Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my good friend, for yielding to me; and I actually came down here because, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is probably one of the people that has dedicated more time and effort to the health care issues that affect the American public than any other Member of this Congress.

On many occasions, he has educated me on health care issues and given me good advice and good counsel on how we need to make health care available, because the health of our Nation is very important to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and all Members of this House on both sides of the aisle. We battle and toil with how exactly we are going to address health care issues.

I really wanted to start and come down here and share with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) an absolutely true event that happened to me personally; I guess by now it is probably almost 2 years ago or maybe even better. It was right after I was blessed to join this august body.

I was back home in my district, and I was back at my pharmacy, that I am not going to advertise for, but where I regularly buy my prescription drugs. I was standing in line for my turn to get prescription drugs, and I am sure people have told this story that I never had actually experienced, a story like this, until I heard the story.

There was a lady that was at that time being waited on by the pharmacist there at the counter and getting her prescription drugs, and they brought them to her. She was getting two prescriptions as I recall, one for herself and one for her husband. I do not know how old this lady was, but she was clearly on Social Security because she said so. This was when we were still working on trying to come up with a prescription drug benefit that would help our senior citizens.

She asked the pharmacist how much the two prescriptions were going to be. The price was very expensive for both of the drugs that she was going to have to pay, and between the two drugs, it was going to add up to, as I recall, over $500 for these prescriptions. She told the pharmacist, well, I cannot get these two prescriptions and continue to feed my husband and me on what we have to live on; I am just not going to be able to do it. Would it be possible that I could get half of the prescription?

The pharmacist said, well, ma'am, the one for you was obviously for something that had come upon her. The other was an ongoing prescription for her husband, the way I understood it. He said, your doctor has a reason he wants you to have this whole prescription. It may have been an antibiotic or something like that. I am not in the medical profession, but the pharmacist clearly said you need to take all of this prescription; you just cannot take half. Well, she said, ma'am, I just cannot spend that kind of money and take care of my family.

When you heard that, when you actually heard that from a human being, you said to yourself, we have got to do something to get some relief for people like this lady that was standing there. I was two people back from her in line, and what I heard that day from that lady touched my heart to where I really felt like I had seen the crisis firsthand.

We have now put together Medicare part D, as my colleague from Georgia has been explaining and will be able to explain in far better detail than I can as to what the benefits are for this, but we have now got a solution for that lady who was standing in line, and it is now time for people to start going out and getting signed up for Medicare part D. That is why I wanted to come join my colleague tonight in the hopes that people in my district and people across this entire country will hear our message that the time is here. We have arrived at the time when they need to go down and register to get involved in Medicare part D. And benefits will actually start, as Mr. Gingrey has explained, in January of 2006.

Now, I have traveled my district and I hold town hall meetings, and a lot of our senior citizens are concerned about, well, this seems so complicated, I do not know whom to turn to. And we are here to let the people know this is important to them and their loved ones. There are people there to assist them.

I would ask the families of those Medicare recipients that need help, sometimes as we grow into our later years, little things become big things to folks like my parents, who now are deceased, but I can remember when they become big things for them as we grow older. And I would hope that the families of these people along with these folks will encourage them to go look into getting registered, getting set up in a plan.

There are multiple plans that are offered. There are people there to help them understand those plans. There are people to tell them what fits their life, their life-style, where they come from, and I would hope not only those people who are going to be eligible for the program but those people who have folks in their family that will be eligible for the program will encourage them to go down and talk to folks, get the help, get signed up.

It is not as complicated as people think it is. There is a lot of fear that is unwarranted fear of this program. It happens on everything we do. When we deal with the government in many areas in our lives, dealing with the government is a frightening thing, dealing with plans and paperwork. This is cut down to where it is not going to be that hard to understand the plans.

There are people there to look at what people's circumstances are and tell them and show them which plans offer them the best options. Every State except Alaska has a State plan, as I recall. There are regional plans, and there are 10 nationwide plans that are available. There are multiple options that they can talk to them about. People can talk to their pharmacists. Medicare has people that will help them.

Call that number, 1-800-Medicare, and they will explain how to sign up. It is so important to your family. Do not let a little fear or a new world attitude that you do not understand keep you from getting signed up for a benefit. Because this is going to be able to assist all Americans in their health care needs, and it is especially going to be of great assistance to those people who are in the lower economic sector of our country. In most instances, those people who make, I think, $11,500 as an individual and $22,000 as a couple, they are basically not going to have hardly any Medicare costs for drugs. So it is important that you not let the fear of a new program or something you might have seen on television or some political rhetoric that was in some campaign somewhere that got you concerned that you would not be able to understand what the program is about to keep you from getting what you need so that you never have to be like that lady who stood in line in front of me and have to make a decision as to whether you took your medicine.

Does my colleague know what was really loving about that story? There was no question she was going to buy her husband's medicine. She never even blinked on that. She was saying, I will give up so we can live our life here what I need, but of course there is no question I am buying the medicine for my husband.

That kind of love permeates American society, and I think we have a duty to our loved ones who are eligible for Medicare to help them and encourage them to go get signed up for this. Because Americans do care about their elderly. Americans do care about those senior citizens who have given all that they had for us today. It is time for us to give them the benefits that they need so they do not ever have to have the kind of experience that that sweet lady did who was standing in front of me at the drugstore.

That is why I came down here tonight, to join Congressman Gingrey and speak directly to the American people and say, get out there and help, get out there and get yourself registered, or get somebody to help you get registered, because these benefits are important. There are occasions now where people say, right now, prescription drug benefits do not mean much to me. One never knows what is right down the road, and it is important that people get registered now and have those benefits available. Because in the month of May, they may come down with something where they have got a permanent situation where for the rest of their life they are going to be taking medicine, and if they had not gotten registered, then they would be in a scramble trying to get registered. So it is important to look at it now.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think is most important as we sit here this evening is to encourage our seniors and their families to assist our seniors to get out and learn about the program and get signed up. Getting signed up is what it is all about. Trained professionals are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-800- Medicare.

They have got a Web site, and I am reading from Congressman Gingrey's sign, www.Medicare.gov, for those high-tech seniors, who are probably better at that than I am, to get out there and do this on-line. There is a lot of help available.

I hope that that lady who was standing in line in front of me in the drugstore in Round Rock, Texas, I hope she hears, by accident or whatever, channel surfing, and tunes into this show tonight and will say ``I had better go do that.''

I think our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are going to be out in our districts talking to people and saying do not let something new keep you away. Get out there and get involved and get signed up.

That is right. And if the gentleman would yield once again. As we talk about this, let us reemphasize again to our seniors the importance of getting registered and signed up for the program. You know, as the gentleman was talking about these drugs, and we read the list off, of those drugs I am familiar with and some of them I am not.

But I thought about how much medicine has changed. And you are the doctors. I am just an old lawyer and trial judge. But I can recall that my father almost died from bleeding ulcers. As a younger man, I was working my way down that road, and, in fact, at one point in time had an ulcer. But Tagamet, I am not plugging any particular brand, but that is the name I know of because that is what I took when Tagamet came on the market; and with that drug, I have never had any more problems whatsoever with ulcers, where my father almost died. They had to give him 7 pints of blood, and he had to be cut from stem to stern like he had been in a knife fight to try to save his life and they had to remove two-thirds of his stomach.

Medicine now can stop a condition that we used to solve with major surgery with prescription drugs. This tool is now available to our Medicare recipients. It is critical that they understand, do not be frightened even by what we have tried to make simple here tonight. Some could even be frightened by that. Do not be frightened by that. Make the effort to save your life. Make the effort to go out there and have every tool that you can be one of those blessings to our country, and that is a senior citizen with long life and good wisdom to pass on to future generations. And you can only be that way if you take care of yourself.

