|
Looming Crisis - Social Security
Posted by on March 9, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of talk about Social Security and what is the right word to use. Is it a crisis? Is it just a problem? Is there no problem with a system awash in cash that perhaps just needs some minor adjustments down the road?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do believe there is a crisis, or at least a serious problem that is looming. There is no question we are held captive by our demographics. In order for our Social Security System to work, we need large numbers of young people to pay into the system. We also need people on retirement to not live very long after they retire. But the reality is our birth rates in this country are down, and our retirees are living longer lives.
Both situations are arguably good news, but they do portend a serious situation for our Social Security System. I would draw attention to this graphic. This was produced by the Congressional Research Service. It is not a partisan chart. But here is the year I was born, 1950, and we have a little over 16 workers working away to support every retiree. Fast forward, and here we are in 2005. We have three workers working to support every retiree. But as we move down the line, we go to two workers to support every retiree.
Now, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, I believe very strongly in the American economy. And I would bet on the American economy over and above any economy in the world. And I just bet we can make those two workers a lot more productive in those out years, in 2040 and 2050. But I do not know if we can make them productive enough for two workers to support one retiree. I think we have to look at some other things.
A lot of people talk about the trust fund, and, gosh, there is just money in the trust fund, and we will spend that money on retirees when the time comes. Again, I will go to the Congressional Research Service, and this is a graph produced by them just a few weeks ago. It is on the Web site. Anybody can go access it that wants to. Well, this shows the money in the trust fund. And again, you will see that there is a great deal of money coming in, and it is projected to increase. But we reach a point, looks to be about 2028, when the money starts coming down, and it comes down very rapidly.
This includes paying back the money that is in the trust fund that was borrowed. This includes monetizing the Social Security debt which in and of itself can be pretty painful for the markets when that time comes.
Mr. Speaker, there is a question of fairness here because 12 percent of the country's payroll pays into the Social Security system and does not really pay a fair rate of return. It pays by anyone's estimate 1.14, 1.19 percent interest. What Albert Einstein, probably the finest mind of the last century, described as the miracle of compound interest, this miracle is being denied to American workers.
The old axiom states we tax what you do not want, but surely we want jobs for tomorrow's American. Increasing the payroll tax is really not a solution that I can accept. So what are the solutions? What about cutting benefits as suggested by one of the other speakers. I did not come to Congress to cut benefits on Social Security . We could raise taxes, but I do not want to do that. Taxes on jobs are going to drive jobs overseas. We already create a punitive environment in this country for the creation of new jobs with our legal system, cost of health care, and our Social Security payroll tax. I do not think we need to contribute to that, and this Congress should make a pledge that it will not contribute to driving jobs overseas by increasing the payroll tax.
I have already alluded to growth in the economy, and I believe in this country and I believe our economy will grow, but I do not know that we can count on that to cover all of the projected problems with the shortfall in the Social Security fund. So that leaves one lever left to pull, and that lever is getting a fair rate of return on the money that is invested in the Social Security system.
The problem is if we leave that money for us in Congress, and I have only been here for 2 years, but I know what other Members know, if we leave that money in Congress, we will spend it. We will spend it so quickly, we will not even know we have spent it. And when it comes time to pay the interest, we will write an IOU to pay the other IOUs we have in that filing cabinet in West Virginia.
The only way to protect the Social Security funds is to put them in accounts controlled by individuals where we cannot get at it. A question always comes how are we going to pay for this. We are already paying a great deal of money into the Social Security funds. We are paying a surplus into the Social Security system. So why not take that money in surplus, invest it and earn a fair rate of return on that investment.
There is debt that is owed to the Social Security system. That debt will some day have to be monetized. That money continues to grow as we pay the interest on it and as we continue to borrow from those funds. Why do we not just borrow the money? The obligation is already there. Let us refinance it like any American family would refinance a mortgage if they were trying to work their way out of a difficult financial situation. Refinance the money, make it real debt with a real interest rate. I think the markets would take a great deal of comfort in that. Markets do not like uncertainty, and I do not think in 10 or 15 years' time they are going to like the uncertainty when we monetize the debt that we owe the Social Security system.
