March 24, 2003. These men gave their lives to bring freedom to a Nation which has never known it and end the scourge of terrorism around the globe. My prayers and condolences go out to all the families of those brave men and women who have fallen to make our homeland and the world a safer place. They gave their lives selflessly to protect the virtues of freedom and protect our way of life. Our debt to them will forever be beyond our power to repay. It is vitally important that we keep them in our memory and remind future generations of their selflessness and heroism.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his hard work on this very important legislation. I rise in support of this commonsense legislation which will deliver quality health care to millions of Oklahomans. One of the greatest challenges the State of Oklahoma faces is our uninsured population. With 650,000 uninsured, Oklahoma ranks fourth in the number of uninsured across the country. This is a shocking statistic, an unacceptable situation; and today I am proud to take action to fix this problem. Association Health Plans will allow small businesses to group together with their national trade associations to utilize their collective buying power when dealing with large insurance companies. AHPs will bring quality health care to Oklahomans covering specific diseases, maternal and newborn hospitalization, and mental health. With the enactment of this legislation, up to 8.5 million uninsured Americans will gain coverage immediately. Nationwide, 44 million Americans are uninsured; and 60 percent of those uninsured are employed by small businesses who will benefit. AHPs will cut an average of 13 percent, up to 25 percent, off insurance premiums. This is smart legislation that will bring better health care to American families. It is time that 5th Avenue benefits find their way to shops on Main Street. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the gentleman's hard work on this fiscally sound budget. I would like to bring to Members' attention a very valuable programs which pays for itself, saves the government money and energy, and creates jobs in local communities. It is called the Energy Performance Savings Performance Contracting, or ESPC. It has been documented over time that many government facilities have energy inefficient equipment and buildings that need to be modernized so that they operate at peak efficiency. However, Federal agencies do not have the funds, nor in some cases the expertise, to perform this kind of work. The ESPC program allows the government to modernize facilities without spending upfront funds. Additionally, the program saves the government and taxpayers money and creates precious jobs across the Nation. Under ESPC, the private sector installs new energy efficient equipment in Federal facilities at no upfront cost to the government. Federal agencies then pay off this investment over time with the funds saved on utility costs. It is important to note that the private sector contractor guarantees these savings and, by law, the government does not pay more for projects than it pays for in utilities. Energy analysts estimate that more than 50 federally approved projects worth close to $300 million are stalled at military bases and Federal agency offices nationwide. Additionally, this lapse has cost over 2,000 jobs nationwide. The reauthorization of this valuable program has been stymied because the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office disagree on whether or not to score the program. The OMB and the CBO have not scored the ESPC as a cost to the government since its inception. However, this year while the OMB still does not score the program, the CBO scores it at a significant cost over the next 10 years. There is no doubt that energy efficiency is essential to meeting our Nation's goals. As the single largest consumer of energy, the Federal Government can do a great deal to help the Nation meet this goal, especially through this program. Thus, it is my hope that the scoring discrepancies between the OMB and the CBO can be resolved when the budget resolution goes to conference.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference committee report on the Medicare prescription drug coverage bill. This long-awaited legislation will provide a tangible, real and meaningful benefit to American seniors. Senior Americans are tired of the talk. It is time for action. This bill will put a drug discount card in their hands in May, 2004; and it will help them save between 15 and 25 percent right off the bat. It also provides structure for Medicare. It includes an affordable deductible and catastrophic coverage, in responsible manner, to help the neediest seniors. Those who currently have prescription drug coverage can keep their coverage because this plan is voluntary. This is reasonable legislation that will not only improve and prolong lives of our seniors but will do the same for the Medicare program. Provisions for reimportation are in this legislation, ensuring safety and accountability. And it also includes an update for oncology drugs that is critical to cancer patients nationwide. In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that this bill provides structure; helps seniors get the prescription drugs they need when they need them by putting a discount card in their hands; is voluntary; and is tangible. It ensures accountability for reimportation and, more importantly, makes Members accountable to their constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Filner motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, the energy bill. If you ask any one of a thousand people employed by the oil and gas industry in my district, the question, How do you physically get oil and gas? They will all answer the same way. The first step is exploration and production to prepare a site for drilling. Like a surgeon sanitizing a patient before an operation, an exploration site must be prepared before drilling can begin. Cleaning, grading and excavating have always been an inherent part of oil and gas activities. Congress has exempted oil and gas deficits from the storm water permit process and there is good reason to do so. Oil and gas exploration occurs in predominantly rural areas and remote locations. Oil and gas site preparation uses temporary, nonimpervious, low-impact techniques. These techniques have inherently lower environmental impacts compared to conventional commercial and residential construction in urban settings. If these activities are nonexempt, oil and gas leases will be lost to time delay. If oil and gas leases are lost, development of on-shore domestic and oil gas reserves will be lost. