Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the prospect of an avian flu pandemic has mobilized government officials and health care professionals across the United States. Every year there is a new outbreak of flu strains, with potentially serious consequences for the elderly, children and people with compromised immune systems. In his address this morning, President Bush accurately differentiated between traditional flu viruses and the avian flu. This specific flu strain, H5N1, is particularly virulent, with a 50 percent mortality rate once contracted. To date, 110 people have been infected, and 60 deaths have been attributed to this flu. The virus has been tracked from Mongolia and Siberia, through the Ukraine and Croatia to Turkey. Avian flu has spread to 16 countries. There is not yet an avian pandemic in the United States, but as we live in an ever-shrinking world with all our travel, we must be prepared for its unwelcome arrival.

In this week's edition of Newsweek, Dr. Margaret Chan, head of preparedness for the World Health Organization, states, ``Key factors to combating a global pandemic are early detection, quarantines, availability of vaccines and antiviral drugs, and the state of hospital readiness to treat those infected.''

I would like to focus on one of these key factors in particular, the availability of this medication. On May 4 of this year in the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee where I serve, hearings were held on the current state of preparedness for the upcoming flu season. In those hearings, health officials testified that manufacturing of flu vaccines is an annual process beginning in February with the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control publishing their predictions of flu strains that are most likely to spread that winter. Manufacturing vaccines is a lengthy and complex process that leaves little margin for error. The possibility of contamination of these biologically grown vaccines is great, and, as we saw with the vaccine producer Chiron in 2003, could potentially render entire productions worthless. Fear of liability compounds the short supply of vaccines. In the 1960s, the U.S. had more than 26 vaccine producers in this country. Today only five companies remain. Currently, we rely upon one vaccine producer to make the annual flu cocktails as well as eight other common childhood vaccinations such as measles, mumps, diphtheria and meningitis. Lawsuits make production unprofitable and risky, pushing producers away from vaccines and towards the more lucrative industry of antiviral medications. This raises concern among health experts about resurgence of formerly eradicated diseases if vaccine shortages continue. Congress should consider offering companies incentives to enter the vaccine industry and, of course, limiting the liability burden. These were included in President Bush's avian flu strategy this morning. The President has asked Congress to remove the litigation burden on vaccine manufacturers and fund development of new cell culture techniques. These techniques reduce the time lag between identification of a new pandemic threat and development of a vaccine. Avian flu is the current threat to our Nation's health, but we can be assured it will not be the last. Therefore, increasing our vaccine capacity is necessary to our national security.

There are two antiviral medications available that are believed to treat avian flu, Tamiflu and Relenex. Tamiflu is the more widely recommended medication, and our government is currently building stockpiles of this medication in anticipation of possible outbreaks in this country. However, there is a danger of many individuals building personal Tamiflu stockpiles. The Washington Post reported that 1.7 million prescriptions for Tamiflu were filled in the United States in just the first 8 months of 2005, which is three times more than last year. Personal stockpiles pose a twofold risk. The first is that private consumers reduce the already limited supply of the drug, causing the government to have to compete to fulfill its supply goals, and cause a shortage of supply for public health care providers. The second threat is from individuals

incorrectly self-medicating that can lead to development of a resistant viral strain, limiting the medication's effectiveness.

The 2006 agriculture appropriations conference report includes the appropriation of $28 million to control and manage avian flu. We have the ability and obligation to do more. President Bush this morning announced his three-part avian flu strategy to the public, requesting congressional support. This plan incorporates the recommendations of the World Health Organization by monitoring and rapid response to outbreaks, increasing availability of vaccines and antiviral medication, and creating effective pandemic emergency plans in cooperation with State and local authorities. I believe these recommendations are a good start and look forward to reviewing them in further detail.

We must not panic. We must be prepared.

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 800, the virtually identical House version of this legislation, I rise today to clear up any questions that might arise when trying to understand the intent of S. 397 and what its enactment would accomplish. The Protection of Lawful Coerce in Arms Act will eliminate predatory lawsuits that would otherwise cripple an entire industry.

First, let me make two points about what the bill will not do. Nothing in the bill is intended to allow ``leap-frogging'' over the gun dealer to the manufacturer. The negligent entrustment provision applies specifically to the situation where a dealer knows or reasonably should know that a dangerous person is purchasing a firearm. When the manufacturer has done nothing but sell a legal, non-defective product according to the law, the negligent entrustment provision would not allow a plaintiff bypass of the gun dealer to get to the deeper pockets of the distributor or manufacturer.

The amendment in the Senate offered by Senators Frist and Craig regarding ``administrative proceedings'' removed any confusion or misinformed rhetoric regarding the ``administrative proceedings'' section. This legislation will have no effect on the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or any administrative agency to revoke licenses or otherwise engage in administrative proceedings to punish bad acting manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, or otherwise enforce the laws and regulations that apply to them. While I do not think the amendment was necessary because neither my bill nor S. 397 as introduced by Senator Craig did so, now there can be no question. ATF is authorized to begin enforcement proceedings when a violation of our Nation's Federal gun laws has occurred.