And part of taking care of yourself is getting signed up so that modern medicine can care for you, because with no offense to the great work that our surgeons do, in the long haul, having had a couple of those surgeries myself, I will take that pill all day long and into the night before I want them to cut me wide open because I think modern medicine has been proven over and over, that good preventive medicine, which we now have in this plan, meaning going to get your checkups, get your tests for which you are now covered, do those things that were not available but are now available to you to make sure you are maintaining a look at your health.

And the prescription drug plan along with the other normal medical benefits that have been available before make this a better future for our senior citizens, a better, healthier, longer future. I cannot impress it upon our people enough. This is so, so life changing in the world. It is not perfect, and we all would love for the world to be perfect. But you know what? When we came in here, somebody hit on it tonight, when we came in here and signed up for Congress and they dropped those half a dozen or a dozen plans in front of me, it might as well have been written in Greek. And I sat there and stumbled and fumbled and said I am sticking with my Texas plan and stayed right where I was. And that is my own fault. And I am confessing it right here in front of God and everybody that that is what I did. But in fact I thought I had a better plan in Texas anyway. But that is a different story. But I understand their frustration because it is a frustrating thing. But that is the world we deal with right now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for putting together this opportunity to honor those who serve our Nation in the war on terror.

I am up here speaking for the people of the 31st Congressional District of Texas. How does the 31st Congressional District of Texas have credibility to speak on behalf of these efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan? I would like to tell you a little bit about our credibility.

The first American soldier killed in combat in the war on terror is from Georgetown Texas, which is 5 miles from my home; and every death in this war is absolutely critical to Americans. So counting numbers, every number counts. But the 2,000th death also took place, this famous 2,000th death that everybody in the press was just salivating to see happen, it seemed to me, he was also from the 31st district, Killeen, Texas. The people of the 31st district, from Stevensville, Texas to Round Rock, Texas, support our war, support our troops, and support our efforts in the war on terror.

The people of the 31st district know we were attacked in the most vicious attack that has ever been done on the homeland in the history of the United States in our country, and we have retaliated in force and effectively and done our job. And who has done that job? Our 31st district's III Corps went over there. Fourth Infantry Division went over there and captured Saddam Hussein. The First Cavalry Division went over and ran a perfect election and protected people as they went out and, as we have heard tonight, exercised their right to vote.

We have committed two full divisions to this war, and the Fourth ID is on its way back right now as we speak. I have been able to go over when both my divisions have been over there, and I promised General Thurmond and the that guys I talked to about 2 months ago, I am coming back just as quick as I can get over there right after the first of the year, because these are the finest human beings that have ever taken up arms on behalf of our country.

For those people to talk about cutting and running, Americans do not cut and run. You know, this House has a shame on it when they turned on our soldiers in Vietnam, and I take that position and I am not backing off of it. The liberal press shamed a great generation of people who did their duty then and we, cannot afford to allow that to happen again for political expediency so someone can possibly use the war to gain political advantage in the United States.

We are at war with evil people who intend to do harm to American citizens, wherever American citizens live or breathe or walk the street. We are unsafe with terrorism on the street, we are unsafe in our Nation and in every other nation on Earth because it is an evil cancer that can only be taken out by noble men and women who are willing to stand up on the wall and say we will fight for freedom, not only the freedom of Americans, but the freedom of the people that they are intimidating with their terrorism wherever they may appear. And I am telling you, we have got soldiers that have been willing to do that and have done the job well.

I remember when I was in Afghanistan, the story I love to tell about a 20-year-old sitting looking at a screen of a film of a drone that was broadcasting pictures from the desert. And while we were there, he went to his commander and said, Sir, there is a bunch of camels crossing out there in a part where there should not be any camels. And I thought, how does this kid know there are not supposed to be any camels in this part of the country? He said, I think there are people underneath those camels.

Three Blackhawk helicopters launched about 180 miles away. We were 180 miles from this location. And they caught nine Taliban crawling across the desert under the bellies of camels.

My whole point of that story is: What kind of great, intelligent, smart kids are we sending over there and they are putting their lives in harm's way? This was a smart kid, a computer operator running a drone, able to know the knowledge of the country, to know where our enemy might be hiding. We have got the best of the absolute best over there, the same kind of people that you run into when you go to Iraq and you talk to these kids.

I talked to a 20-year-old African American kid. We were having supper. He was from my district, and we have got a lot of them from my district. And I said, ``Son, have you had any hot spots that you have been in over here?'' And he said, ``Yeah. Yesterday we were in a convoy. They made the mistake of shooting at us.'' He said, ``They will not make that mistake again, sir.'' He said, ``When they stand and fight, they lose.''

Our young men and women are doing a fabulous job, and there is shame on anyone in this country who turns on these noble people who are standing up for the freedom of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan and the freedom of the United States of America. They are heroes.

Today, I am very proud to say that one of the first people in my district to be wounded, seriously wounded, Allen Babbin, he has undergone close to 200 surgeries from a round that he took, winning the Bronze Star for pulling another wounded soldier off a bridge in the second day in Baghdad. Today, he flew back home; and he is on his way to full recovery because of the great work of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in getting him to the right kind of treatment.

Everybody is working the right way in this job, and we bring shame upon ourselves, and those who would criticize these young men and women and the job they are doing bring shame upon themselves, and I am sorry for it.

We in America must remember: If we do not fight tyranny wherever tyranny exists, we have learned this lesson over and over and over in American history, and if we do not support those who fight tyranny wherever tyranny exists, then tyranny will take over that map until tyranny controls the world. There will not just be no freedom in Iraq or no freedom in Afghanistan. There will not be any freedom anywhere. Not even in the cradle of American liberty will there be freedom.

What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is the ability of Americans and others in this world to live the kind of life that everybody wants to live, raise their kids, have a job, eat dinner at night without fearing somebody blowing them up, walk the streets. It is for all the world that we stand in the gap, not just for Americans, not just for Afghans, not just for Iraqis or others in the Middle East. It is for the world that these young men and women stand in the gap.

I am very proud on behalf of the people of the 31st Congressional District of Texas to tell you that we stand tall on behalf of our soldiers. We know they are the best of the best, and they will win the war on terror because it is the right thing to do.

Lastly, we pray God's blessing on each and every one of them and each and every family that is also courageously allowing their family member to do the job that has to be done to keep freedom alive and well in this country. So this is all about us. It is all about the best of the best. God bless every one of them.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of the United States made one of the worst opinions it has ever made in its history in Kelo v. The City of New London when they announced that they would allow other private individuals to use eminent domain to seize private property to enhance tax dollars for a community.

Mr. Speaker, this is a taking of property totally outside of the Constitution of the United States. I have tried hundreds of these cases. No one is happy when their property is taken; but they realize they are taken for schools, it is taken for highways. Even a highway they want, they do not like to see their property taken. But now we have got a law that says that they can come in because it makes more money for a community.

Mr. Speaker, this is an abomination that we will address this week in this House. It is overtime to address it. I urge my colleagues to join hands across the aisle and stop this horrible taking of property that is the result of this Supreme Court activist opinion.

Mr. Speaker, as a State district judge for over 20 years in Texas, I presided over my fair share of frivolous lawsuits. I have seen firsthand the effect they have on small businesses and families.

The current tort system is costing Americans over $200 million a year. Small businesses rank the cost and availability of liability insurance as second only to the cost of health care as their top priority. Both problems are fueled by frivolous lawsuits.

Frivolous lawsuits make small businesses and workers suffer. This year the Nation's oldest ladder manufacturer, family-owned John S. Tilley Ladders Company of New York, filed for bankruptcy protection and sold off most of its assets due to litigation costs.

