Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle to introduce the ``Clinical Research Act of 2005.'' This bill will address many of the problems confronting our Academic Health Centers as they attempt to leverage the enormous biomedical research gains made in the past century, and in the past several years in particular as the budget for the National Institutes of Health has doubled.

Breakthroughs in basic biomedical sciences over the past 5 decades, including human genomics, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and immunology, have provided an unprecedented supply of information for improving human health. As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee I am proud to say that the remarkable strides that have been made in basic science would not have occurred without the support of Congress and the general public. While we realize that research may not produce results overnight, we, as stewards of the taxpayers' dollar have every right to expect that the fruits of that research will result in better treatments for patients. This requires a federal commitment to clinical research, including a commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of translating, in a systemic and rational way, the fruits of basic research into improved patient care.

I, along with many of my colleagues in the Congress and the public in general, have become increasingly concerned that we have been too slow in getting improved patient therapies and interventions from the enormous investment we have made in basic research. The Congress and both the Clinton and Bush Administrations made significant commitments to doubling the NIH budget. Significant strides and advancements have been made in basic research. Unfortunately, I hear on an ongoing basis from patient advocacy groups concerned that this significant taxpayer investment has not had much direct benefit to those suffering from disease. In addition to hearing from patient advocacy groups, I hear from my colleagues about the apparent disconnect between the promise of basic science and the delivery of better health care for the citizens of this country. I believe that we can and should do a better job of moving the bench research to the bedside. That is what this bill is aimed at doing.

Without strong Academic Health Centers capable of conducting clinical research, the promise of improving the health of the American people will continue to elude us.

Unfortunately, the clinical research environment in the Academic Health Centers is encumbered by rising costs, inadequate funding, mounting regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of both qualified investigators and willing study participants. Without changes to help Academic Health Centers meet these challenges, these breakthroughs in basic science will remain in the laboratories. Rat after rat will continue to be cured, but due to the burdensome costs and the lack of clinical researchers cures for humans will not materialize. Let's face it, bench research is less burdensome and less costly than applying clinical therapies to human beings suffering various diseases. Furthermore, because of the rising cost of healthcare delivery and the fiscal pressures weighing on academic health centers, many of these physician researchers face institutional pressures to spend more and more of their time seeing billable patients rather than conducting innovative clinical research. The clinical researcher is a diminishing breed, yet they play a vital role in bringing cures out of the laboratory to the suffering patient.

It is also important to recognize that many of the potential cures for patients utilize therapies and interventions for which there is not a patentable product. In other words, there is no profit motive for large corporate backer to invest resources in developing these therapies. Without federal support for this clinical research, most of these trials and likely cures will remain out of the reach of patients.

The bill that Representative Doyle and I are introducing today, through its clinical research support grants, infrastructure grants, and ``partnerships in clinical research'' grants, will provide our Nation's Academic Health Centers with the crucial resources they need and the opportunity to meet the public's expectations. This bill is specifically aimed at improving the translation of this new medical science knowledge to directly benefit those suffering from a wide array of diseases that impact all too many lives.

If we are going to reap the benefit of the enormous investment of taxpayer dollars in biomedical research it is important that we move this legislation forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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 House Resolution 231.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 264) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk will report the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague today, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), to introduce the Clinical Research Act of 2005. This bill might be better referred to as the ``Curing Humans Rather Than Rats Act of 2005.''

This bill will address many of the problems confronting academic health centers as they attempt to leverage enormous biomedical research gains made in the past century and, in particular, in the last decade, by the vast investment of the U.S. taxpayers in the National Institutes of Health.

In 1994, when I was first elected, the NIH budget was just $10 billion, but today, they get $29 billion. This is a significant expansion of biomedical research funding. It is resulting in significant breakthroughs in a host of areas to include human genomics, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and immunology. These have provided an unprecedented supply of information for improving human health.

Research often does not produce results overnight, but as stewards of the taxpayer dollars, we have every right to expect that the fruits of that research will result in better treatments for patients. Reaping the benefits of this bench research requires a Federal commitment to clinical research, including a commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of translating, in a systematic and rational way, the fruits of basic science research into improved patient care.