I want the Congressional Record to clearly reflect some specific examples of the type of predatory lawsuits this bill will immediately stop. The bill was drafted to require courts where these cases are pending or filed to dismiss them on their own motions, what the lawyers call sua sponte. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to not force defendants to incur the additional costs and delay of filing motions and arguing, and certainly not to go through costly trials and appeals of cases that the bill requires be dismissed forthwith. The predatory lawsuits that this bill will stop are an abuse of courts and law-abiding businesses and individuals.

A clear cut example is the case of the City of New York v. Beretta USA Corp. et al, currently set for trial on November 27 in Federal court in Brooklyn, NY. The plaintiff has asserted that industry members have created a ``public nuisance.'' The lawful sale of a highly regulated product later misused by criminals is not a public nuisance, and has never been

considered a public nuisance in American jurisprudence.

One such suit that S. 397 will stop is the suit by the District of Columbia and nine individual plaintiffs who have sued members of the firearms industry under a District statute that, unbelievably, imposes automatic and absolute liability. The statute in question says a manufacturer is liable ``without regard to fault or proof of defect.'' There is also a case pending in Federal court in the District of Columbia in which a gun manufacturer is being sued under this very same statute--Charlot v. Bushmaster. The companies being sued under the District ``automatic'' liability law have no defense.

Another example is the case of Ileto v. Glock, in Federal court in Los Angeles, CA, against a manufacturer and a distributor who are being sued over a criminal shooting. The facts, if you can believe it, are that the manufacturer, Glock, sold the pistol later criminally misused, to a Washington State police department and the distributor being sued never owned, sold, nor possessed the firearm that was criminally misused.

Yet another example is the cases of Hernandez v. Kahr Arms and Maisonet v. Kahr Arms pending in State court in Massachusetts. Here a manufacturer, Kahr Arms, whose products are used by law enforcement across America, is being sued for a criminal shooting at a well-known gang hangout with a long history of drug use, drug dealing and violence. The criminal shooting was committed with an unfinished, but functioning firearm assembled from individual parts that were stolen from the factory over time by an ex-employee. Following the incident, James A. McNally of the ATF Boston Field Office told the local newspaper that theft from reputable gun manufacturers such as Kahr Arms is relatively rare. He went on to say, ``[Kahr Arms] is the victim. They're not the problem.''--Worcester Telegraph & Gazette at p. 1, March 18, 2000.

There is also a pending suit against members of the firearms industry by the city of Gary, IN, even though the State of Indiana has itself passed a State law similar in purpose and intent to S. 397.

In the days leading up to the Senate debate this summer lawyers from antigun interest groups rushed to the courthouse to file at least three such lawsuits, one in New York and two in Pennsylvania. There are reports that still more baseless lawsuits have been filed just this week.

Congress is properly acting here under its Commerce Clause powers, as we have done many times in the past. We are also rightly concerned, as is the Department of Defense, that if these lawsuits succeed in driving gun manufacturers out of business, the national defense will be harmed. The same is true for our homeland security, as these same companies make the firearms used by law enforcement. It is our obligation to take steps to protect a vital component of our national defense infrastructure--America's ``Arsenal for Democracy.''

The Constitution imposes upon Congress the duty to protect the second amendment and the right it provides to individuals to ``keep and bear arms.'' This right will be a mere illusion if firearms manufacturers are driven out of business by predatory lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, let me continue to be clear here as to the purpose and intent of this bill so that creative lawyers cannot later try to come up with a creative argument to wiggle around this bill.

For instance, the intent of Congress and this bill cannot be evaded or avoided by, for example, claiming that a public nuisance suit against manufacturers or sellers is based on criminals who unlawfully or criminally possess firearms but who may have not discharged them in the commission of a crime. In other words, as the author of this legislation, I want my colleagues and our fellow Americans to understand that, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a ``Qualified Civil Liability Action'' covers criminal/unlawful possession, that includes, as used in the act, ``misuse means and includes possession''.

I would also like to use this opportunity to clear up some other concerns and misunderstandings. Some have asked, ``Does the language in section 5 create new civil liability for a gun owner, if the person does not use a `secure gun storage or safety device' and the person's gun is stolen and misused?'' I would say quite forcefully that the answer is a resounding ``No.'' The fact is, there are almost no cases finding gun owners liable for misuse of stolen guns. Both the theft and the later crime are ``superseding acts'' that ``break the chain'' of causation under traditional tort law.

I would tell my colleagues that the only way section 5 could create liability would be if a court thought it created a new duty or a new standard of care for gun owners. However, the language specifically states that it does not ``create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability [or] establish any standard of care.''

Finally, compliance or noncompliance could not even be used as evidence, except against a dealer who failed to sell the required locks, or by a gun owner who wanted to present his use of a safety device as a defense against a civil suit. On that point, section 5 provides a new defense, not a new line of attack.

The purpose of the liability protection language in section 5 is to address gun owners' concern that the ``secure gun storage or safety device'' requirement would expose them to a new kind of lawsuits. The language neither creates nor eliminates liability for gun owners who use safety devices; in effect, it leaves the common law rules unchanged for those gun owners.

If individual gun owners' liability for stolen guns becomes a major national issue like the suits against the industry, it could be the subject of additional legislation. The Indiana legislature changed Indiana law to prevent exactly this type of lawsuit after a court decision opened that door.