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell that you we depend far too much on foreign oil. We import more than half of our oil from foreign sources, a number that is expected to grow to 66 percent by the year 2010 if we do not act now. I urge my colleagues to support domestic production and vote no on the Filner motion to instruct.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2003, one of our largest trading partners, the Republic of China, Taiwan, will be celebrating the 92nd anniversary of its National Day. I wish to join my colleagues in the United States Congress in sending best wishes to the twenty-two million residents of this lovely island. I also commend President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu as they continue to lead Taiwan to greater economic prosperity at home and greater participation in international activities abroad. Just like our 4th of July, October 10th marks the beginning of a fantastic story of economic, social and political success that has culminated in Taiwan becoming a vibrant democracy in the Pacific Region. These are exciting times in the history of relations between the United States and Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, on this 92nd occasion of the Republic of China's National Day, it is important to remember that Taiwan has a strong relationship with the United States, and we hope this relationship will continue to flourish and grow in the years to come.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, no matter where we stand on the issue of abortion, most Americans agree the brutal and horrific practice of partial-birth abortion in this country must end. I have even had some of the hard-shell pro-death, pro-abortion come up to me in saying that this horrific action ends. They even think it is bad. In previous Congresses, legislation to ban partial-birth abortion has been thwarted by Presidential veto. This year our President, President Bush, will sign this bill into law, making it the first abortion- limiting law on the books since Roe v. Wade was enacted. This is truly an historic moment and a milestone for the rights of the unborn. This is also an historic time for this Congress. We have listened to the will of our constituents, and we heard them loud and clear. They demand a ban on partial-birth abortion. According to a recent poll conducted earlier this year, 70 percent, 70 percent of Americans favor a law that would make this procedure illegal, except in the case necessary to save the life of the mother. The outrage over this grotesque practice is nothing new. The American Medical Association has said the partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. It degrades the medical practice and cheapens the value of life. As a husband and father of four beautiful children, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and the miracle of childbirth. I have been at every one of my children's births. Recently, I had a child 8 months ago, and to think that if you could have stopped that head before it came out, but if it slips out you could not kill the child, but to stop the head but to stick a pair of scissors in the back of the skull, suck the brains out and deliver it dead is unimaginable and should not happen in the United States of America or anywhere else in the world. There is no place in a civilized society for this horrific practice. Today we take solace in the fact that the nightmare of partial-birth abortion will soon end. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and conference report.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, no matter where we stand on the abortion issue, most Americans agree the brutal and horrific practice of partial-birth abortion needs to end. In previous Congresses, legislation to ban partial-birth abortion has been thwarted by Presidential veto. This year President Bush will sign this bill into law, making it the first abortion-limiting law on the books since Roe v. Wade was enacted. This is truly a historic moment and a milestone for the rights of the unborn. This is also a historic time for this Congress. We have listened to the will of our constituents, and we hear them loud and clear. They demand a ban on partial-birth abortion. According to a recently Gallup Poll conducted earlier this year, 70 percent of Americans favor a law which would make this procedure illegal except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother. The outrage over this grotesque practice is nothing new. The American Medical Association has said, ``The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. It degrades the medical practice and cheapens the value of life.'' As a husband and father of four beautiful children, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and the miracle of childbirth. I have been at every one of my children's births, and what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) described as having to stop the head of a child because if it comes out, you cannot kill it, you have to stop the head, and to stick a device in the back of the head and suck the brains out should not happen in the United States of America or anywhere else in the world. There is no place in a civilized society for this horrific act. This evening we can take solace in the fact that the nightmare of partial-birth abortion will soon end. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act, and I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their strong leadership on this measure. This legislation is vital to my district in northeastern Oklahoma. Among many provisions of this legislation is language authorizing improvements to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. This legislation will allow an extension in depth from its current 9 feet to 12 feet. This extension represents a significant step in economic development and job growth in northeastern Oklahoma. Just the increase in depth from 9 to 12 feet means that barges can carry 40 percent more cargo. Mr. Chairman, there are over 65 industries on the Oklahoma segment of the navigation system providing direct employment for over 4,000 people. The annual payroll for these hardworking Oklahomans is more than $85 million a year. Over the past 25 years, the navigation system has created 54,000 jobs, paying an average of $78 million annually. The Tulsa port of Catoosa is home to a foreign trade zone and 42 countries have traded in our area via this navigation system. The expansion of the McClellan-Kerr system brings remarkable prospects for jobs, growth and development. Not only will this legislation build up current businesses, but will allow Oklahoma to go after new businesses such as Boeing. The passage of this measure is part of my commitment to bring industry and quality jobs to Oklahoma. It is good news for hardworking Oklahomans and a cornerstone of our economic recovery. Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of H.R. 2557, and I urge my colleagues to join me in my support for this measure.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, which I supported, contains a provision which allowed for the importation of foreign medicines. However, it also included important safeguards that are not present in the importation provision included in this legislation. These new safeguards include: (1) Limiting reimportation to drugs being reimported from Canada; (2) requiring drugs reimported under its provisions to bear a statement designed to inform the patient that the drug was reimported by someone other than the manufacturer; (3) requiring the use of packaging that is reasonably certain to be tamper-resistant and not capable of counterfeiting; (4) preventing ``transshipment'' through third world countries by permitting the reimportation only of drugs that have not left the possession of the first Canadian recipient after receipt from the manufacturer; and (5) allowing the Secretary to designate one port of entry in the U.S. The provision included in the legislation before us allows reimportation from any country. Importing medicines from foreign countries weakens the U.S. pharmaceuticals distribution system by allowing the entry of pharmaceuticals from all over the world--even from countries with demonstrated counterfeiting problems. For example, this proposal would allow importation from South Africa, a country where ``Up to 20% of the medicines . . . are fakes or stolen and are almost impossible to distinguish from the real thing.'' The provision included in H.R. 1 also requires imported drugs to say they are imported, the provision in this bill does not. Without proper labeling, patients won't know what drugs they are getting. Those of us who are not willing to take the risk with our health will have no way of knowing if they have purchased an imported prescription drug that is contaminated from their neighborhood pharmacy. Proper labeling gives Americans who choose not to use import prescription drugs the means to do so. This provision would also allow the transshipment of drugs, the provision included in Medicare Prescription Drug bill would not. Transshipment of prescription drugs from country to country provides no pedigree or record of where a particular prescription has been. Without a record of shipment, there is no guarantee of safety. H.R. 1 requires documentation, such as the origin, destination, and lot number assigned to the prescription drug that provides this safety. It also requires tamper resistant packaging, the provision in this bill does not. H.R. 1 requires prescription drugs from Canada be contained in packaging which the Secretary of Health and Human Services has ``determine[d] to be reasonably certain to be tamper-resistant and not capable of counterfeiting.'' Tamper-resistant packaging provides an extra layer of security to prescription drugs. Most importantly, the importation provision included in the Medicare Prescription Drug legislation contains language that allows the Health and Human Services Secretary to ensure the safety of the American drug supply and those drugs being imported, the provision included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill does not. The Medicare bill contains language that requires the Secretary of HHS to certify to the Congress that the new imports will (1) pose no additional health and safety risks, and (2) result in significant savings to consumers. This is important, since the safety and cost-savings provision was signed into law by Congress and President Clinton, as part of the ``Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000,'' to ensure consumers are protected and that they save money. Since that time, two HHS Secretaries, one Democrat and one Republican, could not demonstrate cost-savings or safety from importation. The importation provision in the bill before us does not include any safeguards to ensure that the medicines patients receive are safe. I do not support taking this type of risk with the health of patients in my district. While I am voting in favor of H.R. 2673 because of numerous other provisions in the bill, I believe reimportation is poor policy and a serious safety concern to Americans.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, due to events beyond my control I was unable to be present for the following rollcall votes. Had I been able to submit my votes, they would have been as follows: Rollcall vote No. 297 on agreeing to the passage of H. Res. 264-- ``yes''. Rollcall vote No. 298 on agreeing to the passage of H. Res. 177-- ``yes''. Rollcall vote No. 299 on agreeing to the passage of H. Con. Res. 209--``yes''. Rollcall vote No. 300 on agreeing to the passage of H.R. 2465-- ``yes''.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today what we are talking about is ending the death tax. I believe it is morally wrong that we tax people on their death. They should not have to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the same day. I know a story of a couple, a man and a woman, who had two children who owned a small business. They passed away, unfortunately, and left that business to their children. Their children thought they would get this business, maybe get a little money. But instead to pay the death tax, they had to actually borrow money to sell that business. The Republican Party does not want to tax dead people. The Democrat Party does. That is the difference here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003. This bill permanently repeals the death tax and allows families to pass on businesses and farms to their families without the enormous, intrusive and burdensome taxes they are often forced to incur. The IRS imposes rates of up to 60 percent of the value of a family business or farm when the owner passes away. To pay the tax man, many families are forced to liquidate assets and sell their businesses and farms though some have been in the family for generations. The death tax is un-American, Mr. Speaker. Ask any small business owner. They know all too well that 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third. They will tell you that repealing the death tax would create jobs and grow our economy. It is good for small business owners, it is good for our economy and it is good for America. Join me in voting for H.R. 8, the repeal of this burdensome tax on family-owned farms and businesses. It is morally wrong.