Unfortunately, while we have seen this dramatic increase in NIH funding, the Federal commitment to clinical research has not kept pace with rising costs.

Just what is clinical research? A great example has been the great breakthroughs in the treatment of AIDS in recent years. These new compounds are often developed in a laboratory, tested on laboratory animals, but then, at some point, academic research centers have to start giving these products, these compounds to humans. They interface with the lab and the patients. They bring these new interventions from the bench to the doctors and clinics all over this country.

What has happened to the clinical researchers and why? From 1970 to today, the percentage of clinical researchers and NIH study committees has dropped dramatically. These NIH study groups are the committees that score research proposals and make recommendations on which proposals will be funded. The costs of clinical research have increased dramatically as, obviously, we are working with humans. To many researchers, working with rats and tissues is just much easier. With rats, they show up to work every day, they follow the protocols and, if they die, they will not sue you. You just buy some more rats.

Also, academic health centers, under increased pressure to costs and the need to generate income, are putting increased pressure on the clinical researchers to spend more of their time seeing billable patients and less of their time on their clinical research projects. All of this hinders clinical research and makes it less likely that the cures will move from the lab to the bedside. This is a growing frustration, not just for the clinical researchers that work in this field, but for the patient advocacy groups.

I hear repeatedly from people who advocate for those suffering from kidney disease, heart disease, Parkinson's Disease that we are not moving the scientific information quickly enough into patient care. We have been too slow in getting improved patient therapies and interventions from the enormous investment we have made in basic research. It is important that this Congress step in now and address this challenge.

I believe we can and should do a better job in moving bench research to the bedside. That is what this bill is aimed at doing.

In addition to concerns about how NIH dollars are allocated, we must recognize the significant financial burdens that academic health centers are facing today associated with rising costs, inadequate funding, mounting regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of both qualified investigators and willing study participants.

Let me add that some of my colleagues have suggested that NIH should focus on basic research and that private industry will focus on clinical applications. Those suggesting this lack a full understanding of the issues at hand. Industry is much less likely to dedicate tens of millions of dollars to research clinical applications to address the needs of millions of Americans who suffer from one of the hosts of small and less profitable to treat diseases. Industry does not, nor will it, spend tens of millions of dollars on nonpatentable therapies and interventions. If you cannot patent it and you will not make a profit, industry just will not fund it.

Of note, however, is that the NIH will and does devote significant taxpayer funding in partnerships with industry to develop patentable compounds and interventions. Absent the resources provided in this bill, patients will continue to suffer, I believe needlessly, from diseases for which we could and should develop definitive treatments.

The bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and I are introducing today, and that Senator Santorum is preparing to introduce in the Senate, will provide our Nation's academic health centers with the crucial resources they need and the opportunity to meet the public's expectation.

If we are going to reap the full benefit of the enormous investment of taxpayer dollars in biomedical research, it is important that we move this legislation forward. I would say to my colleagues, if you think that we have cured enough rats and believe it is time that we look to cure a few more humans, join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) in the bipartisan Clinical Research Act of 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It's a tremendous step in the right direction for this nation to achieve energy independence. Through a combined strategy of strong R&D, efficiency and incentives we can help ensure future generations of Americans a vibrant and growing economy while not having to worry about the whims of foreign influence on our energy.

The bill also authorizes $200 million for the ``Clean Cities'' program, which will provide grants to state and local governments to acquire alternative fueled vehicles. I have been working in Central Florida over the past several years to promote research into hydrogen- powered vehicles. I applaud the White House for taking such a proactive stance on new technologies. This bill promotes a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovations and the use of alternative power sources by launching a state-of-the-art program to enable hydrogen fuel cell cars to compete in the marketplace by 2020.

Under this bill, American consumers will have better product labeling for a number of commercial and household products so that they will be able to make more informed decisions when purchasing energy saving products. H.R. 6 further decreases America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by expanding domestic production and authorizing expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity to 1 billion barrels of oil.