Mr. Speaker, I have made these remarks to ensure that anyone trying to evade the letter and spirit of this legislation will have as little ``wiggle room'' as possible. It is my hope that I have done just that.

Mr. Speaker, today the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will begin the long road to meaningful Medicaid reform and I am proud to be part of this effort. Think back just a decade ago when, together, the Republican-led Congress and then President Clinton, the Democrat President, enacted a successful welfare reform with a transformation of the program from a sixties-era program that became a way of life to a temporary assistance program, sort of a hand and not a handout. I believe we can do this together for Medicaid.

The Medicaid program that is vitally sustaining for some people has become a leaking raft, carrying too many others whom we want to help obtain health care with options in competition and consumer choice. It is time to take a fresh look at Medicaid. Spending for Medicaid, Federal-State medical and long-term care for low-income families, elderly and the disabled, has risen very dramatically in the past decade. It has an annual growth of 7.9 percent, almost 8 percent. This is an unsustainable trend. As mandatory spending grows, obviously less money is available for other programs with high priorities, such as education, homeland security and National Institutes of Health research. This is true in the States also. In Florida, Medicaid represents nearly a quarter of the budget and is projected by 2015 to include almost 60 percent. Yet Medicaid does not well serve either the beneficiaries or the providers. It is unwieldy for States to oversee, unfortunately making it a program which attracts fraudulent practices. Finally, it does not provide opportunities and incentives for beneficiaries to take charge of their own health care. This is especially worrisome when some eligibility categories depend upon the Medicaid program, such as the developmentally disabled.

Some points I would like to highlight include, one, cost-sharing. No one has said this better than Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, who delivered the national Democratic address on a Saturday in June: ``Number one, everybody pays something. Imagine shopping at a store where nothing has a price tag and you never get a bill. You would spend a lot more than you do now. But this is exactly how Medicaid works today. Until there's a little economic tension, until everyone has a little skin in the game, the system will continue to be inefficient.''

Also, I am encouraged to hear some forward-looking Governors, like Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, who has been discussing the role that beneficiary behavior change could play and has received Federal approval for a tidal change demonstration project in Medicaid. Last Wednesday, October 19, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt approved an innovative Medicaid reform plan that will allow Florida beneficiaries to choose health care plans that best suit their needs, for the first time introducing competition and consumer choice to this government-funded health care program. Florida will begin the phase-in of this unprecedented demonstration in two counties, Broward and Duval, in July 2006. A statewide implementation plan will follow. The demonstration is approved to run through June 30, 2011.

My colleagues, these are opportunities in Medicaid coverage where vast savings could be realized. More importantly, quality of life can be vastly improved if beneficiaries would make healthier, more responsible, more forward-looking choices. This could be implemented with a carrot, not a stick, strategy and it is not such a radical departure from other insurance models that we see today. The auto insurance industry has given safe driver discounts for years, and some health insurance plans give, quote, healthy life-style discounts for insurees who use a gym or stop smoking. Let's design a beneficiary- empowering reward system to incentivize beneficiaries to lead healthy, fulfilling lives. Eat healthfully, drink in moderation, stop smoking, exercise, manage stress, purchase long-term care insurance when you are young and healthy, develop strong family and community ties as nurturing resources.

Mr. Speaker, finally I am most hopeful about the prospect of making consumer direction in Medicaid a permanent option. For years there has been a proposed pilot project called ``cash and counseling'' in Medicaid in Arkansas, New Jersey and my home State of Florida. Since then it has been expanded to 11 new States who were impressed by its success. In the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, I included a provision creating an analogous demonstration and evaluation project in the Medicare program. And today I plan to introduce ``cash and counseling'' legislation to make it a permanent option so future States do not have to go through the bureaucratic waiver process for years to get on board. Besides the positive features of increasing choice, personal responsibility, and a sense of ownership over one's own health.

Let's all take this opportunity to work together, Congress, Governors, beneficiaries, patient advocates, providers, on productive solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3675) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving unfair or deceptive acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 13 of that Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

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

Since the difficult weeks following the destruction wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, America has witnessed the overpowering kindness of the American heart, the charitable generosity of Americans to help each other. That outpouring of support, financial, spiritual, and otherwise, is beginning to give those who are suffering hope that their communities and lives will finally be rebuilt. The generosity of America is the heart of this great land and is a national treasure that benefits the entire world.

Unfortunately, there are disturbing reports that some unscrupulous persons are again trying to capitalize on the plight of others to make a fast profit and sully the greatness of America and its capability. Like the reports following September 11, fraudsters are again at work trying to take advantage of the kindness of Americans who want to help people who are suffering. And as we learned at the Katrina hearing I held in my subcommittee, the Internet as well as the old-fashioned door-to-door and telephone solicitations again are the tools of choice for those thieves scheming to defraud Americans of their charitable contributions. This is abhorrent and, in my opinion, particularly egregious in times of national tragedy.

While the Federal Government and the States have ways to prosecute these crimes, I think it is absolutely necessary to put those who take advantage of America's charitable generosity on notice that they will face severe penalties. Law enforcement is busy tracking down these thieves, and the Congress needs to make certain that this activity will be aggressively prosecuted once they are exposed and finally brought to justice.