So let us recognize it up front, call it what it is, it is a loan, we borrowed it, let us set a fair interest rate on it, and pledge to pay it back and set up a repayment schedule that we can all live with.
So the current obligation is already present. Let us finance the transition with that debt and convert an unknown obligation into bonded indebtedness and give the markets some measure of comfort that we in Congress recognize the problem and know what we are doing to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 70 years since Social Security was founded. Here in this House, let me just give a quote: ``It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old age pension plan which ultimately ought to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'' These words were spoken in this House in a joint address before Congress by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. I think he had it right, and I think it is time for us to work on that.
 Watch Video
Medical Liability
Posted by on March 9, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on that. For a number of years, ever since the Institute of Medicine study came out, and I bought the book and read through it, I felt that their study methods were significantly flawed.
While I agree with their premise that if there is one death from medical errors, that is too many, the book is worth reading if only to look through the very tortured methods that they went through to come up with the number at the end of 98,000 deaths a year. They look at two hospital wards, one back in 1984, one in 1992; and from these two wards extrapolated the data that they have.
In fact, there was a significant reduction in medical errors between 1984 and 1992, and that never got really much in the way of any headlines, but they go through this very tortured analysis; and at the end they say since we are not sure that we are underestimating the figure, they doubled it. That gives Members some idea of the scientific rigor with which they approached the task.
Again I agree one death is too many, and we need to be moving toward a system that is a no-fault system. We strive for error-free medicine in a world that is sometimes all too human.
But I also feel compelled to talk about the good news. We have heard a lot of information and how serious the situation is across the country, and it is serious. I do not mean to diminish that, but there are some good news items out, and I would like to share them with this House. I am especially thankful to the Georgia medical delegation that has allowed me to appear on stage with them.
The State of Texas, which is so often a leader in so many areas across the country, 18 months ago dealt with the crisis in medical liability insurance by passing a State law that allowed for caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits. It was patterned after the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 done in California that we have all talked about here as a standard that we should aspire to. Our Texas law updated that for the 21st century.
There is a cap of $250,000 on the doctor for noneconomic damages, not for real damages, but for noneconomic damages capped at $250,000. The hospital is capped at $250,000, and a third health care entity, a nursing home or hospital, is capped at $250,000. That is a significant change from the California cap of only $250,000 that was passed back in 1975.
What have the results been in the State of Texas since this constitutional amendment passed? The results are worthy of our study here. The first thing is when I was running for Congress in 2002, we had medical insurers fleeing the State. We went from 17 to two in a very short period of time.
Just like the stories we heard earlier, as I was campaigning for this office, a young woman who is about 40 came up to me and said, I have lost my insurance coverage because my insurer left the State, and now I cannot practice my specialty of radiology. I cannot get insurance anywhere, so I am now a stay-at-home mom. What a travesty. She had gone to a State school, so the citizens of Texas essentially paid for her education. She came to her peak earning years, her peak power, and her profession is taken away from her, and not because as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) pointed out, not because she forgot how to read a chest X-ray, but because she could not get insurance coverage.
This system has changed with the passage of the Texas liability reform law. What the Texas Department of Insurance has seen since the law was passed in September 2003 is that we have now reacquired I believe it is up to 14 liability insurers. We have gone from 17 down to two, we are back up to 14, but the most important thing is those insurers have come back into the State without the type of rate increases that have occurred in neighboring States. Insurers have come back into the State of Texas, but they did not up their premiums like they did in Oklahoma, and that is a terribly significant event.
The other thing that we have seen is Texas Medical Liability Trust, my old insurer of record, immediately cut its rates by 12 percent after the constitutional amendment passed. There was some discussion as to whether or not this rate reduction would hold, but in fact this year they have put on top of that an additional 5 percent rate reduction for a total of 17 percent in rate reductions. Again, remember what we are talking about here is not cheaper insurance for doctors; what we are talking about is permitting doctors to stay in the practice of medicine because, after all, patients cannot have access to a health care system if they do not have access to a physician somewhere along the line.