Founded in 1855, the Tilley firm could not handle the cost of liability insurance, which had risen from 6 percent of sales a decade ago to 29 percent, even though the company never lost an actual court judgment. ``We could see the handwriting on the wall and just want to end this whole thing,'' said Robert Howland, a descendant of the founder, John Tilley.

Mr. Speaker, let us put an end to frivolous lawsuits that are ruining the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas has demonstrated to the world that they opened their arms to the evacuees of the 2 hurricanes that struck our Nation and brought disaster to a great area of the Gulf Coast. Texas has always opened their arms to their neighbors and said, come to Texas, you are welcome.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem on the Texas border. I was down in Laredo, Mexico, and Del Rio, Texas, recently where 42 American citizens have been kidnapped. I have a photograph of a woman who was burned alive, an American citizen, by these criminals who cross freely across our borders of Texas. We say, welcome, in Texas, but when you come here, do not break the law to get here. It is time for border security in this bill.

I rise in support of this rule and this homeland security appropriation bill because we start down the road to providing safe borders for the entire southern border and northern border of the United States. We add 1,000 Border Patrol men, which will be of great assistance in shutting down this criminal activity and all of this illegal behavior of people coming illegally into our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, 68,000 OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, have crossed within the last 8 months. That is a crisis. We have to do something about the borders, and this bill does that.

We have new agents for the Border Patrol. We have new criminal investigators, we have new investigators for immigration and for ICE. We have provided a great start on a secure border. We will continue to work hard to secure the borders of this country so that this illegal behavior will be caught and punished and these people will be turned back, because, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's security depends upon it.

So I am very supportive of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on this bill, because it is a vote for a secure border for America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their hard work on this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this, because I view the world from the State of Texas. I look at the largest single foreign border in the United States in Texas. I look at a port that the Coast Guard told me carries the largest amount of dangerous cargo in the United States, and possibly the largest amount of dangerous cargo on Earth, the port of Houston.

I look at the big spaces we have to cover as we try to secure just the State of Texas. I look at the 68,000 other-than-Mexican immigrants that we have actually caught in the last 8 months crossing the Texas border. These are people from places other than Mexico: Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Chinese and Far Easterners, crossing our border across the Rio Grande River.

I view that world, and it is a world that requires a secure homeland.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of hard work done on this bill, and I think this bill goes a long way to start securing the Texas border and the rest of the border between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada. We are adding 1,000 border patrol agents by this bill; we are putting on investigators; we are beefing up ICE. We are doing everything we can to say to the world, We are not anti- immigrant; we are anti-people who break the law to enter our country or who are coming in illegally.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help, so I stand in support of this bill, because it does the right thing for America.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about an ongoing crisis that is in this country, a crisis in the courts of America. People are using the third branch of this government as an abusive form of receiving money from the court system, in many instances just because they file a lawsuit. People are using the courts of America to intimidate others out of their constitutional rights because of the expense of litigation. Most importantly, and what I rise today for, they are driving the medical profession into the ground.

Madam Speaker, I have spent 21 years of my life working with fine lawyers in a courtroom. I have seen the courtroom and how things work in the courtroom change substantially in that 21 years on the bench as a trial judge in Texas.

The courts were designed for people to seek recourse when they were damaged. The courts were designed to grant fairness to all parties involved. The courts were not designed to use the economic expense of litigation to force people to settle lawsuits or to force people to pay money. They were designed for a fair presentation of the evidence and a fair decision to be rendered by the trier of facts and the trier of the law.

Yet, today, in modern society, we see in every area courts being used to try to force someone to do something contrary to their best interests, to pay when, in reality, the only reason they are paying is because, quite frankly, it is cheaper than fighting the litigation, cheaper for insurance claims to be settled, because it is easier to settle an accident than actually stand up for what is right. We see this, and if the spotlight is placed upon this, we see what it is doing to our medical profession.

Madam Speaker, we love to all sit around and reminisce about the old country doctor who would actually make house calls. The doctor that would make a house call with a little black bag today probably ought to be seriously examined for being crazy, because if all he brings is the resources of that bag to make that house call, surely there is a lawyer some place that is going to sue him for something because he said he did not do the right thing. So what is happening to our legal profession?

In many instances, doctors will tell us, unnecessary tests are being required of our patients. The cost of our medical care in this country is skyrocketing not because maybe that doctor thinks he may know what is wrong with that patient, but he also wants to make sure that he has that MRI and that CAT scan on record to confirm what his diagnosis is. Why? Because of the trial lawyers standing outside the door, ready to sue him for the slightest thing because he thinks he can prove that that test was not right.

Madam Speaker, we have women in south Texas that cannot find a baby doctor to deliver their baby and cannot find a pediatrician to care for their baby when it is born. Patients in south Texas cannot find a neurologist or a neurosurgeon when someone has been in a car wreck and has a brain injury and desperately needs someone that can treat them, either a neurologist or a neurosurgeon. There are people that are being hauled all the way from the Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, and McAllen, all the way to San Antonio to try to find a neurologist that will take care of a serious, serious case.

Madam Speaker, this is a crisis in America. I am just looking at Texas. But this is not just new to Texas; this is all over the country. There are multiple States that are in crisis when it comes to medical liability. Tonight, I am up here and I am joined by many of my colleagues to talk about H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Assessible, Low- cost, Timely Health Care Act of 2005 entitled HEALTH. This is sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a medical doctor and a good friend from the State of Georgia, and I am sure that he will join us here in just a little while. Right now, he is with the Committee on Rules, and that is why he is not the first one to talk, because he is the doctor.

But he will tell us, as I will tell my colleagues and my colleagues will tell us, this crisis in America is causing skyrocketing medical costs, unfair jury verdicts and judgments against the doctors of this country and causing doctors to say, I am not doing this anymore.

Madam Speaker, when we drive out the people who are there to protect our lives, when we drive them away with these frivolous and sometimes onerous, most of the time onerous lawsuits, we are driving away people that are there to save our lives. Nobody asks when they are dragged into the emergency room after a terrible car wreck where the jaws of life have pried them out of the car, they do not ask, where is my lawyer, they are looking for a doctor. Yet, I have talked personally with emergency room surgeons, and they tell me that their profession is getting thinner and thinner and thinner every day. In fact, most of the people that still are willing to go and be emergency

room surgeons are the guys who love to live on the edge with that adrenaline rush, because they certainly are not doing it because they feel safe. They deal constantly with the fear of a lawsuit because they did the right thing to save a life.

Doctors deliver babies. That is what we all expect. We want a doctor to be there with our wonderful spouse when they give us the gift of a child. Why do we want that doctor there? We want that doctor there to make sure that child is healthy and to make sure that birth is as successful as possible and make sure mama comes home with the baby. Yet, with the amount of lawsuits that are attacking our OBGYNs in America, more and more of our outstanding doctors are finding something else to do.

Madam Speaker, this is a crisis in America. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the sponsor of H.R. 5, I believe offers us the solution to that crisis. I see that he has joined us, and I am going to yield to him to talk to us about this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, at this time we are joined by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), one of our wonderful colleagues, a real asset to this House, and at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Speaker, I thank the congresswoman for her comments. The congresswoman is always willing to stand up for the people in her district and talk about the people of her district, and she never fails to tell us a story about the people in her district.

I want to tell my colleagues a couple of stories. I want to tell my colleagues, in 21 years on the bench, I have seen an awful lot of people who really have the attitude that suing people is kind of a profession. I want to tell my colleague true stories, and these are both absolutely true stories, but I am not going to use the people's names because, as far as I know, they are both still alive. Hey, I do not know, they might even be watching.

I have this one friend that I worked with many years ago down in the Texas legislature when I was working for the staff down at the legislature as a young lawyer. When I talk about this, I am a lawyer and practiced law for about 12 years before I went on the bench. So I am not picking on lawyers here.