America's energy consumption is at an all-time high and rising, despite ongoing efficiency gains, with consumption projected to grow as our economy expands. If our nation is to meet these needs in the coming decades, it will be in part due to continued advances in energy efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our demand on foreign supply and stimulating economic growth. One goal is to save consumers and businesses' money spent on energy, so they can invest, spend and grow the economy and improve our standard of living. Expanding our energy production capacity is a key to long-term economic growth and energy independence.

H.R. 6 encourages the great American tradition of technological innovation and creative problem solving. It is America working at its best and this legislation is long overdue. I stand in strong support of this legislation and look forward to seeing it enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express strong support for the resolution before the House today. I thank Representative Murphy for introducing this bill.

Immunizations have been the most successful medical intervention in terms of saving lives and sparing mankind from life-long disabilities resulting from infectious disease.

Fifty years ago we began using the Salk polio vaccine discovered by Dr. Jonas Salk. In 1957, three years after the first widespread use of Dr. Salk's vaccine in the United States, polio in the U.S. fell by 85- 90 percent. Polio, which annually ravaged communities across this nation and the world, causing death and permanent disability, has been virtually absent in the United States for quite some time now.

Polio and its harmful effects have been virtually eliminated in nation after nation. Presently, there are less than a handful of nations that are plagued by polio in largely isolated communities. We are on the brink of elimination of this scourge.

Mr. Speaker, for years, honest but unfortunate consumers have had the ability to plead their case to come under bankruptcy protection and have their reasonable and valid debts discharged. The way the system is supposed to work, the bankruptcy court evaluates various factors including income, assets and debt to determine what debts can be paid and how consumers can get back on their feet. The bill before us preserves that right for those individuals who simply get in over their heads and have no other way out

Unfortunately, some dishonest individuals have taken advantage of our bankruptcy laws by hiding assets, racking up debt in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy, using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, and walking away from that which they owe. This hurts our economy because it forces retailers and businesses to simply raise the prices of goods and services for honest Americans. All Americans end up paying the costs for those who have gamed the bankruptcy laws.

I support S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I am a cosponsor of the House version of this bill. This common sense legislation preserves the right to file bankruptcy for those who truly cannot repay their debts while ensuring that those who do have the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so.

S. 256 provides the same kinds of bankruptcy reforms the House has approved twice before. It restores the principles of fairness and personal responsibility to our bankruptcy system and protects the rights of consumers. S. 256 also requires creditors to help prevent credit card abuse through new disclosures and educational provisions.

This is a good bill for average American consumers, for American businesses, and our economy as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. I have supported this measure in the past and have introduced similar legislation to make the death tax repeal permanent. I believe it is important that we accomplish the goal of passing this in the House and the Senate and seeing this bill enacted into law.

The Death Tax needs to die. Along with the marriage penalty, the death tax is perhaps the most disgraceful tax levied by the Federal Government and it should be repealed immediately. The death tax is double taxation. Small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime, then at the time of death they are assessed another tax on the value of the property on which they have already paid taxes. This is unfair, unjust and an inefficient burden on our economy.

I have spoken in the past about a constituent of mine, Danny Sexton of Kissimmee, FL and owner of Kissimmee Florist. He, like millions of other Americans, has experienced the sad realities of the Death Tax. He joined me several years ago in Washington to highlight the adverse impact the Death Tax had on his family business.

Mr. Sexton, who comes from a family of florists, inherited his uncle's flower shop and was faced with paying almost $160,000 in estate taxes. This forced him to have to liquidate all of the assets, layoff workers and take out a loan just to pay the death tax. He also had to establish a line of credit just to keep the operation running.

Danny Sexton is the reason we need to appeal the death tax. The death tax isn't a tax on just the rich, it is a tax that hurts family owned businesses--family owned businesses that are the backbone of this great Nation. It also caused several average workers to lose their jobs.

Family owned businesses provide and create millions of jobs for American workers. The people who worked in Mr. Sexton's florist were not rich, but they lost their jobs because of the Death Tax.

