Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman King, the Speaker, and the Rules Committee for allowing me to bring this amendment.

It is part of the CLEAR Act that we have been trying to pass for many years. We have passed many parts of it. In fact, the majority of the people in this body have voted for parts of it in the past, but we bring it today for the Members' consideration to do one thing: we are simply trying, as I have discussed this over and over with Chairman King, we are trying in this amendment to direct local law enforcement to help us apprehend the 500,000 illegal immigrants in this country who are criminals who are under deportation orders from the American courts. And I point out to the Members, Mr. Chairman, that 100,000 of those are very violent criminals. That is the purpose of what we are trying to do. I look forward to a bipartisan support on this.

Many Democrats in here have complained the underlying bill does nothing to deal with criminal illegal aliens. This amendment does. Many Democrats have complained that there is nothing in here that helps local law enforcement. This amendment does. So I feel sure we will have a very good vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), our chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), who has worked on immigration issues for a long time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that if you wish to vote against this bill, you are basically saying that you want to allow 500,000 criminal illegal aliens to stay on the street because 2,000 Federal officers simply are not going to remove them. It is impossible. It takes the 700,000 local law enforcement people out on the streets to help get this done, and we need to fund this. This amendment does that.

This amendment adds funding for SCAT, which is money needed desperately by the cities who deal with so many illegal immigrants.

Lastly and very importantly, it directs Homeland Security to put in

place in all 50 States the Institutional Removable Program. Now, you want to vote against this? How about us sending a rapist to prison in this country and INS is not there to deport them the minute they get out? No, they turn them loose on our State. This very thing has happened in Georgia with a pedophile.

This amendment is a reasonable aspect of this bill that brings resources to the table, and it brings law enforcement, the people who can solve this problem, to help us out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Pension Protection Act (H.R. 2830), legislation that responds to the many challenges currently facing the financial health of the defined benefit pension system.

The defined benefit system provides millions of American retirees and current workers with retirement benefits earned over the course of a lifetime. Yet the rules governing the structure of the defined benefit system are geared towards a 20th century workforce that no longer exists. The Pension Protection Act will bring these outdated rules into the 21st century and respond to the rapidly evolving American workforce that is more fluid, technologically advanced and diverse than ever before.

H.R. 2830 accomplishes this goal by implementing four commonsense reforms that hold employers to a higher standard and will ensure the fiscal future of the defined benefit system: (1) The legislation will ensure employers properly and adequately fund employees' defined benefit pension plans; (2) provide meaningful new disclosure to workers about the status of their pension plan; (3) secure the financial future of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) and prevent a possible multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout; (4) encourage greater employee savings for retirement goals by reforming outdated defined contribution plan rules.

The legislation also prohibits executive compensation arrangements when a rank and file employee pension plan is severely under-funded. This important provision will prevent corporate chieftains from escaping via the golden

parachute when an employer carries a qualified pension plan that is 60 percent under-funded or more. After all, the average working man in rural Georgia deserves nothing less than a corporate executive in New York.

And while H.R. 2830 includes important reforms to ensure employers more accurately fund their pension obligations, it also holds union leaders to a higher standard as well. Over the years, union leaders have exerted tremendous pressure on employers in every commercial sector by negotiating benefit increases to defined benefit plans that are already under-funded.

While many employers have not held up their end of the bargain by responsibly funding plan benefits, union leaders are equally responsible for misleading their workers and pushing for unrealistic benefit increases knowing full well an employer's plan is already under-funded. This is no less outrageous, and H.R. 2830 takes important steps to prevent union leaders and employers from negotiating unrealistic benefit increases that will only hasten plan failure and an eventual taxpayer bailout.

In addition, the compromise measure includes a series of requirements to address ``Critical Multiemployer Plans'' funded between 65 percent and 70 percent. These plans face significant and immediate funding problems. H.R. 2830 not only strengthens the funding requirements for critical plans, it also requires trustees to develop a rehabilitation proposal to show a 20 percent improvement over 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, the number of employer sponsored defined benefit plans are declining by the day, down from an all-time high of 170,000 in 1985 to 30,000 today. This is unacceptable. Congress should not sit idly by while the defined benefit system continues to die on the vine, and for that reason I urge all of my colleagues to avert the pending retirement security crisis by passing the Pension Protection Act today.