The other unintended benefit from passing caps in the State of Texas has been what hospitals who self-insure, the benefits they have seen. The Christus health care system down in South Texas reported in the Dallas Morning News almost a year ago, so very shortly after these caps went into effect, that they had achieved savings of $22 million in the 6 months after this law, this constitutional amendment was first passed. That means $22 million going into nurses' salaries, capital expansion. The types of things you want your community hospital to be doing, they were allowed to participate in, again, because of the savings brought about by simply instituting a series of caps on noneconomic damages, those awards that are for pain and suffering in medical liability suits.
The other thing that has happened which is pretty good news for Texas doctors is the number of suits have plummeted. That has been truly a significant breathing spell for the past 18 months for physicians of a State who were significantly beleaguered.
I am frequently asked, if Texas has done such a good job of solving the problem, why do you care about doing something on a national scale. I do care because it is important. As a Member of Congress, I have been privileged to travel around the country. Two years ago with the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure, I visited the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. On the way home, we stopped in Nome, Alaska. We
had a chamber of commerce lunch there. When they found out there was a doctor who was a Congressman, all of the medical staff at their local hospital came out to talk with me.
What they wanted to talk about is are you going to be able to do anything about medical liability rates, because we cannot afford the insurance rates for an anesthesiologist at our hospital. I said, My gosh, how do you practice without an anesthesiologist?
And they said, We do the best we can.
I asked what kind of doctor he is, and the doctor said, I am an OB/GYN just like you.
I said, Wait a minute, how do you practice obstetrics without an anesthesiologist? What do you do for a C-section?
He said, We arrange for an airplane and get the mother transferred to Anchorage.
Mr. Speaker, that is an hour and a half by air, assuming the weather is okay; and they sometimes have bad weather in Nome, Alaska. I fail to see how we are advancing the cause of patient safety by allowing this situation to continue.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) eloquently pointed out how much of our Federal budget goes for health care, and this is a key point on why we need to involve ourselves with a national solution to this problem.
A 1996 study done out in Stanford, California, estimated that the cost of defensive medicine within the Medicare system is in excess of $30 billion a year.
That is in 1996, almost 10 years ago. I bet those numbers are higher today if someone were to rerun those numbers. That is the crux of the problem. We are talking about an amount of money that would almost pay for our prescription drug benefit that we are squandering on the practice of defensive medicine because our doctors are afraid that they are going to be pulled into court and they want to be sure their cases look good when presented on the stand. That is why this is so critical for us on a national level.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the doctors for putting this together. I certainly want to thank Georgia for their indulgence in allowing a non-Georgia physician to appear out here tonight. It has been a pleasure to be here. I thank you for doing this.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for the doctor's timely remarks, and appreciate the gentleman being here with us.
 Watch Video
Burgess Discusses Medical Liability Reform
Posted by on March 8, 2005
Congressman Burgess discusses successes in medical liability in the State of Texas on the House of Representatives floor. For more information on medical liability, please see the Medical Liability section under the "Issues" area of this website.
 Click here to watch the video.
Strengthen and Reform Social Security Now
Posted by on March 8, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hearing a lot of information about our Social Security system, and I am sure they have got legitimate questions: Is there a crisis or not? If there is a crisis, then is there a trust fund or not? If there is not a trust fund, where did it go, who took it and when?
There are, of course, those who say that there is no crisis, that we have a system that is awash in cash and can fund all future benefits but it needs minor tweaking to ensure solvency.
Perhaps crisis is the wrong word. Captive may be a better selection because certainly we are held captive by our demographics. If our current system is to work and work well, we need large numbers of young people to pay into the system, and we need retirees to live relatively short intervals after their retirement; but in fact, neither of these situations reflects reality.
Birth rates are down in this country, although not to the degree as seen in some Western European countries, still resulting in a smaller pool of younger workers to support retirees. Life expectancy is up, largely because of the unbelievable advances in medical care that have occurred in the last 70 years since 1935. Both situations are arguably good news, but they do portend a serious situation for our Social Security system.