In a recent survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 89 percent of small business owners favored permanent repeal of the death tax. Why? Because these small business owners know this tax may mean the death of their business for future generations. According to the Center for the Study of Taxation, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. Family owned and operated businesses deserve the right to be inherited by the next generation without the blow of the death tax.

In current law, the death tax is phased-out, completely repealed in 2010. But that is not good enough because in 2011, the tax reemerges in full force. That means taxpayers must plan for three different scenarios when passing along their family business--pre- 2010 when the exemption levels are gradually increasing and the top rate gradually decreasing; 2010 when the tax is completely repealed; or 2011 when the tax reemerges. This is complicated, confusing and hard to plan for-- unless a small business owner knows for certain when his or her death will occur. When we make this tax repeal permanent, taxpayers will have the ability to make long-term financial plans with certainty and will have the opportunity to pass on their hard earned family businesses and farms to future generations. It will also ensure that those who work for these small businesses are able to keep their jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I commend him for the work he has put in over the last 4 days to try to bring this bill to the floor.

This is not the original version of the bill that I introduced about 2 weeks ago, but I think it will have the intended result.

For many people listening and watching, you may get the impression this is a dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans; but there were 30, approximately 30 Democrats on the bill and I know that many Democrats do support this.

I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal medicine, before I came to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of these kinds of cases. And there were basically three features of this case that compelled me to feel that a Federal review of the case was warranted. And by the way, I think it has been pointed out by some of the people that preceded me, Scott Peterson's case is going to get a Federal review, John Couey, the man who confessed to killing that young girl in Florida not far from where Terri Schiavo lives, he will get a Federal review; but there were several features of it.

Number one, by my medical definition she was not in a vegetative state based on my review of the videos, my talking to the family, and my discussing the case with one of the neurologists who examined her. And, yes, I asked to get into the room and was unable to do so.

The other thing was this very lengthy pause, and that has also been pointed out by some of the people who have spoken, of 7 years between her original injury and when it was stated that she had prior voiced sentiments of not wanting heroic life-sustaining measures.

My clinical experience has always been that immediately family brings that up. They do not wait 7 years.

There were other features of this case that I thought were highly unusual that warranted a Federal review. I think this is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I practiced medicine for 15 years prior to my election to this body; and, unfortunately, I personally had to get involved on many instances in cases like this. And I would just share with Members there were instances where I did support families' wishes to withdraw food and water. For me, the dividing line always was, are you prolonging the death? Are you prolonging suffering or are you prolonging life?

The case that has precipitated this piece of legislation does not involve a dying person. It does not involve a person with a terminal disease. It is not a person in a vegetative state. She has an active EEG. She has eyes that respond, a face that tries to smile. She tries to vocalize.

In my opinion, this legislation that the chairman has brought forward is essentially the same thing as the bill I introduced last week. My legal remedy was a habeas corpus method of dealing with it. The chairman has, I believe, actually come up with a better solution; the removal act I think is a better way to deal with this.

I would just simply point out to all of my colleagues, we do not actually in this bill make a determination that her feeding tube will stay in. It simply allows a Federal review to make sure her rights under the Constitution are properly protected, the right to due process, the right to equal protection, and as well her right to life.

The annals of medical history are filled with numerous cases of people in these semi-comatose states who come out of it. And as we all know, the mother and father and the brothers and sisters desperately do not want her to be starved to death and that the original guardian in this case found the testimony of the husband that she, Terri, had prior voiced no life sustaining measures should she ever be in this condition. His testimony was not credible.

Let me tell Members, I have been there; and when people have voiced a sentiment that they do not want heroic measures should they ever be in this type of condition, it is brought up immediately. It is not brought up 7 years later. The person comes in, they have had a stroke, a car wreck and you hear immediately from the family members, Uncle Joe or grandma said if they were ever like this, she would not want life- sustaining measures. You do not have a 7-year pause in this case.