Mr. Chairman, I point out to all Members the reason you must pass this amendment is it is against the law to have a sanctuary city, a sanctuary State. This amendment goes to the heart of the frustrations of the police and deputies. They apprehend the criminal aliens, are forced to turn them back onto the streets. You want to know what is wrong? Somebody says tell me something is wrong.

Newlywed Dallas, Texas, police officer Brian Jackson, 28 years old, is the latest victim of this outrage. He was shot and killed November 13 in the line of duty. The suspect is an illegal alien that had been arrested and released by Dallas Police Department on September the 11 and again on September the 16 with the full knowledge that he was violating the law. That is why you need to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, though I was absent on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, for medical reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record for the following votes: Rollcall vote 577 on H. Res. 539--``aye''; rollcall vote 578 on H. Res. 538--``aye''; rollcall vote 579 on H. Res. 540--``aye''; rollcall vote 580 on the Adoption of Conference Report on H.R. 2419--``nay''; rollcall vote 581 on the Adoption of Conference Report on H.R. 2862--``aye''; rollcall vote 582 on S. 1894--``aye''; rollcall vote 583 on Amendment numbered 3 in House Report 109-279--``nay''; rollcall vote 585 on H.R. 1751-- ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, though I was absent during the legislative week of Tuesday, November 1 through Friday, November 4, 2005 and Monday, November 7, 2005 for medical reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record for the following votes: November 1, 2005:

Rollcall vote 557 on H.R. 3548--``aye''; and Rollcall vote 558 on H.R. 3989--``aye''. November 2, 2005:

Rollcall vote 559 on H.R. 1606--``aye''; Rollcall vote 560 on H.R. 4061--``aye''; and Rollcall vote 561 on H.R. 1691--``aye''. November 3, 2005:

Rollcall vote 562 Appealing the Ruling of the Chair concerning the Iraq War Investigation--``aye''; Rollcall vote 563 on H. Res. 527-- ``aye''; Rollcall vote 564 on Amendment numbered 2 in House Report 109- 266--``nay''; Rollcall vote 565 on Amendment numbered 5 in House Report 109-266--``nay''; Rollcall vote 566 on Amendment numbered 6 in House Report 109-266--``nay''; Rollcall vote 567 on Amendment numbered 11 in House Report 109-266--``nay''; and Rollcall vote 568 on H.R. 4128-- ``aye''. November 4, 2005:

Rollcall vote 569 on H.R. 3057--``nay''. November 7, 2005:

Rollcall vote 570 on H. Con. Res. 260--``aye''; Rollcall vote 571 on H.R. 1973--``nay''; and Rollcall vote 572 on H. Res. 444--``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, though I was absent on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 for medical reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record for the following votes:

Rollcall vote 573 on the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3010--``yea''; rollcall vote 574 on H. Res. 38--``yea,'' Rollcall vote 575 on H. Res. 302--``yea,'' Rollcall vote 576 on H.R. 3770--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, when this House passed CAFTA, I objected to provisions that overturn the state licensing standards of doctors and dentists.

I was told that my fears--and those of the American Dental Association--were unfounded.

This, in spite of the fact CAFTA contains clauses that allow foreign dentists to challenge U.S. licensing standards in international tribunals.

Then according to the September 16 San Antonio Express, we had the CDC ``working feverishly'' to allow Mexican dentists to practice in Texas without a Texas Dental license, as part of Hurricane relief efforts. That is so easy to do under NAFTA.

Everyone realizes disaster relief is a unique situation. We must also realize that a precedent is now set--the U.S. Government stating that Mexican health care providers be allowed to circumvent our state licensing standards.

We can fully expect this precedent to be cited in future cases by those CAFTA tribunals.

Now we also have U.S. citizens without dental licenses, without even dental degrees, being allowed to circumvent the state licensing process in Alaska.

The Federal government has decided to overrule the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners, and to instead create a new federal license--a Dental Health Aide license.

According to the September 10 Anchorage Daily News, the Alaska Attorney General has ruled that these new federal regulations preempt state health licensing laws.

This allows dental health aides to practice in Native Health Clinics with licenses granted by the federal Community Health Aide Certification Board instead of the State of Alaska.

We again recognize a unique situation of remote Native villages.

However, as a licensed Dental Surgeon, I can testify to my colleagues that many of the procedures performed by dentists are surgical procedures, which should be performed only by someone who has graduated from an accredited dental school and is licensed to do so by their state.

