[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2310-2311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                A RESPONSE TO LETTERS FROM CONSTITUENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus) for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
respond to letters that were sent to me by many of my constituents. I 
would also like to thank each of these individuals for notifying me of 
their concerns. I want to encourage more of my constituents to become 
proactive in issues that are important to them. Writing letters, 
sending E-mails, and even picking up the phone and calling my office is 
a great start.
  The first letter that I will read addresses the topic of abortion, 
and although I have received over 200 letters this year on this topic, 
I unfortunately only have enough time to read one. The letter that I 
have chosen to read was written by Tasha Barker, a 17-year-old high 
school student from Vandalia. This is her letter.
  Tasha wrote, ``Dear Congressman Shimkus, I am writing you this letter 
to express my feelings about abortion. I feel that abortion is a 
horrible thing, and that killing an innocent life is awful. When it 
comes to making decisions or taking stands about abortion, please 
remain pro-life. It would be greatly appreciated by many people. Thank 
you for taking the time to read these letters, Sincerely, Tasha 
Barker.''
  Good letter, Tasha. I also received letters from Charles Hake of 
Nashville, Robert Smith of Quincy, and Mary Black of Springfield, to 
which I would also like to extend my responses.
  Plus I would like to thank the group of young people from Vandalia 
whose names are Becky Bowerly, Lorin Keck, Marlis and Bob Hayner, Joe 
Sebright, Kathleen Gale, Amanda Beth Bowerly and Lauren Roberts, who 
sent letters to me on this issue.
  I, too, am very concerned with the lack of regard for human life. 
Abortion is a sad commentary on our society and a procedure which, once 
again, should be outlawed. Already since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 
Roe vs. Wade decision, more than 38 million unborn children have been 
killed in the womb. Thomas Jefferson said it best: ``The protection of 
human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and 
only legitimate object of good government.''
  To fulfill my role as a pro-life leader in Congress, I supported 
three separate bills in the 105th Congress that were designed to 
prevent the destruction of human life. The first bill was H.R. 929, the 
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, which would amend the Federal 
criminal code to prohibit performing a partial birth abortion in or 
affecting interstate or foreign commerce unless it is necessary to save 
the life of the mother and no other medical procedure would suffice.

                              {time}  1800

  This bill passed the House by a veto-proof majority in this body.
  The second bill was H.R. 3682, Child Custody Protection Act, which 
would amend the Federal criminal code to prohibit and set penalties for 
transporting an individual under the age of 18 across a State line to 
obtain an abortion and thereby abridging the right of a parent under a 
law of the State where the individual resides requiring parental 
involvement in a minor's abortion decision.
  However, the bill makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to 
save the life of the minor.
  The third and final bill was H.R. 641, Right to Life Act of 1997, 
which states that the Congress declares that the right to life 
guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at 
fertilization.
  I want you to be assured that I will always vote to protect human 
life and

[[Page 2311]]

the rights of the unborn. I plan on cosponsoring the Partial Birth 
Abortion Ban Act again in this Congress and have recently added my name 
as a cosponsor to the Right to Life Act of 1999.
  For my next letter, I would now like to address an issue that has 
been brought to my attention by 102 constituents in the form of 
postcards.
  The issue of concern is private contracting for health care. The 
postcard reads, ``Dear Representative John Shimkus: The Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 contains a provision (Section 4507) which prevents seniors 
from privately contracting for certain healthcare services with the 
doctor of their choice. This new law gives the bureaucracy even more 
control over seniors' healthcare and prevents them from getting all the 
care they need or want. I urge you to cosponsor and work for passage of 
legislation which will repeal this unfair and dangerous law.''
  I would like to say that I am fully supportive of this position. In 
fact, I have already cosponsored legislation, H.R. 2497, the Medicare 
Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act, in the 105th Congress, that would 
address your concerns. Unfortunately, H.R. 2497 was not brought up for 
a vote in the 105th Congress. However, I look forward to supporting 
this type of legislation once it is introduced in the 106th Congress.
  The provision (Section 4507) which prevents seniors from private 
contracting was added to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 under pressure 
from the administration. The President threatened to veto the entire 
budget agreement if we did not give in to the administration's demands. 
For example, if a healthcare provider such as a doctor chooses to 
privately contract with one patient, they could not accept Medicare 
assignment for any patient. Additionally, the provider must refrain 
from accepting any other Medicare patients, and submitting bills to 
Medicare on their behalf for a period of 2 years.
  This provision is detrimental not only to providers but to those who 
want to contribute their own money to receive the services of their 
personal choice. This is a prime example of the Washington knows best 
mentality, the kind of thought which I have real problems with. 
Consumers, not bureaucrats, know best.
  H.R. 2497 would have returned the right to individuals to be treated 
by a physician of their choice outside of Medicare when they are paying 
for that service entirely out of their own money.
  Thank you again for taking the time to contact me regarding this very 
important issue.
  The issue of my third and final letter is taxation of the Internet. I 
have received over 900 letters, or shall I say e-mails, on this issue, 
and here is an example of one that was printed out for this period of 
time. Therefore, I have chosen a letter that I would answer the general 
premise of each letter.
  Debbie Brown-Thompson of Edwardsville, wrote: As a taxpayer in your 
district, I would like to urge you to vote against paying Internet 
charges to the phone company in order to use the Internet. It is my 
understanding that the Internet was designed to make communicating with 
the rest of the world much easier. If we are forced to pay long 
distance charges for these local calls, the Internet will no longer be 
easier than other forms of communication.
  There are also many children who use the Internet for school 
projects, and this may end the educational benefits of using the 
Internet for them as well. Please vote no on any Internet tax.
  Not only would I like to address my response to Debbie, but I would 
also like to include Gene Ralston of Rushville, Charles Byars of Texico 
and Kim Lohman of Hillsboro, all of whom wrote similar letters 
addressing the Internet tax.
  I share your concern that the growth and usage of the Internet may be 
stifled by costly charges, and I will fight any effort which attempts 
to do so.
  Neither I, nor the Republican Congress, have any intention of 
increasing charges or taxes on the Internet. I serve on the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection 
which hears about all the exciting new things that are occurring in the 
technological field, and the thing that we will be fighting very 
fervently about is to make sure that this great new form of 
communication commerce will not be obstructed by taxation.
  I have heard that news outlets have erroneously reported that 
Congress was considering charging long distance fees for going on-line.
  In fact, the 105th Congress enacted a bill which I cosponsored called 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which established a moratorium on 
Internet taxation. The Internet Tax Freedom Act will protect against 
taxes on Internet access, prevent discriminatory taxation of electronic 
commerce and protect traditional commerce against the imposition of new 
tax liability if it merely happens to be facilitated over the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Communications Commission has created a fact 
sheet to answer Members' questions regarding this issue. I recommend 
that they visit their web site at: www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_
Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html.
  As a former teacher, I remember my lesson plans on how to contact 
Members of Congress, and in that lesson plan we talked about contacting 
them through the use of letters, and letters are a very great form. 
Letters can now be used on the Internet, as e-mail, and the thing that 
makes letters so important and that most members want to see are 
letters that are personal, are letters that have heart and meaning, 
soul searching, but also short and sweet and to the point.
  So I want to thank my constituents who have been very helpful in 
making me understand the concerns of the 20th district, and I look 
forward to sharing their questions and my responses to them at another 
time throughout this year.

                          ____________________