For example, in the country of Japan there are now four retirees to be supported by every new job that is created. It becomes extremely difficult to remain competitive in such an environment. Raising taxes to deal with the Social Security shortfall arguably has been done several times in the past 70 years; but, unfortunately, that makes the problem even worse. The old axiom states that you tax what you do not want, but surely we want jobs for tomorrow's Americans, but increasing the payroll tax may mean ultimately there are fewer such jobs.
In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that excess Social Security funds were to be placed in the general revenue fund. Mr. Speaker, that is what happened to the trust fund. In fact, nonnegotiable government instruments housed in a metal filing cabinet in West Virginia represent the surplus in Social Security, and that surplus has been spent over the last several decades by Congress. Congress spent the money, Congress wrote out an IOU for the money, and we continue to write IOUs for the interest.
Mr. Speaker, where is the fairness in a system that holds captive 12 percent of the country's payroll and pays no interest on the money? This, I think, is the heart of the problem. What Albert Einstein described as the miracle of compound interest is denied to American workers.
What are the solutions that might be there for us to help with Social Security? We could cut benefits. I did not come to Congress to do that. We could raise taxes. Not this guy.
There are, of course, those who feel that growth in the economy will help those two workers that are going to have to support every retiree into the future; and I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I will bet on the American economy every time, but I am not sure if we can improve productivity to that degree.
Mr. Speaker, what we can do is take those excess funds being paid into Social Security and place them into individual accounts that would not be accessible to government spenders and not be accessible to congressional appropriators. Allow these accounts to earn interest by following a conservative investment strategy, and now perhaps we begin to see the opportunity to preserve Social Security and ensure its solvency well into the future.
The question is always asked how to pay for this transition. I have already excluded a tax increase or benefit cut as a viable mechanism. The money to finance the transition would have to be borrowed; and in fact, this does not represent new debt because the obligation has already been incurred. The borrowing is only to refinance an obligation that already exists, a situation analogous to refinancing a mortgage.
Mr. Speaker, we should always be for good government. The principle of good government would suggest that the current obligation is present, but we are not acknowledging its presence. By financing the transition, we can convert an unknown obligation into bonded indebtedness. It becomes a marketable instrument; and that, in fact, would be a commitment to good government.
Financial markets are not known for their courage. They do not like uncertainty; and, clearly, the uncertainty of monetizing the Social Security debt in the future is one that they will deal with fairly severely. But by making that a known obligation, we are giving the markets more comfort into what our intentions are with regard to the unfunded Social Security liability.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a quotation that was delivered in this House some years ago: ``Voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.''
These words were spoken in this Chamber 70 years ago by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the father of Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation to deal with this problem this year. I applaud the President for pushing it on the national agenda, and I look forward to the debate.
 Watch Video
Congressman Burgess Congratulates Westlake Fire Department on Federal Grant
Posted by on March 7, 2005
The Westlake Fire Department has received a grant of over $440,000 from the 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. With FY04 funds, $745 million will be awarded to several thousand fire departments.
“I am glad to see this critical funding for our local fire departments and their firefighters who put their lives on the line each day to protect our families, homes and communities, stated Congressman Michael C. Burgess. “Our first responders deserve not only our gratitude but also are financial assistance.”
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program assists rural, urban and suburban fire departments throughout the United States. These funds increase the effectiveness of firefighting operations, firefighter health and safety programs, new fire apparatus, emergency medical service programs, and fire prevention and safety programs in local departments.
“In this nation, far too many individuals lose their lives or are injured by fire. Among these victims are firefighters, who provide emergency response services to their fellow residents,” said U.S. Fire Administrator R. David Paulison. “The nation’s firefighters and American homes are safer today through this important grant program.”
Beginning today, March 7, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin accepting applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) grant program. The deadline for receipt of the AFG fire grant applications is 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on April 8, 2005. DHS also announced today that the application period for the AFG Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants will begin on May 31, 2005 and continue through June 28, 2005. Fire Prevention and Firefighter Safety grant applications will be accepted in September 2005.
“We recognize the importance of the Fire Act Grants to our nation’s fire departments and we will continue to work closely with the fire service community to meet their needs,” said C. Suzanne Mencer, Director of Department of Homeland Security Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP).
For more information on the grant program or the USFA, contact the Grants Program Office at 1-866-274-0942 or email FIREGRANTS@dhs.gov.