But anyway, I used to go deer hunting with this fellow, called him Joe, and about 10 years later, I ran into him kind of on the street. I said, hey, Joe, what is going on; what are you doing? He said, oh, I got me a job. I said, what do you do? He said, I am a suer. I said, a what? I thought he works for the sewer, is that what he said? He said no, I am a suer. I said, what in the world is a suer? He said, I get out in my old car out on the highway, slam on my brakes and somebody runs into the back of me; I slap a collar around my neck and I sue him. I thought he was joking. I laughed. I thought that was a funny thing for a fellow to say, until I ran into a guy that I knew who knew him well, and he said, no, well, that is what he does. That is what he does.

That is an attitude about our court system that has got to change, and it has got to change. If necessary, we have to turn this world around. That is why juries go crazy on these verdicts.

I will tell my colleagues another story.

Absolutely, absolutely. You have to stand in line a lot longer to see him than to sue him.

This other fellow, friend of mine, was a cigarette smoker, and this was back many years ago. He was sitting there. He is a prolific reader. He said, I have decided how I am going to retire as soon as I get out of college. This was back when I was in college. I said, okay, John, how are you going to retire? He said, well, I read an article that said that the reason people smoke is because they were weaned too soon. He said, so I smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. At that time cigarettes cost about 35 cents a pack. He would get rich today on his plan. He said, so I have added up how many packages of cigarettes I think I am going to smoke in my lifetime, and I happen to know the reason my mother weaned me soon is because her doctor gave her that advice. He said, so I am going to sue my mother and my doctor because I smoke. He said, and I think I can get $1 million out of that deal, by the way, by my calculation.

That was a joke, but it does underlie how people view the court systems and the lawsuits that people perceive that can be heard. Now we are having people wanting to sue hamburger people for obesity. They are wanting to sue schools for the vending machines that are in the schools, and of course, they are suing the doctors for everything under the sun. It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

I think what we will do here is let us just open this up to a general discussion. Let us first let the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) talk a little bit about this bill, and then the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) wants to talk about some stuff.

Add future medical care. By my understanding, this bill does not limit any amount of medical care that has already been expended nor any projected needs in medical care in the future including, as you say, rehabilitation. Even mental health issues could be addressed. If there is proof of the necessity, this can be carried forward, and it is not limiting it.

It is that undefinable pain and suffering issue that can allow people to break the bank at Monte Carlo with their judgment and get $1 billion in that category.

A billion dollars has been awarded in the past. Many times multimillions of dollars have been awarded for pain and suffering. That is the issue. That is the real issue in a nutshell.

Something needs to be mentioned here. We have had a lot of doctors come in here, and some people watching might be thinking, of course, these doctors are in the business; of course they want to do this. Well, these doctors are not in the business. These doctors have left the practice of medicine to come to Congress. And I think in many instances they came to Congress because they had a voice that needed to be heard on many issues, including this issue here.

I know I have become very close with many of the doctors, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) being the prime example, and they are here because they care about multiple issues affecting their people back home, and they are here to represent all of the people of their State. They are no longer practicing physicians, so they are not doing this because they are reaching into their pocketbooks, but they are doing this because they know there is an abuse here that needs to be rectified, and this stands for the Senate as well as the House. These doctors do not practice their profession while they are serving in the Congress.

If the gentleman will yield back for a moment. As we talk about lawsuit abuse, right now we are talking about doctors, but you can talk to your small businessman and ask him what he pays for the insurance coverage because of liability factors that influence whatever business he is in. He can be in the manufacturing business, he can be a consultant, he can be an engineer, an architect, or a lawyer. There is not a small businessman or a profession in America that is not facing the possibility of frivolous lawsuits that can cause them major damage in their business.

In fact, lawsuits have become a tool of competition in America today in the business community. There are people and organizations who actually try to drive a person out of business by filing frivolous lawsuits against them, knowing it will cost them $25,000 to $50,000 to defend them. They come back and they come back and they come back again, and, thus, ultimately, the small businessman finally throws up his hands and says, I cannot pay these attorneys fees any more. My insurance people will not cover me any more, and so I am getting out of this business. That is happening. It probably happened in this Nation while I was talking tonight.

Fair redress is what we ought to have in the courts; fair disputes settled between two parties. But using the court as a weapon to direct people, whether it be in business, in politics, or in a profession, is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments. What we are talking about tonight is a climate that has developed over a long period of time in our court system. It is a climate which was never designed or anticipated by the founders of our Nation; that our courts would become a weapon to batter someone into submission; that our courts would become a tool of business; that our courts would become a slot machine where individuals could pull the handle and receive big benefits.

I love our court system, and I think our court system has the potential to be fair, impartial, and to resolve grievances for every American citizen. I think the court system works hard to see that it does just that. But there are issues and attitudes of the American people that we can only change by redirecting the thought pattern of ``I am going to get rich on this lawsuit,'' rather than the fairer thought process of ``I am going to recover for how I was damaged and how I suffered.'' That is what we are looking here for.

I think that every American is looking to his or her government to be treated fairly. I think it is our responsibility here as Members of Congress to try to do everything we can to make sure that all who appear in the courts get fair justice.

So I thank the Chair for being willing to listen to us tonight and to hear our discussion about lawsuit abuse and in particular medical malpractice, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and be counted by casting their vote for fairness. I also urge our colleagues in the other body to address this issue and cast their vote for fairness in the American justice system. If we instigate and create fairness, we will have done the will of the framers and the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for taking this time tonight to talk about this very important matter before our Nation right now.

The House of Representatives does not have a vote in this issue, but it does and should have a voice in the issue concerning the selection of the highest court of this land, and of all of the judicial appointments.

One of the duties of this House is to be a voice of the people of this country, because we of the elected officials in this House of Representatives, we are the ones that have the smallest districts and are closest to the people. Most of us are home every weekend talking to the folks back home. We have a good idea of the kind of capabilities that our people are looking for in their judges.

We have one of the great debates in history going on right now, with two potential justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court. We were here last week talking about this, and we told you that we would hope that everyone would watch the hearings that took place last week to see Judge Roberts. I predicted that Judge Roberts would be outstanding before the Senate, and I think my prediction was absolutely proven true. I think everyone acknowledges he showed great intelligence and great insight. He answered the questions appropriately. He asked to be excused from questions which were inappropriate for a judge to answer. He handled himself with charm and grace and intelligence, just exactly the way I predicted last week. I am not clairvoyant, I just know this man is the right man to be on the Supreme Court and to be the Chief Justice to lead that Supreme Court.

We know the Constitution gives them the vote. We hope that they will hear our voice. There is a lot of criticism that has been out there, and I want to ask the American people to think about just exactly what is the role of a judge in our society. I served for 21 years as a judge in Texas, a proud 21 years as part of the justice system of this Nation. I think what the lawyers that appear before a court and what the people who those lawyers represent want from a court is a judge that comes into the court with no preconceived notions, that will listen to the facts that pertain to the case, examine those facts carefully, apply the

law and the facts, and come up with a solution. That is what they want from the judge. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted for the justices of our Supreme Court. They wanted them to examine American law as it relates to each set of disputed facts that comes before that court, and, from the American jurisprudence and the common law, come up with an interpretation of whether or not our Constitution has been violated under certain circumstances, and to examine the laws of the United States and make them proper.

I do not think anybody argues with that. I think that it would be totally inappropriate to ask a judge to make a pretrial statement before a case is brought before the court as to where he would stand on an issue without hearing the full presentation in the court, reading the briefs, and making a decision based upon what has been presented in the court and the law as it stands in the United States at that time. That is what we want from our judges. Judge Roberts is that kind of judge and will give us those decisions.