There is a real need for dental health aides in remote locations for disease prevention and detection services, and coordinating necessary surgical care with a licensed dentist when needed.

The ADA and the Alaska Board of Dental Examiners have supported an expanded role for dental health aides in this limited and properly coordinated capacity.

But once again the Federal government has chosen to disagree and set a new precedent that undermines our historic dental licensing standards.

Mr. Speaker, dental health care quality is now on a very slippery slope as a result of these federal actions.

We need look no further than our southern border to see where this downhill slide will lead if we continue.

In the Mexican border towns, dental care costs less than half of what we pay here in the United States.

But according to travel industry warnings, 60% of those performing dental services are not properly licensed or trained, even by Mexican standards.

Accessing quality care under these eroded licensing conditions is simply a matter of luck of the draw.

In spite of the need to improve the overall American health care system, there is one thing we can all be proud of--we have the highest quality health care in the world.

And here is an awesome fact to consider as to the origins of these unparalleled quality standards.

The Federal government didn't have one darn thing to do with them.

They came entirely from the minds and hearts of physicians and dentists, who wanted to improve the quality of health care delivery and their professions.

They did so in the most appropriate way--through the states.

The licenses to practice medicine and dentistry throughout our Nation's history have been granted virtually exclusively by the States, not the Federal government.

Now the Federal government, which has convoluted and corrupted public health policy in countless instances, wants to slither into licensing-- then share the spoils in trade agreements and international tribunals.

No one can doubt that there will be continuing harmonization of standards across many industries with our international trading partners.

But this body needs to resolve that at least in health care, the United States will lead that process, rather than follow.

We should export our standards--the highest, the toughest, the noblest in the world--rather than import incompetence, charlatanism, infection, and death.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need unqualified dental health aides cutting into people in Alaska.

We don't need to accept Mexican and Guatemalan dental licenses in Texas or Georgia, licenses highly likely to have been issued from the nearest false document mill spawned by illegal immigration.

Ironically, this body doesn't really need to do anything, other than keep the bureaucrats of the Federal government and the New World Order out of the way of our 50 sovereign States.

And it's past time we started doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 178, which I did author, the purpose of which is to bring attention to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis to as many people as humanly possible. This is known as IPF.

I would like to start, of course, by thanking all of the IPF patients, survivors, advocates who have come to Capitol Hill this week to just simply make us aware of this disease. I know the story these brave individuals have to tell because it is one that I have lived.

I was very fortunate to be correctly diagnosed with IPF when I was in the early stages of the disease in 1998, diagnosed right here in this Capitol. IPF is too often misdiagnosed in the critical, critical early stages. I was blessed to have a loving family, who saw me through the difficult times as this disease progressed. I was fortunate enough to receive a single lung transplant late last year that spared me from further harm from the disease. I am incredibly grateful to have the best nurse I could ask for in my loving wife, Gloria.

I am thankful for the opportunity to join a community of terrific folks who want nothing more, nothing more, than to bring needed attention to this relatively unknown disease.

IPF is a progressive and generally fatal lung disease. It is marked by the inflammation and the scarring of the delicate lung tissues and hinders the lung's ability to transport oxygen to the rest of one's body.

While my colleagues have seen me come back from the effects of IPF since my lung transplant, a transplant is really not a treatment, and it is certainly not a cure. A transplant is a medical decision of last resort in the face of an irreversible disease whose causes remain a mystery for us today.

Unfortunately, a lung transplant will not work for every patient, in every case; and as I well know, organs are very much in short supply in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, in an era in which medical science can do much, there is no reason why we cannot give hope to the 83,000 Americans currently living with this disease and the 31,000 that are diagnosed each year. The reason the number of current patients remains so low despite over 30,000 new cases each year is that far too many of those with IPF face severe disability and death within a few short years. In fact, two thirds of IPF patients die within 5 years of developing the disease. That is why this resolution is so important.

H. Con. Res. 178 will bring awareness, I hope, to the severity of this devastating disease by encouraging the President to recognize IPF Awareness Week. It will also recognize and encourage the need for further research, further research, into IPF in the hopes of finding a cause and a treatment and a cure.

Over 50 of our colleagues have already cosponsored, Mr. Speaker, this important resolution; and I urge this body to join with me in taking the first step toward a cure by passing this resolution to bring more attention to IPF in Washington, our capital city, and in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I hope people will remember this debate too because this is one of the debates that ought to be absolutely nonpartisan and ought to have not any political bickering in it. This is about the lives of a lot of human beings that we need to work on.