Our response to these crimes also must serve to encourage those who

want to give their time and money to aid those in need to do so without fear of becoming victims themselves. Whether it is phony Web sites, spam e-mail solicitations, or just the old-fashioned scam artist, we must ensure that the financial generosity of Americans to help those in crisis is not slowly corroded by fraud. Charitable giving is a unique American tradition that provides incredible support to relief efforts and their agencies; and it must, Mr. Speaker, be protected.

H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, would double the civil penalties available to the Federal Trade Commission in their prosecutions of fraudulent schemes that exploit popular reaction to national disasters or emergencies as unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Now, these increased penalties, up to $22,000, would go into effect after a declaration of a national emergency or a national disaster by the President of the United States. A trigger for international disasters also was added to the bill in response to international emergencies like the Asian tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a necessary bill that honors the generosity of all American people by ensuring that the tradition, our proud tradition, of charitable giving remains safe from the now notorious and despicable criminals that seek to steal from the hearts of our fellow Americans.

I would like to thank, in particular, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his steadfast and strong leadership on this issue. He has done a great service to all Americans with this bill. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), who is the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from New Hampshire has pointed out, we passed this twice before, and this is the third time. This a timely bill. More importantly, it is appropriate, and it is in need of passage more than ever. So I urge my colleagues not only to support it, but also I urge leadership in both Houses to move this bill to the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his help in bringing this bill to the floor. He has been a leader on this bill in shepherding it through the Committee on the Judiciary time and time again.

I also want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for introducing this bill with me through the last three sessions of Congress and all the other Members who have strongly supported the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act over the years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. Almost the same bill passed this House

on this floor 285 to 140. Over 60 Democrats supported it.

This legislation will stop baseless lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers based on the criminal or unlawful third-party misuse of firearms.

This may seem like an obvious idea. After all, would we hold a car company responsible if a driver gets drunk or reckless and hits somebody with a vehicle? Of course not. This is the United States of America where we are responsible for our own actions; but yet these frivolous lawsuits against a vital, legitimate and perfectly lawful industry have continued unabated for the last several years in the simple hope of bankrupting this industry.

This is a commonsense, logical piece of legislation whose time has come. The States, the courts and the American people have decided again and again that these harmful and baseless lawsuits are unfair and must be done away with.

If anyone does not believe me, let us take a look at this map. It shows that 33 States, or two-thirds of the United States, have laws prohibiting these same frivolous lawsuits. These States consider it fair and just to prevent these junk lawsuits. I am proud to say my home State of Florida is one of those States. The bill we are considering today is designed to simply mirror these States and what they have done to provide a unified system of laws United States-wide.

There have also been dozens and dozens of lawsuits at the local, State, and Federal levels which have rejected this theory that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what violent criminals do with their lawful products.

I have three charts here which list in detail these cases. It is really quite impressive the number of these frivolous lawsuits that have been rejected out of hand.

If my colleagues would bear with me, I would like to focus on a recent case in this last chart which is circled. This case took place in the County of Los Angeles, California. The cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 12 other California municipalities filed lawsuits against 28 manufacturers, six distributors and three associations. This was a mammoth case and they lost. They appealed it, and it was unanimously upheld by a lower court and the appellate court.

I would remind my colleagues that this is an idea that has been enormously popular with the public, also. A March 2005 poll conducted by the Moore Information Public Information Research Company showed that a remarkable 79 percent of the American people believe that firearm manufacturers should not be held legally responsible for violence committed by armed criminals.

The fact of the matter is that there are several pending lawsuits which continue to abuse the judicial system and would threaten legitimate, lawful businesses, including in New York City and right here in the District of Columbia.

We must also consider that just the mere threat of these suits or taking the first couple of legal steps to defend these suits simply can be enough to force some of the smaller companies out of business. As one proponent of this tactic once bragged, we are going to make the gun industry die a ``death by a thousand cuts.''

This legislation will end these coercive and undemocratic lawsuits.

I remind my colleagues and those who are watching at home that this legislation is very narrowly tailored to allow suits against any bad actors to proceed. It includes carefully crafted exceptions to allow legitimate victims their day in court for cases involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a gun maker or seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible person.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are voting on this bill. It has been a 6-year effort. It is with a great deal of satisfaction to the 257 bipartisan cosponsors that this bill, H.R. 800, as amended by the Senate and passed by the Senate two to one, 65 to 31, is poised to pass in this Congress as a bipartisan law.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in voting for this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, over the weekend an historic day occurred in Iraq. Millions of Iraqis took another step toward democracy and turned out to vote for a new constitution.

While the final results will not be known until the end of this week, the large turnout of voters and the significantly fewer security incidents are, therefore, a sign that Iraq is on the way to democracy.

Close to 63 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters cast ballots, which is significantly more than turn out in the U.S. presidential elections.

Violent incidences were far less this election than in January. Perhaps contributing to the low levels of violence was the presence of Iraqi security forces themselves. These forces were up 35 percent since January to almost 200,000.

Finally, after years of oppression under Saddam Hussein, Iraqis were able to hold a truly fair, open election. Saturday was indeed an historic day.

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago next month, a new periodical entered the marketplace and American history.