Rep. Burgess Reintroduces HR 1040, The Freedom Flat Tax Act of 2005
Posted by Michelle Stein on March 2, 2005
Today, Congressman Michael C. Burgess (TX-26) reintroduced his popular Freedom Flat Tax legislation to fundamentally reform America’s tax system. Rep. Burgess unveiled the bill, HR 1040 The Freedom Flat Tax Act of 2005, which introduces an optional flat-rate tax system.
“It is time Uncle Sam lets Americans take home more of their hard-earned money,” said Congressman Michael Burgess. “President Bush has made a commitment to make fundamental changes to our tax code, and I believe HR 1040 is the best solution to combat our cumbersome system.”
The Freedom Flat Tax Act will phase-in the flat tax over a three-year period, with a 19-percent rate for the first two years and a 17-percent rate in subsequent years. It will have no deductions or loopholes, but will allow some personal exemptions. Unlike other versions of the flat tax, this legislation allows individuals and businesses to choose if and when they will opt into the system. The flat tax restores fairness to the tax law by treating everyone equally.
“The goal of the Freedom Flat Tax is to create a tax system that minimizes the number of market-distorting investment decisions that are made as a result of the current tax system,” stated Congressman Michael Burgess. “People should base their financial decisions on common-sense economics, not the tax code.”
“The goal of the taxpayer movement is to limit the federal government to taxing income one time at one rate,” stated Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform. “Congressman Burgess' legislation gives every American the opportunity to take that option.”
A benefit of the Free Flat Tax is the spur to economic growth, which comes through eliminating the current tax code’s bias against savings and investment. Because the flat tax treats all economic activity equally, it will promote greater economic efficiency and increased prosperity. “The legislation creates is a fair and simple system, which will help boost economic activity,” commented Rep. Michael Burgess.
Burgess Honored Again to Serve on Speaker Hastert’s Policy Committee
Posted by Michelle Stein on February 17, 2005
Congressman Michael C. Burgess (TX-26) was appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to serve a second term as on the House Republican Policy Committee for the 109th Congress.
“It is privilege to be selected to serve on the House Republican Policy Committee again this term,” stated Congressman Michael C. Burgess. “This committee assignment provides another opportunity where I can meet with House leadership and share my views on health care reform for all Americans.”
The Policy Committee is the House of Representative Majority’s forum for evaluation and considering future legislative initiatives. The Committee contains members of Leadership and Members appointed by the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (IL-14).
“Selecting Representative Burgess to the Committee was a simple decision. He is a man of solid conservative principles who is dedicated to developing sound legislation that will benefit the American people,” commented Speaker Hastert.
The House Republican Policy Committee meets on a weekly basis to discuss current and upcoming legislation. The committee is divided into subcommittees to provide further detail on policy decisions. In the 108th Congress, Congressman Burgess served as Chairman of the Health Subcommittee.
Burgess Announces $100,000 Affordable Housing Grant
Posted by Michelle Stein on February 14, 2005
Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26) today announced the awarding of a $100,000 affordable housing grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas.
The grant, provided to the Nevada Court project in Denton through Northstar Bank of Texas, will help fund the acquisition of 10 rental units in Denton for use by very low-income disabled individuals. These two-bedroom units will be completely accessible to people with mobility impairments.
"Quality affordable housing is in chronically short supply, especially for those residents of the 26th District with special needs," said Congressman Burgess. "rants like this one from the Federal Home Loan Bank can make these projects viable and help serve this important community need."
The FHLBank Dallas invests 10 percent of its earnings each year through Affordable Housing Program (AHP) grants that are used for down payment and closing cost assistance, rehabilitation of housing for income-qualified families and construction. The Dallas Bank, one of 12 district banks in the FHLBank System created by Congress in 1932, has assets of $65 billion, and is a cooperative owned by more than 890 member and affiliated institutions in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. For more information visit Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas.
Burgess Supports the REAL ID Act of 2005
Posted by Michelle Stein on February 10, 2005
Today, Congressman Michael C. Burgess voted in support of H.R.418, REAL ID Act of 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for state driver's license and identification document security standards. The bill was introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) on January 26, 2005 and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 261 to 161. Congressman Burgess was an original cosponsor of the legislation.