Just to close, we do not actually say this woman will continue to get her feedings. All we simply say is there will be a review; and I think there desperately needs to be a review. This is unprecedented for a judge to order the withdrawal of food and water from somebody. It has never been done before to my knowledge. And then to order that the family members cannot put a glass of water up to her mouth, this constitutes, in my opinion, cruel and unusual punishment.

I commend the chairman for what he has done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation I have just introduced, the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, enrolled as H.R. 1151. This legislation's immediate intent is to deal with the issues surrounding Terry Schiavo.

I practiced medicine for 15 years prior to my election to the House of Representatives. I still see patients once a month, and I was involved in numerous cases involving situations like this.

Terry has been described in the press as being in a vegetative state, and I believe that she is not, absolutely that she is not. The correct term to describe Terry Schiavo is brain-damaged, severely brain- damaged, but you can see her on videos. Now the judge will not let people such as myself go in there to see her even though the family would like me to be able to examine her. But according to the family, she is the same way. She is responsive. She will look at you, attempt to vocalize. She will attempt to kiss her parents.

The judge in the case, Judge Greer, has tried to dismiss these obvious behaviors indicating that she does have a higher level of functioning and she should not be described as vegetative, as primitive reflexes. And I would assert as a physician that it is extremely dangerous to walk down that kind of a path, where you have somebody with mental retardation, disability or any type of brain injury and you start ascribing obvious human-like behavior on the part of these individuals as being primitive reflexes and that these people are expendable.

Terry is under a court order to withdraw food and water. This is unprecedented in our legal history. Previous cases that received national notoriety, like the Karen Ann Quinlan case, involved family and physicians mutually recognizing that this person did not have a chance of surviving and wanting to withdraw, in the case of the Quinlan case, a respirator, and the court going along with it because the clinicians involved did not want to be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder.

In this case, there is a dispute. The husband wants to terminate food and water, and the family, in the form of the mother and father, vehemently being opposed to it.

The judge has stepped in, and I think he has made some clinical judgments that are not really founded in good clinical science. I am certain if doctors put an EEG on her, we would see extensive brain waves indicating activity in the visual cortex and in the speech centers, and she should not be defined as vegetative,

My bill, H.R. 1151, Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, would simply extend to Terry Schiavo the same benefits currently afforded death row inmates, and she is under a death warrant, death by essential dehydration. It would allow her to receive legal representation, the same kind of legal representation that death row inmates receive. Currently, she does not have her own attorney. Her parents have an attorney. Her attorney has an attorney. Under this bill, she would get legal representation. It would allow for a more detailed review of the case.

As a clinician, she has gotten, to my knowledge, according to the family I have spoken to, no therapy since 1993. I know from having worked with stroke victims and therapists, you can sometimes give these people thicken liquids, and they are able to swallow. Evidently, Terry, prior to the termination of her therapy, was working with a speech therapist and was able to say a

few words. She may be able to survive without a tube.

Another important point I want to make here, there was a $1.56 million medical malpractice settlement that was provided for her care. Much of that has been spent on legal fees trying to end her life. This is not a case where the State is spending a lot of money. The resources are there to take care of her needs in the future. Her parents do not want to see her dying of starvation and thirst. I think it is fully appropriate for us to step in, for her to have a right, the same right a death row inmate gets, and to allow, hopefully, review in front of a Federal judge reviewing all of the facts in this case. When doctors really look at the facts, I think it is very, very hard to justify ending her life in such a way.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to sign on and support the bill and, most importantly, for our leadership on both sides of the aisle to allow expedited review. If not, her tube is scheduled to come out March 18.

Mr. Speaker, soon I will be introducing legislation to give incapacitated individuals their explicit due process rights of habeas corpus when a court orders their death by removal of nutrition, hydration and medical treatment. The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act gives incapacitated persons the same rights of due process available to death row inmates.

The Act will open up an avenue of legal relief currently not clearly available to disabled and incapacitated individuals who are unable to speak for themselves. These individuals can become the subject of a court order affecting their death, such as the case of Terri Schiavo. Terri is a Florida woman who, at age 27, suffered a heart attack and experienced brain damage due to lack of oxygen. While in the hospital, tubes were inserted in her digestive system to provide nutrition and hydration and continue to keep her alive.