That publication was National Review, its founder and editor was 29- year-old William F. Buckley.

From the beginning, Buckley's magazine stood ``athwart history, yelling `Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.''

And for five decades, it has bravely and effectively espoused conservative values and ideas, with both humor and intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the inaugural Publisher's Statement of November 19, 1955, for the Record.

It is no surprise that since its inception, we've witnessed Republican victories in eight of eleven Presidential elections, the revolutionary Republican Class of 1994, America's victory in the Cold War, and widespread acceptance of conservative positions like economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility and traditional values.

Obviously, Bill Buckley and National Review did much more than stand athwart history--they helped shape it. America and the world are the better for it.

There is no more influential and popular opinion journal in the United States than National Review, with 155,000 paid subscribers and a readership of over 310,000. The Internet version of National Review, NRO, is just as popular and well written.

It is well known that Ronald Reagan--who was a Democrat in 1955-- started to read National Review when it first came out, and it played a significant role in his personal and political development.

This publication has influenced at least two generations of young conservatives, and will assuredly have a positive impact on many more lives in the future.

No doubt there are young men and women here on the Hill, and all across America, who are reading National Review, perhaps for the very first time, and whose lives will be transformed.

In addition to the 50th anniversary of National Review, William F. Buckley will also soon be celebrating his 80th birthday.

Buckley, who served in the U.S. Army, worked for the CIA, and graduated from Yale, has had a very busy and productive life.

In addition to editing National Review up until last year, he has written 47 books, including 18 novels, some 900 editorials or other articles in National Review, 350 articles in other periodicals, more than 4,000 newspaper columns, and for 34 years he hosted the tremendous talk-show ``Firing Line,'' where he had over 1,400 televised debates with people ranging from Muhammed Ali to Margaret Thatcher to Noam Chomsky to Mother Theresa.

He famously ran for Mayor of New York City in 1965 as the Conservative Party candidate.

Although he predicted be would receive only one vote, Buckley in fact won 13 percent, and to this day his race is considered one of the City's most rollicking and interesting campaigns ever.

Buckley counted as his friends conservative and intellectual giants such as Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, L. Brent Bozell and Claire Luce Booth. The conservative movement he helped nurture and flourish gave us Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, it was Buckley's younger brother Reid, I believe, who best summed up the philosophy that guided William F. Buckley and his life's work. He noted that:

``We learned from our parents to prefer the good man to the brilliant man. It is a sacred humanity in people we respect. Our compassion is earned in the quality of the human condition. People are surprised to realize that we, princelings of Dame Fortune, as they feel us to be, tread the same hard interior landscape. And it may be this that comes through, that fascinates, because we do not presume, `Come, let us lead you,' but, instead, petition, `Come, our philosophy is your way, the human way, and it is you who will and must lead yourselves. . .' ''

I offer a most sincere ``happy birthday'' to Bill Buckley, and ``thank you'' for his wonderful creation, and I congratulate the family at National Review for 50 years of fine work, with hopefully many more yet to come.

[From National Review, January 03, 2005}

Standing Athwart History, Yelling Stop

(By William F. Buckley, Jr.)

There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing.

Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for

National Review. But since it will be the policy of this

magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs,

we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is

not unconfined.

Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible

that did National Review not exist, no one would have

invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal

of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of

conservatism at first glance looks like a work of

supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly

within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of

course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very

different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop,

at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much

patience with those who so urge it.

National Review is out of place, in the sense that the

United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New

York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out

of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected

conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation.

Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United

States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates

having to do with the meaning of existence, with the

relationship of the state to the individual, of the

individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the

enabling documents of our Republic.

``I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,'' said the

benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell

Holmes, ``but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos

does.'' We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that

we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of

capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of

champagne to ditchwater--of anything to anything. (How

curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is

whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The

inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not

so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close

to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has

happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic

social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded

over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual

imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the

ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply

walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of

conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like

the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy

Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the

third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a

dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have

written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror. Harper's

will have published them, and everyone in sight will have

been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this

country--at least those who have not made their peace with

the New Deal, and there is a serious question of whether

there are others--are non-licensed nonconformists; and this

is a dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor

of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars.

Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting

time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or

mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated

by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose

ignorance and amorality of never been exaggerated for the

same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of

generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a

responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are

those who recognize that when all is said and done, the

market place depends for a license to operate freely on the

men who issue licenses--on the politicians. They recognize,

therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself

impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient

getting and spending. And back of all political institutions

there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or

defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry

run on large, general principles, on ideas--not by day-to-day

guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go

into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium

of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and

incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is--dare we say

it?--as necessary to better living as Chemistry.

We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of

experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the

intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all

this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness

of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to

History. All this would not appear to augur well for National

Review. Yet we start with a considerable--and considered--

optimism.

After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and

twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over 50 men

and women of small means invested less than one thousand

dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with

overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round

the clock to make publication possible. A score of

professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its

needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence

that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind

would profoundly affect their lives.

Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year

ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an

adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that

is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment

will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough.

But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we

offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old

under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a

position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a

generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by

a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure

groups uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the

hottest thing in town.

