January 14, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E87 

That is why for most women, including 

women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care 

necessity. Contraceptive use saves scarce 

public health dollars. For every $1 spent on 

providing family planning services, an estimated $3.80 is saved in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care. 

Many poor and low-income women cannot 

afford to purchase contraceptive services and 

supplies on their own. About 1 in 5 women of 

reproductive age were uninsured in 2003, and 

that proportion has increased by 10 percent 

since 2001. Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, 

need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and 

Title X, the national family planning program. 

These programs provide high-quality family 

planning services and other preventive health 

care, such as pap smears, to underinsured or 

uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack 

access to health care and alternative options 

for birth control. Each year, publicly funded 

family planning services help women to prevent an estimated 1 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions. Yet these programs are struggling to meet the growing demand for subsidized family planning services 

without corresponding increases in funding. 

The Prevention First Act authorizes funding for 

Title X clinics and strengthens States’ coverage of Medicaid family planning services. 

Improved access to emergency contraception, EC, can further reduce the staggering 

rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in 

this country. EC prevents pregnancy after unprotected sex or a contraceptive failure. The 

Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of EC accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. In addition, EC is often 

the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 

women who are reported to be raped each 

year. Unfortunately, even with the recent FDA 

decision to allow EC to be sold over-thecounter to women 18 years of age and over, 

many women do not know about EC and 

many still face insurmountable barriers in accessing this important product. The Prevention 

First Act mandates that the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services implement an 

education campaign about EC and requires 

that hospitals receiving Federal funds provide 

victims of sexual assault with information and 

access to EC. 

Contraceptives have a proven track record 

of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and 

reducing the need for abortion. However far 

too many insurance policies exclude this vital 

coverage. While most employment-related insurance policies in the United States cover 

prescription drugs in general, the many do not 

include equitable coverage for prescription 

contraceptive drugs and devices. Although 21 

States now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they 

cover other prescription drugs, 29 States still 

do not have any laws. Out of pocket expenses 

for contraception can be costly. Women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent 

more in out-of-pocket health care costs than 

men, much of which is due to reproductive 

health-related supplies and services. The Prevention First Act requires that private health 

plans cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services. 

Teens face additional barriers regarding access to services and information. Sixty percent 

of teens have sex before graduating high 

school. Teens who receive comprehensive 

sexuality education that includes discussion of 

contraception as well as abstinence are more 

likely than those who receive abstinence-only 

messages to delay sex, to have fewer partners, and to use contraceptives when they do 

become sexually active. Efforts by conservatives to restrict access to family planning 

services and promote abstinence-only education programs, which are prohibited from 

discussing the benefits of contraception, actually jeopardize adolescent health and run 

counter to the views of many mainstream 

medical groups. 

Nearly 50 percent of new cases of STDs 

occur among people ages 15 to 24, even 

though this age bracket makes up just a quarter of the sexually active population. Clearly, 

teens have the most to lose when faced with 

an unintended pregnancy or an STD infection. 

Moreover, 1 in 3 girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these 

pregnancies are unintended. Teen mothers 

are less likely to complete high school. Furthermore, children of teenage mothers have 

lower birth weights, are more likely to perform 

poorly in school, and are at greater risk of 

abuse and neglect. Improving access to contraceptive services and information does not 

cause non sexually active teens to start having sex. Instead, teens need information to 

help them both postpone sexual activity and to 

protect themselves, if they become sexually 

active. A November 2006 study of declining 

pregnancy rates among teens concluded that 

the reduction in teen pregnancy between 1995 

and 2002 is primarily the result of increased 

use of contraceptives. 

The Prevention First Act provides funding to 

public and private entities to establish or expand their teenage pregnancy prevention programs. This bill also provides for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs that teach young people about abstinence, health, and contraceptives. Moreover, 

my bill requires federally funded programs that 

provide information on the use of contraceptives to ensure that the information is medically accurate and includes health benefits 

and failure rates. 

Reducing unintended pregnancy and infection with STDs are important public health 

goals. The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention included family planning in their 

published list of the ‘‘Ten Great Public Health 

Achievements in the 20th Century.’’ My bill, 

the Prevention First Act, will improve access 

to family planning services for all women in 

need and will go a long way in fulfilling the 

promise of this important public health 

achievement. 

Madam Speaker, I urge every Member to 

join me in this comprehensive, nationwide effort to reduce unintended pregnancies. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO LEE VAN VOORHIS 

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise 

today to pay tribute to Lee Van Voorhis, a 

World War II veteran living at the New Horizons facility in Marlborough, MA. Mr. Van 

Voorhis recently wrote an essay calling for the 

establishment of a Department of Peace. I 

was honored to visit with Mr. Van Voorhis on 

January 12. Below is a story about Mr. Van 

Voorhis from the Marlborough Enterprise, 

which includes a copy of his remarkable 

essay. 