I think it is almost laughable if you know how the court works. When a man is hired as a lawyer for somebody else, when a client comes into a lawyer's office and says I want to hire you to represent me in a case, now you would not want that lawyer that you hired to represent you in that case to go into court and argue the other side of the case against you, because that is not what he is getting paid to do. His job is to be an advocate for his client. And yet the criticisms that we hear against Judge Roberts are that he made arguments as a lawyer for a side before the Supreme Court or before other courts in favor of or against certain positions that some Members of the Senate do not agree with; therefore, he is inappropriate to be involved in any case that has to do with that.

We will start off with the pro-life issue. They argue that Roberts is pro-life because of two arguments that he made while he was representing the United States of America as a deputy solicitor general in Rust v. Sullivan and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. Roberts' opponents argue that Roberts unnecessarily called for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in Rust, a case challenging Federal regulations which prohibit certain recipients of Federal funds from counseling patients on abortion. Critics argue that the case could have been argued solely on the basis of statutory construction of the provisions at issue. Critics also point out that Roberts coauthored the government's amicus brief in Bray, a private suit brought against Operation Rescue, which argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection rights.

Who was he arguing for? His side, his client, the people paying him to make an argument for them. And who is someone sitting outside the courtroom, who are they to tell a lawyer how he should argue his case? Well, he should argue his case but not argue Roe. If he felt the interest of his clients were best protected and put forward by arguing against Roe, it is his job to argue against Roe.

If the next time he comes into court and someone has hired him to take the opposite position, that same lawyer would be arguing the other side of that case because that is what lawyers get paid to do. And an argument a lawyer makes in the courtroom and whom a lawyer represents in the courtroom, if that defines that lawyer, there is something wrong with how we think. That would be accusing every criminal lawyer in America of being a criminal because they talk in favor of criminals.

But if we do not have defense lawyers in criminal cases, we do not have a case because the State has the burden of proof in that case. The defense has no burden of proof whatsoever, but they have the right to representation under our Constitution.

Would we say that no lawyer would ever be fit for a court if he argued any position that might come before that court and we can tell what his position is going to be by his arguments in court? That, Mr. Speaker, is just one of the most ridiculous arguments that I think anyone could ever make. And anybody who would hire a lawyer to go into court to argue the other side of a case ought to fire his lawyer before the third word came out of his mouth and ask the judge to give him some more time to hire a decent lawyer to represent his position, and I think most lawyers would grant that.

And almost every argument that is made in this whole list of things that says Roberts is a right wing extremist, Roberts is anti- environment, Roberts is hostile to civil rights and affirmative action, Roberts is hostile to the rights of criminal defendants, Roberts is hostile to the first amendment of the establishment clause, all of these things are baloney because about 90 percent of their arguments are that he made this argument as an advocate for a client, which is his job. Lawyers argue every day in court as advocates for their clients when, in their heart of hearts, we cannot tell whether they are for what their client is for or against what their client is for. But, by golly, they make us think they are because that is their job to represent their client and convince the court that their position is valid. That is what they get paid for.

The other arguments they have in here are some arguments about dissents that were written by Judge Roberts on the court of appeals. Well, what do we want from a judge, a multijudge panel on the court? Do we want everybody up there that thinks exactly the same way on every issue? Then why do we need all of them? Why not just pick one every day, and we know we can get the same verdict every time because they all just think alike? Or why do we even need judges? If we have a set of criteria that we absolutely feel that everybody ought to have to be a judge, why do we not just program it into the computer, feed the facts and the argument into the computer, and if it does not fit the computer program, we spit it out and they lose?

That is not what a court is all about. That is not what a multijudge court is all about. It is about intelligent students of the law with experiences in the courtroom, both as advocates and as fair and impartial judges, who are able to go together, take their combined intelligence, make arguments to themselves as they discuss the case, and come up with the combined intelligence of those people and the combined opinions of those people, which may be diverse, which comes up, we have discovered, over and over and over in our courts of justice, comes up with good decisions that fit the appropriate actions that are necessary for the court.

If we have everybody who thinks just alike and there is a litmus test for every member of the judiciary, we do not need all those Supreme Court Justices. Let us just give one guy superpower and dictatorial power over the judiciary and move on.

I think that both sides would feel passionately about issues concerning the Court. But the reality is there is a place in that Court for diverse opinion, and if we do not have diverse opinion, we do not have a Court that can effectively give a broad-based analysis of the law that comes before it. And then to go and try to come up with stuff that does not mean a thing by saying he represented somebody is just on the verge of laughable, and I think in all reality the arguments that are being made are spurious at best.

I would encourage our colleagues in the Senate that they pass this case on, bring it up on the floor as soon as possible. We now have a Court that has basically two vacancies, one being filled until another Justice is selected and one that is empty. We have a Court that is going to work in October. I think it is important that we pass Judge Roberts out to a vote on the floor of the Senate, that they have an up- or-down vote on the floor of the Senate; and if Judge Roberts does not get the vote, then let us find somebody else to fit the job with an up- or-down vote on the Senate side. If he does get it, let us get him in to start working on the job so he can be ready as this Court convenes in October. And then let us get to work on our next Justice that is coming down, and let us not try to establish litmus tests.

Let us not try to make people walk the line of somebody's political agenda. Let us say, Mr. President, give us a fair and impartial judge that knows the law, knows how to find the law, knows

how to interpret the American jurisprudence, not some foreign jurisprudence, but the American jurisprudence and the common law and come up with the solution to our problems in our Supreme Court, and we will have fair and impartial justices in the Supreme Court of the United States. But there should be no litmus test whatsoever that is required of these nominees.

And I hope the President will come up with a good nominee for this next vacancy; and if he comes up with one with the quality of Judge John Roberts and the ability of Judge John Roberts, we will have hit a home run in the two nominees that have been submitted to the Senate. And I hope for rapid confirmation of both so that we can put the Supreme Court back to work with a full house.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I am happy to be privileged in that when Judge Roberts made his opening statement, and he started talking about balls and strikes, calling the balls and strikes, being the umpire, as far as I was concerned, it was over right there; he had won, because he understood the role of being a justice.

And he happened to use something that I had used on multiple occasions. You know, back in the small town where I started out as a judge, it grew to be a big town, we have a lot of baseball and girls' softball, and one time they said, hey, Judge, would you come out and call the balls and strikes; we lost our umpire.

And I said, friends, I call balls and strikes for a living. And I am not about to get up there and call balls and strikes at my daughter's softball game. But that is exactly right. That is understanding what a judge's job is. It is so very important that we have a judge that has the common sense of the American people to go along with a great intellect into the law.

It is just so very important that we have that kind of a judge that comes to the Court. This is exactly want we have in Justice Roberts. He is so impressive, I mean phenomenally impressive. So Judge Roberts stole that from me. But probably I would say stole it from lots of good judges. I kind of think that I was a good judge; but lots of good judges in the United States, because they understand the concept of what their job is.

Mr. Speaker, let us point out that when our founders as States decided they wanted to write a document that they were going to submit to govern our Nation by, the Constitution of the United States, they chose to sit in Congress as a group of diverse opinions representing their various States to come up with this document.

They did not ask a battery of judges to come in here and do that. They asked people that represented their States to come in and represent the interests, and they debated, as we debate here in Congress, the laws we designed, and the intent is clear, that they wanted a Congress to make the laws of this United States.

They, in Marbury v. Madison, set the precedent that said the Courts may interpret the laws that are made, to see if they comply with the Constitution of the United States, which is the sovereignty of our Nation.

Of course, our true sovereignty is in God; and it is clear as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) points out, we stated the sovereignty that we look to in the Declaration of Independence, where we get our rights from. And they are not given to us by our government, they come from the divine authority of God. But they went forward on that and they established the Congress to make the laws.