Mr. Speaker, as summer turns towards winter, the American people will continue to face high

prices of gasoline and soon will face even higher costs for natural gas. Short of moving to Florida or another warm weather State, the American people are looking to Congress to solve this problem. Recent events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have highlighted a very serious problem with the Nation's crude oil and gasoline supply/demand balance. One way to fix this balance is for the United States to increase its refining and production capacity. No new refinery has been built in the United States in nearly 30 years. Total current capacity at operating refineries is 17 million barrels per day while total U.S. demand is nearly 21 million barrels per day. Therefore, the only way to bridge this gap is to increase the amount of imported refined products from foreign sources. Currently the U.S. imports 7.9 percent of its total refined petroleum products. By 2005, the U.S. is expected to import 10.7 percent of its total.

Mr. Speaker, these staggering numbers further underscore the dire need for new and increased refining capacity in the United States. If not, we will continue to rely on unstable, anti-American governments to meet our growing demand for gasoline. Not only will this situation be a blow to economic growth in this country but it will also represent a serious national security risk for all of us.

Even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a number of market factors contributed to the record high gas prices: An increased demand at home and abroad, political unrest in the Middle East and in Africa and product disruptions contributed to the already tightening supply of crude oil. Until refining capacity and production capacity grow faster than demand, oil markets will remain tight and vulnerable to unforeseen and unpreventable events such as natural disasters. The high cost of gasoline and other fuels has the potential to stifle economic and job growth and is putting a strain on the wallets of American families.

Of course the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on oil and gas is to encourage conservation. Making sure your tires are inflated properly, carpooling and using public transportation are all fast and easy ways to conserve gasoline. In homes, buying energy-efficient appliances and making sure doors and windows are properly sealed are effective ways to conserve. But, Mr. Speaker, these are short-term fixes. Curbing demand is necessary, but in the long term it is not merely enough. We need to increase domestic production of oil. Currently the U.S. imports about 60 percent of all of its oil. The Department of Energy projects this number to increase to 73 percent by the year 2025. In order to ensure reliable and secure supplies of oil, we have no choice but to increase the domestic supply.

One way to increase production is to finally open ANWR to oil and gas exploration in Alaska. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there is between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable. This estimate does not take into account that with new technology, the share could become even higher. A resource of this magnitude cannot simply be ignored. ANWR alone would be capable of reversing the decline in U.S. petroleum supply within a decade. It is not a quick fix. There are no quick fixes. But it is the quickest and most reliable option we now have to reverse the decline brought upon us by years of neglect of our domestic capacity.

In addition to gasoline, oil and natural gas play a key role in the homes of all of us. Oil and natural gas help generate the electricity that powers lights, appliances and entertainment systems. They also provide the building block for plastics, resealable food storage containers, and durable appliances and electronics, all of which contribute to a convenient and safe environment for all of us.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, even under the best circumstances, storms like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would have had a noticeable impact on oil markets. However, at a time of extremely high demand and tight supplies, practically shutting down the United States' largest oil and refining region caused even greater pressure on our oil markets. In order to alleviate this pressure, we must increase our domestic refining capacity and production. If not, gasoline and home heating prices will continue to climb.

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Can a Member of Congress intimate as the gentleman from New Jersey is doing about Mr. DeLay in reference to a black book and all the innuendo that he is doing on the House floor? Can he do that?

I am stating an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago a new periodical entered the marketplace in American history. That publication was National Review. Its founder and editor was 29-year-old William F. Buckley. From the beginning, Buckley's magazine stood ``athwart history, yelling `Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urged it.''

And for 5 decades, it has bravely and effectively espoused conservative values and ideas, with both humor and intelligence. It is no surprise that since its inception, we have seen widespread acceptance of conservative principles like economic freedom, individual responsibility, and traditional values.

Buckley and National Review did much more than ``stand athwart history.'' They helped shape it and America and the world are better for it. I offer a most sincere happy birthday to William Buckley and thank him for his wonderful creation, and I congratulate the family at National Review for 50 years of fine work with hopefully many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill. It was my bill, H.R. 800. I authored the House version. Then the Senate passed S. 397, and I am pleased that we are taking action on this important piece of legislation today.

This is a bill, frankly, my colleagues, that promotes legal responsibility. It respects, in my opinion, the legislative process, saves taxpayers dollars, protects legitimate law-abiding businesses, and strengthens our commitment to the second amendment.

This is an effort that has taken several years and at least three sessions of Congress to get where we are today. It has not been easy, but it has been heartening to see how much bipartisan support this bill has slowly garnered over the years.

When I first introduced this bill in 2001, it had 231 co-sponsors, but never received a vote. The next session we had 250 co-sponsors and an overwhelming 285 to 140 vote on the floor, but then the bill just died in the other body. Now we have 257 co-sponsors on my bill. The Senate overwhelmingly passed their version, and we are poised to pass this historic piece of legislation today.

But when we started debating this issue, there were only a handful of States that had their own laws prohibiting these junk lawsuits. Today there are 33 States that have laws prohibiting these frivolous lawsuits. So not only is this bill bipartisan in the House and in the Senate; it is bipartisan in this Nation with 33 States, both Democrats and Republicans in the State legislatures and Governors signing on to the bills that ultimately became laws.