Ten years after Terri's unfortunate condition occurred, her husband moved to have the feeding tubes removed intending to end her life. This occurred after Terri received nearly $1.5 million in jury awards and legal settlements. Fortunately for Terri, her parents intervened against the desire of Terri's husband and have stayed her death through legal maneuvering until last week.

On Friday, February 25, Judge George Greer issued an order to remove the nutrition and hydration of Terri on Friday, March 18 at 1 p.m. This order will initiate the starvation death of Terri. To my knowledge, it is unprecedented in law.

All through the Schiavo trial, Terri's parents and husband have been afforded counsel, yet Terri has never been afforded independent counsel, in a matter that will result in her life or death. Terri has had no voice of her own in these legal proceedings, something so fundamental to every adult American, even convicted murderers.

The case of Terri Schiavo deserves a second look by an objective court. For example, despite the court's pronouncement that she is in a persistent vegetative state, evidence exists to the contrary.

Terri is not in a coma as I would define it, and I am a physician. She is not on a respirator or other 24-hour-a-day medical equipment. Terri is responsive to stimuli, such as voices, touch and the presence of people. She can move her head and establish eye contact. Terri can smile, demonstrate facial expressions and cry. She can arch her back and move away or towards voices and people. Terri makes sounds and attempts to vocalize as a way of communication.

As a physician who has cared for people in comas and who were considered in a persistent vegetative state, I have some experience in determining the degree of incapacitation of disabled individuals, and it is a travesty to countenance the notion of putting her to death somehow because she is not able to speak.

Terri and similar incapacitated people should be afforded the same constitutional protection of due process as death row inmates whose lives hang in the balance in judicial proceedings. Because in cases like these, mistakes are not subject to correction, Terri and people similarly situated must have access to de novo review of their case and representation, just like any death row inmate gets.

The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act, which I am going to introduce soon, explicitly recognizes in Federal law the due process protection of habeas corpus appeal for incapacitated individuals who are the subject of a court order to effect their death by removal of nutrition, hydration or medical treatment. It does not apply to circumstances where advanced medical directives are in effect. The Act simply provides a final avenue for review of the case to ensure that a incapacitated person's constitutional rights of due process are maintained and that justice is done.

Now, we know that lawyers are going to file habeas corpus claims about this case, and that is not a surprise and nothing prohibits them from doing so. The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act is needed because the state of the law on this topic needs to be clarified.

These cases are typically reserved for criminal cases. In civil cases like Terri's, the decision to even consider a habeas appeal is at the court's discretion. The Constitution in the 14th Amendment, however, gives Congress the express authority to protect the life of any person by directing the judiciary with respect to the guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law. That is what the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act does. It tells the courts that the due process and equal protection rights of incapacitated persons are explicitly authorized under Federal habeas corpus statutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and providing me the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I want to commend the gentlewoman from California for her leadership in this arena.

As I have spoken about many times on the floor of the House, prior to being elected to the Congress, I used to take care of AIDS patients; and I and my colleagues in the field began to see in the 1980s the very disturbing trend lines in the black community; and indeed now, today, those trend lines continue going up and up and up, and we have a very significant crisis.

The President asked me several years ago to assist him in getting his African AIDS initiative through the House and getting it enacted into law, and I was very pleased to be able to help in that arena. I had the opportunity to go to Africa twice in 2003 to actually look at what was going on in Africa, what was working and what was not working.

Since that time, I have met with many of the black ministers in my congressional district. Florida has had a problem with AIDS literally from the getgo. We were one of the States with the higher prevalence rates. Close to 95,000 people in Florida currently live with HIV or AIDS, which is about 10 or 11 percent of the national total. The Miami- Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward County areas tend to be the most adversely affected areas. African Americans, Haitians, and other people from the Caribbean islands make up a disproportionately high number. It is roughly half of all HIV/AIDS cases, but they are only 14 percent of the population.