And I agree 100 percent that is the intent of our founders, and that is the way it is supposed to be. That is the right and proper place. And the interpretation of Judge Roberts, so adequately and effectively and eloquently presented to the Senate to educate that bunch in the last week, proves that fact.

I want to say that I am honored to be here with these four gentlemen. These are some of my best friends. Let me point out that Judge Roberts is not from any of our States. We have no parochial interest in this whatsoever. We are just glad that we have got a great jurist coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise this evening to discuss a man and a history on the bench, judicial bench, that probably will be recorded as one of the great careers in the legal profession in the history of the United States. I am referring to Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Today we laid to rest Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has served this country and served it well for many, many years. Justice Rehnquist is going to be sorely missed by the citizens of this country. His wisdom and his leadership and his all-around ability to unite and work with every faction of the Supreme Court has been an inspiration to all of the citizens of this country.

He served tirelessly with great wisdom, judgment, and leadership. He leaves behind a legacy as one of the most influential Chief Justices in our Nation's history; and today, in sadness, we bid him farewell, and we say to Justice Rehnquist, job well done.

A native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, William Rehnquist grew up in the nearby suburb of Shorewood. His father, the son of Swedish immigrant parents, worked as a paper salesman, and his mother as a multilingual professional translator.

I come from a part of Texas which has a large Swedish heritage, and I am sure that Justice Rehnquist got his base principles established by that Swedish heritage that he grew up in.

After service in World War II with the Army Air Corps from 1943 to 1946, and with the assistance of the GI Bill, Rehnquist earned bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from Stanford University, finishing in 1948. In 1950 he received a master's degree in government from Harvard. Rehnquist later returned to Stanford University

to attend law school, where he graduated first in his class in 1952, even ahead of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, currently serving on the Court. He also served as the editor of the Law Review.

Rehnquist served as a law clerk for Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson both in 1951 and 1952. Following his clerkship, he settled in Phoenix, Arizona, where he was in private practice from 1953 to 1969.

In 1964 he also served as a legal advisor to the Barry Goldwater Presidential campaign.

When President Nixon was elected in 1968, Rehnquist returned to Washington, D.C. to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In this position Rehnquist served as the chief legal counsel to the Attorney General. He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel until 1971, when President Nixon nominated him to replace John Marshall Harlan on the Supreme Court.

During his time in the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist authored countless landmark decisions and thought-provoking dissents. He carefully reasoned his opinions and insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral part of our Nation's constitutional structure. His opinions recognized that our government is one of enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers left to the States.

His jurisprudence has shown that the first amendment establishment clause does not dictate government hostility toward religion. Rather, the government should act in a manner which respects our freedom to worship as we please, neither favoring nor disfavoring religion.

The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court. Though some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with him at times, there is no doubt that they admired his strong leadership and his likable personality and his ability to build a consensus. While always a forceful advocate for his views, the Chief Justice consistently strove for consensus on the Court and treated his colleagues with courtesy and respect.

It is thanks to his personal attributes that even in an age of 5 to 4 decisions, the Court never descended into bitter infighting. Instead, Justice Rehnquist led a court united by friendship, committed to the law and service to our country.

One example of Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to the law is his opinion in Dickerson v. The United States. Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona, Rehnquist nevertheless placed his past position aside and wrote an opinion in Dickerson effectively affirming Miranda.

In 1999 Justice Rehnquist lent his services to the Senate when he became only the second Chief Justice in history to preside over a Presidential impeachment in the trial of President Clinton. During that difficult time, with the Nation and some of its Senators locked in partisan struggle, the Chief Justice's very presence reminded us of the solemn legal duties the constitution requires of the Senate.

A historian of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, had authored three books on the history of the Court and the American legal system.

As Chief Justice, Mr. Rehnquist led not only the Supreme Court but the entire third branch of government. In that role he was an eloquent advocate for a strong and independent judiciary. In his annual reports on the judiciary and other public pronouncements, Chief Justice Rehnquist championed the interest of the judicial branch, earning praise from judges of all jurisdictional stripes.

At all times Chief Justice Rehnquist performed his duties of office with nobility and courage. Even in his recent sickness, he found the strength to administer the oath of office to President Bush and to consider the challenging cases that came before the Court.

Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush's inauguration, ``And the most poignant moment was the manful William Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear in the President. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such gallantry.''

Our Nation is deeply indebted to William Rehnquist. Above all, the rule of law was paramount for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He understood that our government cannot survive without a judiciary that places the rule of law above politics.

Justice Rehnquist has tirelessly served our Nation for the last 3 decades, and he serves a permanent legacy as one of the great Supreme Court Justices. The next Chief Justice will surely have big shoes to fill.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he wishes to consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very well- presented picture of this great man that we are talking about here tonight.

The gentleman is right. There was a time when William Rehnquist stood alone for the rule of law and a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution in a world where lots of people actually made jokes about him, that were of the other persuasion.

To us that are conservatives and respected his intelligence, his wit, and his humor, and his bulldoggedness, he was someone that we respected and we loved because when he got ready to do his job, he did it.

One of the things you can look at is, when your colleagues who disagree with you have comments that are positive about you, I think that speaks a lot about not only his ability to stand his ground but his ability to stand it with grace as a man who demanded and received respect because of his behavior and because of the way he handled himself.

Now, Chief Justice William Brennan is well known for the way he uses certain language. I am going to read a quote from Justice Brennan, and some of it is a little rough, but I think we will enjoy it. He is talking about Justice Rehnquist.

``He is just a breath of fresh air. He is so damn personable. He lays his position out, casts his vote. You know exactly where he stands on every goddamn case. And he's meticulously fair in assigning opinions. I can't begin to tell you how much better all of us feel and how fond all of us are of him personally.'' That is a quote from Justice Brennan.

Another of his colleagues, Justice Louis Powell said, ``In many ways he is the best-educated person I have ever worked with, very familiar with the classics. He'll quote them with confidence. Everybody agrees generally, I suppose, that he's brilliant, but he has a good sense of humor and he is very generous and he is principled.''

Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, ``Rehnquist is a great Chief Justice.''

All these people were people on the other side of most of the issues with William Rehnquist, and yet they speak of him as a colleague that they highly respect and they believe he handled himself very well.

As we are talking about colleagues that we respect, I see that we are joined today by the gentleman from east Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and also one of my judicial colleagues, coming to this august body from the judiciary of Texas, which is getting to be a habit for quite a bit of our congressmen, and we are glad to have him. I wonder if the gentleman would like to step up and make a statement about the Chief Justice and join in a colloquy about the Chief Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking back. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I both served in the Texas judiciary, and I do not know if you were there at the time or not and if you remember. At one point in my 22 years on the bench this took place, but we had a State judicial conference. Our guest speaker was a very, very personable and intelligent professor of law from the University of Virginia. He actually was smart enough to carry two full days of education for judges by himself, and you have got to be pretty good to do that.

In one of these sessions, he was analyzing the President's Supreme Court, and this was prior to Chief Justice Rehnquist becoming Chief Justice, when he was Justice Rehnquist, and he was talking about the makeup of the United States Supreme Court at that point in time.

He started by tracking the liberals on the Court, which at that time was the vast majority; and he talked about their capabilities and what direction they wanted to take things and all this stuff. Finally he got down and he said those of you who are feeling very depressed because you do not have a liberal bend towards the law, do not lose heart because you have a champion, and he is equal to the task of all those we have just discussed put together in his ability to analyze and take forward his view of the United States Constitution.

He said never sell short William Rehnquist. He knows what he is doing; he knows where he wants to take the law; and he will take it there. And believe me, as long as it is a Republican in office, he should and will be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and at that time he will turn the corner on many of the decisions which we have found to be very strange and not very well directed towards the trial courts and the trial courts' abilities. So do not lose heart. You have a champion and he is a white knight and he will deliver for the conservative view, the rule-of-law view of the Constitution.