The REAL ID Act had strong support from the Bush Administration. In a statement released Wednesday, February 10, 2005, the Administration stated that it, “…strongly supports House passage of H.R. 418, to strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States.”
The REAL ID Act was born out of the debates surrounding border and immigration policies lacking in the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act (later to become Public Law 108-458). Congressman Michael Burgess was a challenger of the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act because he believed it needed stronger border security measures.
In a statement to the press on December 9, 2004 Congressman Burgess remarked, “Although the original purpose of the legislation was to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, I believe the bill has been weakened to the point of being meaningless.”
The 9/11 Recommendations Report stated on page 390, “All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars and other necessary activities.”
H.R.418, REAL ID Act of 2005 would keep driver’s licenses out of the hand of illegal immigrants; make it easier to deport people in the country illegally and would give judges broader discretion in evaluating applications for asylum.
“I have no doubt that the REAL ID Act of 2005 will provide the bite to the bark of the 9/11 Recommendations Act of 2004,” stated Congressman Michael Burgess. “I only hope that Congress acts swiftly in implementing this bill as it means better border security and safety for us all.”
Burgess Honors Tuskegee Airmen
Posted by Michelle Stein on February 9, 2005
Today, Congressman Michael C. Burgess voted for legislation honoring a proud group of African-American heroes of World War II. The House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res.26 to honor the Tuskegee Airmen for their bravery in fighting for our freedom in World War II, and for their contribution in creating an integrated United States Air Force. Tuskegee Airmen is the term used to describe the black fighter pilots of the 99th Pursuit Squadron, later incorporated into the 332nd Fighter Group, who fought during World War II in the U.S. Army Air Corps that were trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field, Tuskegee, Alabama.
“I can think of no better time of the year than Black History Month to put forth such outstanding legislation,” stated Congressman Michael Burgess.
On a recent mission to Iraq, Congressman Michael Burgess was briefed at the 332nd Fighter Group, the original Tuskegee Airmen group, where a mural honoring the Tuskegee Airmen is proudly displayed.
“I thought the mural was poignant and the Tuskegee Airmen certainly represent the best of what our air force has to offer –service; humility and honor,” remarked Rep. Michael Burgess. “Our brave soldiers fighting in the 332nd in Iraq make daily sacrifices having transported some 19,000 soldiers, since the beginning of Iraq Freedom to recuperation centers in Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
“The Tuskegee Airmen were brave and patriot in the face of prejudices and discrimination at home, and enemies and death abroad,” stated Congressman Michael Burgess. “I know that the new 332nd carries this legacy proudly, and will continue to show great courage in the face of all obstacles.”
Highland Village Mayor Bill Lawrence had this to say about the legislation, “I’m pleased and commend you and the Congress of the United States for doing the right thing. My father served with the Tuskegee Airmen in the enlisted ranks and their story is one of patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and commitment to a belief in the promise of American life, despite an America that denied them that promise.”
H.Con.Res.26 honoring the Tuskegee Airmen was one of a series of resolutions before the U.S. House of Representatives honoring African-Americans. These included H.Res. 69, to honor the life and accomplishments of the late Ossie Davis who helped break the color barrier on Broadway, and H.Con.Res.30, to support the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/Aids Awareness Day.
|
Latest from twitter
Get the most up to date news from me on Twitter.
Five things you need to know about the #COVID19 from @DrNancyM_CDC https://t.co/SOUwnXj9AB
Katherine Johnson was a pioneer and inspiration to young women around the world. Her legacy will live on for genera… https://t.co/FwAKIYXlPk
"Entrepreneurship is the backbone of the American economy and minority-owned businesses are no exception to that fa… https://t.co/g2ReRiewHm
. @CDCgov announced an initiative to help labs in rural communities improve diagnostic excellence through… https://t.co/rMDvYlPdkt
With the announcement of another confirmed #COVID19 case, I want to thank the over 300 U.S. Public Health Commissio… https://t.co/qf9ddh9nLN