WORLD WAR II VET URGES ‘‘SECRETARY OF

PEACE’’ 

(By Mary Wenzel) 

MARLBOROUGH.—World War II was underway and a poster, hanging in the Montclair, 

N.J., Post Office, calling for 50,000 pilots, was 

meant to catch the attention of young men. 

And it did. 

‘‘As a teenager, flying a plane seemed like 

an exciting kind of thing to do,’’ said Lee 

Van Voorhis, a senior at the local high 

school, who during his junior year had been 

an air raid warden for his neighborhood. 

Like many of the young men of his generation, Van Voorhis signed up for the flight 

training program and became a pilot for the 

B–25 medium bomber. 

‘‘It was the work horse of the Army Air 

Corps,’’ said Van Voorhis who served from 

June 1943 to November 1945. 

‘‘My grandfather was in the Civil War, my 

father in World War I and I was in World War 

II,’’ reminisced Van Voorhis who also saw a 

son serve in Vietnam. 

‘‘I remember very distinctly my father 

being very emotional about my going off to 

war,’’ said Van Voorhis, ‘‘because he thought 

that when they fought World War I, it was 

the war to end all wars, and he was so upset 

because he saw his son going off to a second 

World War.’’ 

However, for this pilot, a Second Lieutenant, United States Army Air Corps, his service would be short lived. 

‘‘The war was winding down,’’ he said, 

‘‘and there were surplus pilots.’’ 

For Van Voorhis and many of his fellow 

servicemen, it was off to college on the GI 

Bill when he entered Dartmouth College in 

Hanover, New Hampshire. 

‘‘When I was in college, my philosophy professor was dynamic, always asking us questions,’’ explained Van Voorhis. 

In spite of a half century since he sat in 

that classroom, Van Voorhis remembers this 

professor pacing up and down and asking the 

students, half of whom were GIs, a question 

that they couldn’t answer, ‘‘What’s the cause 

of war?’’ 

‘‘You’re GIs and you fought the greatest 

war the world has ever known and you don’t 

know the cause,’’ the professor said with 

great passion. 

‘‘It’s a lack of communications,’’ the professor stated answering his own question. 

‘‘What should you do when two countries are 

having problems getting along with each 

other? Send 100 ambassadors, send 10,000 ambassadors.’’ 

Van Voorhis still remembers the final 

exam for this philosophy class and the blue 

book to be filled with the answer to only one 

question, ‘‘What would you do when two 

countries are not getting along well and explain in detail.’’ 

‘‘I had an hour to answer the question,’’ 

said Van Voorhis. ‘‘I poured sweat because I 

tried so hard to think of all the things that 

you could do following his (the professor) 

idea of communications.’’ 

That was in 1948 and now in 2008, 60 years 

later, Van Voorhis has found a way to express himself in a way that he didn’t know 

he had so many years ago. 

Nena Van Voorhis, Lee’s wife of 61 years, 

signed up for a Creative Writing Class that 

had begun at New Horizons, off Hemenway 

Street, where the couple reside. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REMARKS
E88 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks January 14, 2009 

‘‘I love this class. It keeps me writing and 

thinking,’’ said Nena Van Voorhis, who 

urged her husband to join her. 

Reluctantly Lee Van Voorhis went to the 

class, taught by Gloria Goostray, and in a 

short time found the class to be an exciting 

thing. 

‘‘This class is fantastic. You realize you 

have a mind that’s full of ideas,’’ he explained. Van Voorhis had finally found a way 

of putting into words his thoughts about 

that question posed to him six decades ago. 

‘‘I have always loved the Robert Frost 

poem, ‘‘The Road Not Taken,’’ said Van 

Voorhis. 

‘‘We all pray for peace,’’ explained Van 

Voorhis, ‘‘but the road to peace, like I described here, you have to work at it. I mean 

a very specific effort as much as you have to 

work on your defenses.’’ 

Nena and Lee Van Voorhis are the parents 

of four, three sons and one daughter, and the 

grandparents of 12. 

Following is an essay Van Voorhis wrote 

for the class that is included in a book called 

‘‘Writings from the Heart,’’ a collection of 

short stories published by the 2007–2008 Creative Writing Class. 

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

(By Robert Frost) 

‘‘I shall be telling this with a sigh 

Somewhere ages and ages hence 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— 

I took the one less traveled by. 

And that has made all the difference.’’ 

So it has been through human history the 

most traveled road has been the road to war. 