And just a few years ago polls showed anywhere from 61 to 70 percent of the American people believed that the gun industry should not be held liable for damages caused by violent criminals. Today, that already solid majority has risen even more, to an astounding 79 percent of the American people, according to a March 2005 survey.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill and an issue whose time has obviously come. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and, obviously, to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to all my colleagues that are concerned about this bill, within the bill is a gas price gouging prevention portion, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' my amendment that was approved in Committee. Included in the manager's amendment, it will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

It will direct Federal Trade Commission expertise and resources in addition to existing State anti-gouging laws on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area as well as any extended problem in the areas around the country, as determined by the President and the Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines up to $11,000 for violation in addition to equitable remedies, like returning ill-gotten profits.

The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This has been extended. It is difficult to define price gouging. For the first time in this country, we are going to define it. We are going to prosecute it, and we are going to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to do just that.

The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission of the provisions as a violation of a rule defining an unfair deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. As I mentioned earlier, there are stiff penalties involved.

The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected area, not just 1 or 2 weeks, but 30 days and beyond if the President of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate. When the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution or supply, then it is extended, it is enforced. As mentioned earlier, it includes not just crude oil, home heating oil, and gasoline and diesel fuel.

I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this bill. If you are going to vote against this bill, you are going to vote against a provision that establishes for the first time price gouging that is defined and prosecuted on a Federal level.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel.

It is difficult to define ``price gouging.'' The existing State statutes in this area have vastly different definitions and interpretations. Therefore, the amendment directs the FTC to define price gouging within 6 months of enactment consistent with the requirements for declaring unfair acts or practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The FTC's authority to define ``price gouging'' is tempered by the traditional unfairness principles under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. Under this section, to be ``unfair'' a practice must: cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; not be reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves; and not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the FTC of the provision as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act.

The amendment provides for civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.

The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected areas--and beyond if the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate--when the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution, or supply. The President may

extend the prohibition for such additional 30-day periods as he or she determines necessary.

In addition, the issue of price gouging must be addressed. Unfortunately, the tremendous goodwill of the American people in helping their fellow citizens on the devastated gulf coast was marred by some now infamous instances of gasoline price gouging. Experts say the rapid rise in gasoline and diesel fuel prices nationwide following these natural disasters primarily resulted from a supply crisis. Yet, there were some specific gasoline price increases that the average American, and maybe even the experts, knows are gouging. Certain market situations, particularly those involving natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require aggressive and targeted Federal prosecution of gasoline price gouging.

My amendment, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' which is included in the Manager's amendment, will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The ``Gas Gouging Prevention Act'' will direct FTC expertise and resources, in addition to existing state anti-gouging laws, on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area, as well as any extended problem areas around the country as determined by the President and Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines of up to $11,000 per violation, in addition to equitable remedies like returning ill-gotten profits.

It's time to flush out the gougers and protect consumers with a new Federal weapon to prosecute gasoline price gouging. I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Walden, for their help in making the amendment even better and I urge that we pass ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act'' included in H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security Act.''

In closing, this legislation will go a long way to better protect the U.S. oil markets, as well as all consumers who depend on them. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for the time, and I come to the floor to speak against the Stupak substitute.

I would tell all my colleagues in the energy markup in the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did offer his amendment. It was defeated. I offered an amendment that was dealing with price gouging, and I won by only one vote.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did an able job of pointing out some of the things in my amendment that he felt were weak. So the chairman and I and others on the committee went back, and we incorporated a lot of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) brought up in the debate. We included it in this manager's amendment.

So there is really no reason to vote for the Stupak substitute because much of what we have in the manager's amendment is already included. As a Member on this side of the aisle, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his help so that we are able to include in the manager's amendment some of his points, and I think we made a stronger bill.

I would say to those Members on both sides of the aisle, there is really no reason to support the Stupak amendment because lots of what he is talking about dealing with price gouging, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, we have included in the manager's amendment.

There are some other things I would like to point out dealing with the Stupak amendment. It does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil market. The manager's amendment that I mentioned earlier offers these important consumer protections.

The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day, while the manager's amendment allows for $11,000 per violation with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. I think that is an important difference, and I think we should realize that is why the manager's amendment is better.

The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The manager's amendment does not include this provision because the Federal Trade Commission has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation.

The Stupak amendment includes petroleum distillates that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates, which are used in so many products that are sold to consumer product companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment. That is our interpretation. My colleagues might not agree with it, but that is an area we are concerned about. If we have price gouging, it could affect such things as cosmetics.

Overall, I think the point I am trying to make is, we incorporate a lot of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) concerns in our manager's amendment. It made our bill stronger. We thank him for what he did.

In the end, I think my colleagues should realize we should vote against the Stupak substitute.

I agree we should have legislation to prevent people from lining their own pockets by taking advantage of others in a time of crisis. However, I cannot support the manner in which Mr. Stupak's amendment addresses the problem.

The Stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a time of disaster. There is no mechanism to allow prices to reflect the changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost.

The Stupak amendment defines price gouging violations with very subjective terms,

such as ``unconscionable'' and ``grossly exceeds'', that will prove unworkable for the FTC. Instead, the FTC possesses a history of determining what is unfair under the FTC Act and we should rely upon their expertise to define price gouging.