I am on the floor as maybe the only Member of Congress who has IPF. I may not be the only one, but I am the only one we know for sure has

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifetime achievements and contributions of Bishop S.C. Madison and his wife Mrs. Deloris Madison to the United House of Prayer for All People, Augusta, Georgia, and to our country as a whole.

Their efforts show their dedication to bettering their fellow man both spiritually and naturally.

Since Bishop Madison became the leader and spiritual advisor of the United House of Prayer for All People in 1991, he embarked on a nationwide building program that included the building and dedication of over 130 houses of worship throughout the United States.

Included in that number were four built or completely refurbished in the Greater Augusta Area.

In these sanctuaries, he promotes wholesome values and a decent way of life.

His tenure in the ministry has exceeded fifty-five years, and he has no intentions of stopping! His soul-stirring messages are memorable, and they serve as a constant inspiration to his congregations that if you do the right thing, ``Life can be beautiful.''

Not only has Bishop Madison endeavored to better the spiritual body of his congregations, but he has also made other thoughtful contributions to the communities where his congregations reside.

Augusta, Georgia has been fortunate to benefit from his commitment to the community.

Continuing the House of Prayer's commitment to affordable housing, Bishop Madison has maintained housing for Augusta residents--The McCollough Townhouse Square Apartments--that were built with no government subsidies.

He has also acquired houses, apartments, and vacant lots in the city of Augusta. After remodeling, refurbishing, or demolishing and rebuilding them, he has made these properties available to the community once again.

Countless families are able to realize the goal of residing in new homes because of his tireless efforts with no help from the government.

Bishop Madison has also made contributions to the Greater Augusta Business Community with the building and renting of the S. C. Madison Building in Downtown Augusta.

Amazingly, his contributions are not just felt in the city of Augusta, but he exhibits that same entrepreneurial spirit in many other cities throughout the United States.

Mrs. Madison, a native of Augusta, Georgia, has mirrored her husband's commitment. She was the catalyst of the ``First Lady's Scholastic Achievement Awards,'' which not only seeks to inspire children to achieve the honor roll status in their local schools but also promotes the fine values of being an upstanding citizen.

This program began in 1995, has grown every year, and is now celebrating its tenth anniversary.

Thousands of young minds have been challenged, cultivated, and motivated because she is willing to dare them to reach higher heights in the classroom.

She constantly encourages chilren to strive to complete secondary education to make sound economic contributions to our country as well as live the life of a dutiful citizen.

Bishop and Mrs. Madison both have been honored nationwide for their strong commitments not only to the congregations of the United House of Prayer for All People, but also to the city of Augusta.

The contributions they have made to this community are far reaching.

The efforts of Bishop and Mrs. Madison have improved the quality of life of so many, and the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Georgia stand in sincere appreciation for their diligence, dedication, and far-reaching contributions over the years.

Mr. Speaker, it seems tonight is the night for many of us to talk about the hurricane and the disastrous effects it has had on our country. I heard earlier a couple of my Democratic colleagues berating the majority leader about hurry up with money, hurry up and get it done.

We want to help our friends on the Gulf Coast, but it is also important that we do it sensibly and we pay some attention to the taxpayers here. Just yesterday, in Atlanta, one of the FEMA cards for $2,000 was used to buy a handbag. I guess you need a handbag if you are in dire straits, but this one was a Louis Vuitton, which does not mean much to me, except it was an $800 handbag. That is ludicrous. That is not what the American people expect for us to let happen.

We will be rebuilding the gulf coast States for years to come. We will do so with both public and private moneys, with cost estimates now running into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates are that at least a half million Americans from the affected areas have permanently lost their jobs as their workplaces are totally destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, we do want to help these people. We must help these people. It makes perfect sense that we ought to employ as many of these folks as possible in the rebuilding effort of the gulf coast. It is for their personal good we do that, and it is for the good of the country.

Last week, the President approved a temporary waiver of Davis-Bacon labor rules for exactly that purpose, to allow many of these individuals to participate in federally funded reconstruction projects as general labor helpers. They cannot do that under Davis-Bacon. We need to follow that up with providing whatever vocational training is necessary to allow displaced workers to gain the skills necessary to fully participate in these reconstruction efforts.

Let us do two things at once here.