Every nation carefully records all its wars 

and usually marks them with various memorials, statues, and honors for all the veterans. 

The road less traveled leads to peace. This 

is desired by everyone worldwide. We all 

want to raise our children in peace. Going on 

the road to war is easy. My country is right 

and your country is doing something wrong 

or starting open conflict in some disputed 

area then the threatening words start escalating. Each side putting out aggressive 

words like ‘‘you need to be punished’’ or 

‘‘face sanctions’’ or calling them ‘‘an axis of 

evil.’’ Our people hate you and you hate us. 

Now each country believes the other country 

is evil and we must settle our differences 

with war. 

‘‘The road less traveled by’’ is the road to 

peace. This improves your communication 

with other countries, then we better understand the real root of each other’s concerns 

and will be more compassionate and try to 

find common ground for peaceful solutions. 

Going on the road to war means we immediately start thinking of our military defenses and start cutting communications 

with the country we disagree with. 

Ping-pong games opened China for President Nixon. The N.Y. Philharmonic’s visit to 

N. Korea gave us the opportunity to try to 

negotiate with N. Korea. As Robert Frost 

said about the road taken, ‘‘I, I took the one 

less traveled by and that has made all the 

difference.’’ 

We must think of every possible way to improve our communication with the countries 

we have problems with. How about such 

things as starting a worldwide Art Olympics 

in which there would be various themes either taking or on the road to peace with various categories for children and adults? 

To stimulate these ideas helping peace, 

how about a Secretary of Peace in our President’s cabinet, charged with nothing but encouraging ideas and actions for peace. (The 

Secretary of State’s job is charged with protecting American interests, and official dealings with foreign countries only.) 

As Robert Frost said about having taken 

the road less traveled ‘‘and that has made all 

the difference.’’ 

So let’s go for the road less traveled— 

Peace will make all the difference. 

f 

IN RECOGNITION OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE LEADING THE NATION IN UNITED WAY DONATIONS 

HON. PETE SESSIONS OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise 

today to congratulate United Parcel Service 

(UPS) and its employees for its generosity. 

For the past nine years, UPS has consecutively led the nation in donations to United 

Way. This year’s annual campaign raised over 

$53 million for United Way and with a matching contribution by the UPS Foundation, the 

total is expected to exceed $60 million—more 

than any other participating company. In total, 

over the past twenty-five years UPS has contributed over $924 million to United Way. Their 

charity extended beyond their financial contributions. Employees gave generously of their 

time with over 900,000 hours of community 

service through the Global Volunteer Month 

and UPS’s Neighbor-to-Neighbor program. 

The emphasis on philanthropy and improving 

local communities through its partnership with 

United Way can be seen at all levels of the organization. 

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest 

congratulations to UPS on this remarkable 

achievement and for their commitment to helping others. 

f 

INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE 

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the 

Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ‘‘privacy,’’ including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or 

reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from 

judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme 

Court cannot abuse the equal protection 

clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold 

Federal judges accountable for abusing their 

powers, the act also provides that a judge who 

violates the act’s limitations on judicial power 

shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress. 

The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the 

jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and 

limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The 

Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary. 

Some may claim that an activist judiciary 

that strikes down State laws at will expands 

individual liberty. Proponents of this claim 

overlook the fact that the best guarantor of 

true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is 

concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal 

Government over the States. 

In recent years, we have seen numerous 

abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal 

judges regularly strike down State and local 

laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and 

abortion. This government by Federal judiciary 

causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth 

Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. 

Furthermore, when Federal judges impose 

their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices 

adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the 

United States Constitution guarantees each 

State a republican form of government. Thus, 

Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal 

judges from running roughshod over State and 

local laws. The Founders would certainly have 

supported congressional action to reign in 

Federal judges who tell citizens where they 

can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. 

Madam Speaker, even some supporters of 

liberalized abortion laws have admitted that 

the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, 

which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 

States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn 

criticism from across the political spectrum. 

Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, 

by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion 

and the expression of religious belief in the 

public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is 

to restore respect for the right of State and 

local governments to adopt polices that reflect 

the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. 

I would remind my colleagues and the Federal 

judiciary that, under our constitutional system, 

there is no reason why the people of New 

York and the people of Texas should have the 

same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. 

Unless Congress acts, a State’s authority to 

define and regulate marriage may be the next 

victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s 

decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all State sodomy laws, to its logical 

conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts. 

Although marriage is licensed and otherwise 

regulated by the States, government did not 

create the institution of marriage. Government 

regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil 

institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officials, whether 

judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose 

a new definition of marriage on the people is 

an act of social engineering profoundly hostile 

to liberty. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REMARKS