He certainly did. Even though he wrote dissents, sometimes those dissents were so telling that they moved the Court slowly. Absolutely a phenomenal intelligence and ability to wordsmith, to word things so that they led us in a direction we needed to go.

Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I noticed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), our friend, has arrived in the Chamber. I would really like to hear what he has to say about Justice Rehnquist. So I yield to our colleague and good friend from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I was thinking as he was speaking, and he gave an excellent presentation of the Chief Justice, but we are joined here in the Chamber today by two men who basically made their entire life a part of dealing in the justice system both as members of the bar, members of the bench, and who also built, basically from scratch, from what I know of both of them, very successful businesses, overcoming insurmountable obstacles. And then, when they had the ability to continue to go out and make those businesses thrive, they volunteered to come to Washington and become a part of the justice system, a part of the legislative branch of our government. This kind of defines the kind of man that Justice Rehnquist personally reached out to, kind of everybody.

He wrote the opinions of those of us who honor our heritage, who honor the language that our forefathers wrote into the Constitution and think that if that is what it says, that is what it says. It does not take a genius to read the paper and say that is what it says. And with all his skill and writing ability, really you can cut it down to the fact that that is the way he looked at it. He said, Wait a minute, let us read the Constitution. That is what it says. It speaks volumes that Justice Rehnquist was able to do that in such a talented manner and in such a manner that challenged legal scholars across the country.

One of his opponents from Harvard University made a comment about him, something to the effect that no matter what you thought of him, whether you agreed with his ideology, he said, I have to give Rehnquist an A. That is the kind of talent that he had. He could take the causes that those of us working in the trenches, the trial judges, and we liked to say there is a difference between trial judges and appellate judges. We shoot from the hip and make those decisions and then they get to grade our papers. Of course, Judge Gohmert has been both, so he has experience in both those areas, but I am just an old trial judge.

Well, at least you know they are shooting from the hip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing that, and I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and let me say this. As we discuss Chief Justice Rehnquist and what he has accomplished and the legacy he brings to the United States of America, we are doing this on the very eve of the beginning of the new selection of a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It is, I think, appropriate to realize that as Judge Rehnquist was serving 33 years on the highest court in this land, he also was writing history books to record history.

He knew just what my colleague said, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), that it is important that we remember the history as it was, not revise it to make it what we want it to be. So he wrote three history books about the Court so we could say, Well, what does history tell us about that event at that time? And so the judge, the great researcher, has given us the research and a direction on the history as it pertains to the Court, something the other justices of the Court that will follow can turn to as additional information to get a picture of where the Court was coming from as it made rulings.

It is very important, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate, as they look at the confirmation of Judge Roberts, I hope that they are looking at the history of the United States Supreme Court and the legacy of William Rehnquist.

I wonder how you can be unqualified to serve by not recognizing that right, when there are members sitting on the Court at this time who do not recognize that right.

The point of a Supreme Court is that there are multiple points of view, and you should not be requiring only one point of view on the United States Supreme Court. To make a confirmation hearing dependent upon one point of view absolutely flies in the face of justice in America.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. One of the downfalls of appearing in the Congress with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is these guys are great in quoting all these things off the top of their head, and that is hard for an old trial judge who is just used to shooting from the hip. I do enjoy the wonderful quotes these guys pull out and quote them right. It is a blessing to have them as Members of our Congress.

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient today as we honor our passing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as we laid him to rest today. We thank you for your patience in allowing us to express our opinions about him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who clearly has been in the lead and is outspoken for the CAFTA-Dominican Republic project, for yielding to me.

This is critical not only to the Central America region but to the United States of America. We are opening up trade so that our products get sold in Central America without duties on our products.

The Central American countries have the opportunity to sell in our country, and they do not have a burden on their products up here. And, in fact, we are their number one trading partner. The expansion, the benefit that we see is what is going to happen to our folks.

Whenever I look at one of these things that are coming up in Congress, I try to take a look at my district and see who is in my district and try to learn and study and figure out who is going to get helped by these things. And it was easy to see how the high-tech industry with Dell Computer, one of our great neighbors in Williamson County, it was easy to see what is going to happen there. But I look further down to that dairy farmer in Stephenville, Texas, in Erath County. This is not a little dairy farm operation in Erath County. We are talking about one of the most important parts of the agriculture industry in Texas. The area in my district produces over $40 million to the Texas economy every year in milk and dairy product production. And under the CAFTA agreement, doors are going to open to them that

are going to allow them to sell their dairy products in Central America.

Right now they face duties of between 60 percent and the World Trade Organization allows up to 100 percent of tariffs that can be assessed against our products. With the opening of CAFTA, we are going to be able to open up tariff rate quotas the first year starting at 10,000 metric tons across the six countries, and this will expand as the CAFTA agreement goes forward. The TRQs will grow by 5 percent a year for Central American countries and 10 percent a year for the Dominican Republic until we have got a good access to the market, and it is going to be an outstanding source of sales for our milk and milk-related products that come right from my district.

When I look at that, I see the benefit there. I have had, fortunately, in the recent past, within the last 3 months, the good fortune of going down with the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee to Nicaragua and Honduras. And we went down there not on the issue of CAFTA. We went down there on other issues, to look at areas where our foreign aid is being used very productively in those countries. And I was able to talk one on one with folks like farmers and small businessmen and politicians that are down there in Nicaragua and Honduras.

First, let me tell the Members that when we see that country and see what really great potential there is in Nicaragua and Honduras, what resources are available, there are plenty of cattlemen who would love to have about half of Nicaragua to run cattle on in Texas. With underground water less than four meters under the ground, I know a lot of cowmen from my part of the State that would love to be able to have some irrigated grass farms down there in Nicaragua. Beautiful cattle country.

Cheap sources of power are available in that area because they have the ability to create geothermal electricity. They have a lot of potential in Central America. But when we talked to those folks, they said, Look, it is all about CAFTA. The future of our country is all about CAFTA.

Let us take Nicaragua. We had a whole bunch of trouble with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as has been said before here, about 20 years ago we had a pretty good fight down there. And for a while the Sandinistas ran the country and ran it absolutely into the ground. And people who opposed the Sandinistas, it is not like political parties here where we will bicker with our opponents and we will talk, but then we all go back and let somebody re-elect us. If one loses to the Sandinistas, they had better get out of the country because these people who were against the Sandinistas had to flee or die.

Today in Nicaragua, underlying like a cancer lying beneath the surface, is the Sandinista Party; and Daniel Ortega still walks the streets down there. But what is he walking the streets with now? He is walking the streets with an offer from Hugo Chavez of up to an unbelievable number, $1 billion, to turn Central America back to the Marxist cause he and Fidel Castro believe in so firmly. He is one of the great threats to the world right now. He is a communist with money, and he is spreading it around. He takes his oil money from Venezuela and is threatening to spread it around because he wants to make sure that the Marxist communist government dominates Central America.

And their only hope is to show how capitalist free trade works. And that is what CAFTA is all about, and that is what they said. They said, This is going to get great support down here. These people, if they can get their markets open, they can get the capital investment they need to grow.

One of the merchants down there I was talking to said, You know what? I do not know why you think you have got to ship your cloth to China and make your shirts and pants and stuff in China. We have a history of making that stuff for you. Let us break down these barriers between our countries. Let us make those things, and you will not have to put it in big containers and ship it across the Pacific Ocean. We can make it just as economically and just as profitably for American companies as they can in China, and we can put it on a train and ship it up into Texas and spread it across the Nation.

That just makes sense to me. That is just good common sense, and CAFTA is good common sense when we get down to it. It meets many requirements that we have.