We need a revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps from the 1930s for this unprecedented national emergency. We should offer every able- bodied displaced person an immediate training wage of $10 an hour on top of whatever other Federal benefits they may be receiving, and full- time participation in this if they are receiving Federal benefits should be mandatory for all except the elderly or disabled. People who can work and yet will not help themselves should not ask other taxpayers to do it for them. There is good-paying work here for years for every able-bodied American who needs a job if we do the right thing. This has a great potential to build careers.

But there is already somebody else with an eye for these construction jobs, Mexican President Vicente Fox. `` `The reconstruction of that city,' '' meaning New Orleans, `` `and of that region is going to require a lot of labor,' Mr. Fox said of New Orleans, Mississippi, and Alabama. `And if there is anything Mexicans are good at, it is construction.' '' That is a quote from the New York Times, September 5.

While we appreciate the disaster aid assistance Mexico is providing by sending a military convoy across our southern border, we cannot afford to pay them back with American jobs of our hurricane victims. Rebuilding our gulf coast with labor from Mexico would divert a large part of the estimated $200 billion cost to rebuild, paid for by the American taxpayers, out of our economy and into ``foreign remittances,'' the monies sent back to Mexico from the United States by illegal immigrants. These ``remittances'' have now surpassed oil revenues as the number one source of income for Mexico. This is drawn directly out of our economy.

We should not allow our national tragedy to become Mexico's gain.

The time for talk should be over. The time for pleas for the administration to simply enforce the law should be over. Every police and sheriff's department in this Nation should begin vigorously enforcing immigration law while in the course of their routine duties. For every illegal worker not employed to rebuild the gulf coast, there is a ready job for the hundreds of thousands of legal American residents who just lost their jobs in this tragedy.

The CLEAR Act that we just reintroduced has an excellent chance of passing this session; and, if it does, the Federal Government will be responsible for paying 100 percent of these local law enforcement costs for immigration law enforcement efforts.

Hardship has a way of bringing families together. If there is anything positive that can come from such an incomprehensible disaster as Hurricane Katrina, it could likely be in forcing us to come back together to help defend each other, instead of letting potential taxpayer-funded jobs for storm victims to be looted by illegal immigrant labor cheered on by Mexican President Vicente Fox.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I have been listening to the gentleman from Texas for the last half hour and the gentleman from Arizona, and it dawned on me that the good argument you are making is also an argument to be made for States like mine, Georgia. I know we are not a border State, but we have the same problems that you have because they do not all stay in Texas. A lot of them come up our way and they are just as illegal as they can be. I know you have been discussing different problems that occur by having anywhere from 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in our country; and I would like to just point out one, maybe two little things.

I have a bill known as the CLEAR Act. We have a lot of cosponsors on it. We are after one little thing about illegal immigration. We are after those that have been ordered to be deported, about 500,000. Out of those, there are about 100,000 that are violent criminals. We have 2,000 Federal agents trying to run these people down, which, as I know you know, means we are not doing anything. We are simply saying that local law enforcement that has the authority, we make it clear they do have the authority to help us out. And then we tell BICE, Do your job. We fund them, which is a great savings to the Nation because the cost of illegal aliens is simply unbelievable. The funds we spend trying to do something about it will absolutely save this country a lot of money.

I congratulate my colleague, a freshman from Texas. You are on the right issue. You are saying the right things. I hope when we get back in September finally, finally this Congress will listen, because I know what you are hearing at home and I am hearing the same thing. You and I are not the only Members of this body hearing that we have to do something about this because it involves our national security, not to speak of all the other problems.

The gentleman from Arizona is right. My bill will not solve a thing. No other bill will solve a thing until we do one thing first: we must secure the borders. Then we can talk about all the different ways we deal with the other problems, including my bill. We can talk about what to do about 15 million people in the country illegally. But none of that talk means anything, no bills mean anything, until we enforce the law as it is today and secure our borders.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

In the gentleman's experience in the justice system, would you conclude that people who are in law enforcement do it for the love of

it? They want to enforce the law. And those that are not today are being held back by politicians in some cities around the country that really will not even let them enforce the law. Do I have a misreading of that, or is that correct?

If the gentleman will yield one more time, part of the problem of this is that groups like La Raza and others make it their business to try to sue cities, county commissions, law enforcement when they do enforce Federal law because the present law is just written in such a way that they can get away with some of that. Does that deter a city like Houston, Texas, from encouraging its law enforcement officials to help obey the law, help enforce the law, or is that why they are saying to their officials, Hey, don't help anything with this. We may get sued?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. After several years of trying, the time to pass this vital legislation is now. The President has waited patiently since his first week in office. We need to pass this today.