Because the amendment only accounts for price increases related to costs increases and does not include other factors--such as fear or panic--it will artificially restrain prices that lead to shortages in gasoline at the time consumers in a disaster area most need access to gasoline. This is because the amendment does not adequately allow for actual or anticipated changes in supply to be reflected in price.

The Stupak amendment includes ``petroleum distillates'' that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates are used in so many products that selling distillates to consumer products companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment.

While it does provide supply and demand considerations as a mitigating factor, it does so only for dollar costs actually incurred by the seller. It does not allow the FTC to consider countervailing benefits to consumers, namely that an increase in price can discourage hording by the first consumers to arrive at the gas station, leaving no gas for those who arrive later.

The amendment is not adequately tied to a time of disaster. It gives the President authority to declare an emergency for any disruption of gasoline distribution or any significant pricing anomalies in the market. If exercised, this would interfere with supply and demand and lead to shortages for extended periods of time.

The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day while the Manager's Amendment allows for $11,000 per violation, with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed.

The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The Manager's Amendment does not include this provision because the FTC has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation.

The Stupak amendment does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil markets. The Manager's Amendment offers these important consumer protections.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the 1998 Head Start Act simply required Head Start programs to reach out to families who have children with disabilities. Including children with disabilities in Head Start programs can be a rewarding experience for all involved: children, parents, and of course Head Start employees.

But the linchpin for success with inclusion is proper training of employees to care for the children's unique needs. However, the underlying legislation I think perhaps can be strengthened in this area.

My amendment would simply do that. How? Include families who have one or more children with disabilities in the list of training course subjects the Secretary is directed to provide for Head Start training employees so they can cope with that. I know firsthand, personally, both the victories and pitfalls of families who have dealt with children with learning disabilities.

I know the worry and concern parents feel when they entrust the most precious being in their lives to the care of a stranger. Head Start personnel need to be trained, my colleagues, to mitigate these many concerns, and of course to provide meaningful guidance when a family faces a new challenge.

So families with children with disabilities need support. Proper training of Head Start employees will enable them to anticipate possible challenges, evaluate the current difficulties that they may or may not have, and will educate the employees in current strategies and resources which are available to parents.

For parents' piece of mind, it is imperative that those individuals caring for their children are simply equipped to handle any situation that may arise in that classroom. If not convinced, they will not send their child to the Head Start program, which would deprive the child from needed preparation for school.

Now, for Head Start teachers, training will equip them with the necessary tools, of course, to be successful. Many human resources studies show the most common cause for dissatisfaction with a job is when employees feel ill equipped to meet the goals that are expected of them.

Now this dissatisfaction is compounded for educational professionals, because when they fail to meet their goals, they feel they have failed the child. With proper training, teachers will feel empowered. They will have greater understanding of the underlying issues causing difficulty for that child and will be armed with a strategy to help them so they can ultimately succeed.

Training can make that experience teaching children with disabilities a positive one instead of a negative one. Now, there was a teacher who did not feel properly trained, for example, to teach a child with disabilities. When required to include a student with disabilities in her classroom, she then received the necessary training to do it. As a result, and this is a good clear example, this is what she said. ``Ronnie is truly my most favorite student and my greatest accomplishment.'' Now that is a learning disability student. Bear with me here. ``Thanks to him, I cannot wait to get to school every morning to see what he has learned today. Thanks to him I feel proud to be a teacher again. On November 3, 2001, I never thought anything good could come out from having him in my class. Little did I know that he would be a great blessing for which I will always be thankful.''

Our children deserve effective teachers. Children with a disability generally do not respond well to change. We all know that. School is an enormous change that needs to be adequately prepared for. When starting school, they enter that simple, unknown world that scares them.

Many of the expectations are new. Directions from the teachers do not make sense. They feel out of control themselves and they feel sort of helpless. Teachers can ease that child's anxiety, see when they are feeling overwhelmed, and simply provide support, and, more importantly, guidance.

They are also able to give children specific strategies to handle these feelings, their feelings on their own, so that they in turn will feel more in control.

By attending Head Start programs staffed with trained professionals, children will experience less stress, be more comfortable with their peers, accustom themselves with the behavioral expectations of classrooms, and learn strategies to deal with the inevitable distractions that are in a school setting.

These are vital skills for them to learn at any time. And by learning them before beginning school, they will be better focused, more and better equipped to learn.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Provide Head Start employees with the training they need to support families and children with disabilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Holocaust survivor and freedom advocate Simon Wiesenthal. An extraordinary man of courage, he believed there can be no freedom without justice.

Dedicating his life to this pursuit, he was responsible for finding and bringing to trial over 1,100 Nazi war criminals. A survivor of several different concentration camps through the course of World War II, he was finally liberated May 5, 1945. Sadly, most of his family had perished in the camps, over 89 persons. However, he cherished their memories and was strengthened with purpose.

In an interview years later he said, ``I want to be their mouthpiece. I want to keep their memory alive, to make sure the dead live on in that memory.''

Simon Wiesenthal is a legendary example of what a person with a vision and a will can do. They can change the world.