What is particularly disturbing, and I think the gentlewoman from California touched on this, is that black women are becoming disproportionately involved. Seventy-two percent of both HIV and AIDS cases in Florida's black community involve women. So this is a disproportionately large number of black Americans and a disproportionately large number of women.

It is estimated that one in 47 black Floridians have HIV/AIDS compared to one in 176 Hispanics and one in 346 whites. CDC reports that HIV/AIDS transmission among African American men is mostly due to men having sex with men, but among African American women it is through heterosexual contact.

Now, I can get into a lot of the medical details here, but it is really not the appropriate environment, so I will just throw out that from an epidemiologic perspective, part of the problem in the black community is similar to what was the problem in the gay community in the 1980s, and it is actually a phenomenon called ``concurrence.'' Until we can get at that issue appropriately, we are not going to really defeat this challenge.

I was very glad that the gentlewoman mentioned ABC. There is too much of an emphasis on the C and not enough on the A and the B, and I encourage all of my colleagues to look at what happened in Uganda in the 1980s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s. They lowered their AIDS rate from 17 percent, 16 percent, down to about 5 or 6 percent with no condoms being shipped in from Europe and other places. No help from the United States, Europe, or NATO. The Ugandans did it on their own. And what was it? It was A, B, C, with an emphasis on abstinence.

The statistics from this we should never discount. People are smarter than a lot of the experts give them credit for. You give them the facts, they can change their behavior. Faithfulness in marriage and abstinence education had a profound impact in Uganda. We need to stress that throughout the African continent; and most importantly, our pastors in the black communities need to start getting that out to their congregations and public health officials.

I believe we can turn this challenge around. I commend the gentlewoman and the Black Caucus leadership on this issue. It is really a problem, and I think if we do more, we can get a lot of good things done.

I used to take care of these patients. It is very, very tragic; and I believe that the costs associated with this are going to be huge in the years ahead. So if you are not motivated by compassion, look at the dollars. We should all be motivated, white, black, Democrat, Republican, to get engaged on this and do something.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and also support the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to serve as Attorney General of the United States. Judge Gonzales has served as counsel to the President, a jurist on the Supreme Court of Texas, Secretary of State and chief elections officer in Texas, as well as then-Governor Bush's chief counsel. Before joining the Governor's staff, he was one of the first two minority partners with the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston. Judge Gonzales is extremely qualified to serve as our Nation's Attorney General.

Born in 1955 in San Antonio, Texas, to Maria and Pablo Gonzales, two Mexican-American migrant workers, Judge Gonzales learned firsthand the meaning of hard work, determination, and integrity at a young age. He was the first in his family to attend college, continued on to Harvard Law School, served in the United States Air Force, and later attended the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence that upon Senate confirmation, Judge Gonzales will help protect Americans from terrorism while also protecting our rights as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. He will continue working to bring those who commit corporate fraud to justice, reforming the FBI, and building on the Bush administration's success in reducing crime.

It is an honor to support Judge Gonzales. He is an outstanding Mexican-American, an outstanding example of the American Dream, and we will be proud of his service to our Nation as our Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 23, recognizing the contributions of Catholic schools. Catholic schools are recognized around the world as great institutions of learning, with a rich tradition of academic excellence. Teachers in Catholic schools see the potential in their students, and push them to achieve that potential, serving the needs of children across the socioeconomic spectrum. The secret for the success of Catholic schools is really no secret. They get parents involved in the process of educating their children, and they push the students to do their best, refusing to be satisfied with mediocrity.

For Catholic schools, cultivating moral excellence in students is just as important as academic excellence, producing young adults that know right and wrong just as well as their multiplication tables. They instill an understanding of the intrinsic value of each and every individual, regardless of race, gender, color, or creed. Catholic schools serve more than 650,000 minority students each year, creating academically successful schools in many neighborhoods that have given up on children.

And so, with H. Res. 23, let us express our gratitude to the hundreds of Catholic schools across the country, for their efforts to promote the moral and intellectual health of America's youth.