Blackouts have affected our country, gas prices are crippling family budgets, and foreign energy resources have our Nation beholden to overseas interests. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in a generation. Additionally, we must begin to harness new energy sources for new potential. This bill wisely addresses all of these things.

Taken together, the provisions in this legislation will diversify and increase our energy supply in a careful and measured way. It deserves passage.

Now, it does not have everything in it that every Member wanted. This has been a long fight, and we all owe a great deal of gratitude to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his patience over the last 5 years as he has tried to guide us to an energy policy for this Nation that we have not had certainly since I have been in Congress. It is time now to do that.

I thank personally the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his fair and evenhanded way, as he has been just now, giving time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who obviously opposes the bill. But the rest of us in here need to pass this legislation today. I urge us all to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia (Mr. Deal), my chairman, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3204, which would extend seed grant money as well as provide $50 million for the next 4 years for the creation and operation of high-risk pools.

Mr. Speaker, this is a nonpartisan issue. As we all well know, the increasing cost of health care has affected millions of Americans. The number of uninsured Americans is obviously too high. It underscores the needs for a change in the way we think about delivering health insurance. Congress must act in a way that will increase the affordability and the accessibility of health care for our citizens. We must also be mindful of those who are hard to insure or are simply uninsurable due to their preexisting conditions or chronic illness.

In that light, high-risk pools have quietly become an important part of our Nation's public/private patchwork of health care coverage for individuals with costly health conditions. These folks are oftentimes employed and paying their taxes, but cannot get coverage under a normal insurance plan in the individual market. Pools are already covering thousands of people who through no fault of their own do not have access to group health insurance and simply cannot afford coverage in the individual market.

Thirty-one States thankfully are already operating high-risk pools. The coverage they offer is good coverage. Oftentimes it is as good as what is offered in the private insurance market in that State. However, enrollees are charged more for that coverage. This makes sense because pool members are by definition those who are considered to be uninsurable. However, we limit how much can be charged, generally between 125 and 150 percent of the base individual market rate.

One of the important provisions of H.R. 3204 is that it requires States that charge premiums that exceed 150 percent to use at least 250 percent of their Federal grant to reduce their premiums.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes us a step closer to making sure that everyone can purchase the health insurance protection they need. I understand the worries associated with serious health conditions, and my constituents know the danger that catastrophic health care costs can pose to working families, especially in rural families and the self- employed.

High-risk pools reduce costs on the government in the long term by providing those with serious conditions a private safety net of coverage. I hope that all States, and that includes my home State of Georgia, will soon have high-risk pools. I urge everyone to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I think it is pretty obvious that all is said that needs to be said, so I will be very, very brief.

I just simply want to rise in support of the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005. This is very commonsense legislation; and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), for spearheading this in the House and would hope that all Members would vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, and I know that this is a bill that my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), has been working on for at least 5 years. And so now I am happy to see it finally come to the floor and will become law, hopefully.

Americans have the best doctors and technology in the world; yet it is reported every day that more than 250 Americans die because of preventable medical errors in hospitals alone. The cost of preventable medical errors is estimated between $17 billion and $29 billion annually.

Mr. Speaker, we must acknowledge that any error that causes harm to a patient is one too many. While our health care system may never be perfect, we must strive for the best care for our Nation's patients. I am happy that this legislation begins to improve the ability to connect information about errors and near-errors between doctors, researchers, and patients.

However, as I have stated for years, a key step to improving care should be also the passage of meaningful patient protections under Federal law. When insurers and employees are concerned about the cost of health care, the quality of patient care can be jeopardized for the bottom line. This breeds improper care, and it breeds medical error.

In this light, this legislation is an important first step. This bill will encourage the creation of patient safety organizations that providers will contract with to provide patient safety information to a national patient safety database. While I will concede that I wish we were mandating more in this legislation about reporting errors and getting that information to patients, I stress that this is an essential, important first step.

The bill helps develop a culture of safety that encourages information sharing. When an error occurs, it is important to learn from it so as to not repeat it. We need to get everyone comfortable with reporting errors and near errors, and this bill begins to do just that.

This bill presents us with an opportunity to stand up for patients, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting it.