First and foremost, we help our neighbors. And where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and I come from, and as for most of the folks in this country, but certainly in Texas, number one is taking care of our neighbors because we are kind of out in big spaces and, sometimes if we will not take care of our neighbors, they might be the only people we will get a chance to visit with.

So we need to take care of those neighbors. We need to prevent an enemy, a cancer, from growing in Central America that we will wake up one day and find it is growing right across the Rio Grande. And this agreement is part of stopping that cancer. And those people down there say without CAFTA, without a chance for a level playing field in Central America, what is going to happen to us is the Marxists will rise up and we will either be killed or run out of the country. Those countries will never survive with this type of quality people leaving the country.

And then, finally, it is a benefit to our industry and to our people. It is a win-win-win, and for that reason I think Republicans and Democrats are going to join together this week in this House and pass the CAFTA agreement, pass the free trade agreement. It is important to America.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, these are our neighbors. These are the people in the Americas. They are part of America. They are Central American. And they know the Chinese are breathing down their necks too, and they are very concerned about that, just as the gentleman pointed out.

This is a win for the United States. It is a benefit to a neighbor that needs to be boosted up politically because when Chavez gets in there and spreads his

money around, it could be disastrous. So the gentleman is right. It is a win for us. It is a win for our farmers, our textile manufacturers, and others. They can do assembly work. They have got a lot of skilled labor available in Nicaragua and Honduras. They are wonderful people, just as gentle and kind a bunch of people as I have ever been around. They will be good folks to work with. We need what they have to offer, and they need what we have to offer. It is a good trade. And we always say when we walk away from the day having made a good trade, we feel like it has been a pretty good day. Well, I think we can walk away from this day and feel like we made a pretty good trade.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act. This measure is a much needed reform for our Federal criminal statutes to ensure that the death penalty is available to deter and punish the most heinous crime in our country. We must remain vigilant and united in sending out one clear message to the terrorists; if you attack our country or threaten our national security and we apprehend you, we will seek the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, against you. This amendment makes needed reforms to ensure that such punishment is carried out and is applied fairly, and is applied swiftly when the facts justify the punishment.

Many of these same provisions were overwhelmingly passed by this House last year as part of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, but removed during conference with the Senate.

As a former State district judge for over 20 years I have presided over five capital murder cases, three of which resulted in the death penalty. I have a unique perspective on the criminal justice system and I understand the importance of safety and the need for America to be tough on its criminals. We must protect our neighborhoods from the threat of violent crimes which, unfortunately, in today's world, includes the threat of terrorist attacks. Congress must act to protect U.S. citizens from such attacks and to bring justice to those who threaten our freedom.

It is unimaginable to think that a convicted terrorist responsible for American deaths could serve his sentence and be released back on the American streets free to act as he chooses. My straightforward legislation will make any terrorist who kills eligible for the Federal death penalty. This legislation will also deny these same terrorists any Federal benefits they otherwise may be eligible to receive. In my experience as a judge, I have witnessed the death penalty used as an important tool in deterring crime and saving lives. I believe it is also an instrument that can deter acts of terrorism and serves as a tool for prosecutors in negotiating sentences.

First, my amendment adds a new criminal provision to impose the death penalty to any terrorist who, while committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of an individual.

Second, my amendment provides procedures for the death penalty prosecution of air piracy crimes committed before the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act.

Third, my amendment treats terrorist offenses similar to treason and espionage cases so that the government need only prove that such offense created a grave risk of death and did not actually result in the death of a person. For example, consider a terrorist attack as we saw today in London, where a terrorist is carrying a deadly weapon, could be a radiological weapon or device, and prior to the total detonation of that bomb killing innocent civilians, he is caught by the authorities and they prevent that attack. Under this bill he could face the ultimate penalty of death.

In addition to these commonsense reforms, my amendment also authorizes the death penalty for killing that results from participation in nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction threats against the United States, missile systems to destroy aircraft, atomic weapons under the Atomic Energy Act.

Now, with the authorization of these new death penalties I have added some commonsense clarification to the Federal death penalty which is supported by the Justice Department. Let me highlight three of these.

First, my amendment adds a new statutory aggravating factor for obstruction of justice and in particular the killing of any person which is aimed at obstructing any investigation or prosecution.

Second, my amendment clarifies that juries must reach a unanimous sentencing verdict one way or the other for life imprisonment or for death. If the jury does not reach a unanimous sentencing verdict then the government may seek a new sentencing hearing.

Third, my amendment authorizes a judge to proceed with a death penalty case with less than 12 jurors if the excusal of the 12th juror is justified by good cause. There is simply no reason to make witnesses testify, juries sit again after a long and complex trial when a juror for some reason becomes sick or for some reason is unable to serve.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague from Virginia that a legislative hearing was held before the subcommittee on June 30, 2005 on which the Justice Department testified in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the President of the United States on two occasions has stated that we need to give our law enforcement authorities all the tools necessary to fight terrorism, and he agreed that he strongly supported the signal of a death penalty to deter this criminal acts, these criminal acts that are imposed upon our society.

When I decided to run for Congress, it was in response to the 9/11 attack after serving for a long time on the judiciary. I am sponsoring this legislation today because in my experience the death penalty does deter crimes, and it is my hope and my prayer that this tool given to our prosecutors and given to our courts and to our engineers will enable us to better protect freedom and protect our citizens from this disaster that lurks in the shadows along with these terrorists that attack our Nation.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for allowing me to offer this amendment and for all the great work that he has done on this reenactment of the PATRIOT Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address the comments that were made here just recently in this House just briefly.

We keep hearing this tirade that there is someone that is taking away liberty, taking away freedom in this country with the PATRIOT Act. And you heard the comments that they can go into all of your records and they do not tell you about it. As if just any old ordinary policeman or FBI agent could go out there with no control whatsoever and search your home, search your records and so forth. And they give that impression to the American public by their statements here tonight.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And they know that nothing could be further from the truth because they sat through the 12-hour hearing that was held in the Committee on the Judiciary. They examined every one of these various sections that we have gone through tonight in heavy detail, and they know that there certainly are provisions where somebody oversees whether there is, in fact, probable cause for a search warrant to be issued. A judge makes that decision. That is the same judge that makes the decision in every case of a search warrant in the history of the United States. This is how we do search warrants. And he makes that decision.

What they are trying to make an inference on is they have this thing they call a sneak-and-peek warrant that they have entitled it. And they say that so it sounds like I said the other night, like we are talking about some kind of Peeping Tom.

That is not it at all. This is a device that has been used in criminal justice for many, many years. It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. This is not complex stuff. I will give you an example.

We have a warrant that says that in a drug case there is a suspicion that there is a methamphetamine speed lab in a certain building, and they have someone who gives them good evidence to that effect. They present it to the judge. He finds there is probable cause to believe there is a speed lab and stored drugs in the certain location. He sets out specifically in that warrant what exactly they are to go look for. And they go and they look, and sure enough there is a speed lab in that building. Sure enough there are drugs and the ingredients for making more drugs in that building. But they also discover there is no one there. And what are we trying to do here?

We are trying to get these drugs off the street, and we are trying to catch the people that are poisoning our children. And that is what the criminal justice system is trying to do in that case. And so they back off. They back off and they watch and they wait, so the perpetrators, and hopefully from top to bottom, from the mules that deliver it to the king pins that finance it, are somehow connected with that lab. And when they have gathered that evidence as a result of this look at this building maybe in a day, maybe a little longer, they come in and they seize them on the premises. They have the evidence, and they get convictions from top to bottom and get this vermin off the streets of America.

Now, if we use this to get the vermin off the streets of America that are doing drugs and poisoning our children, why in the world would we not use that same tool to get the enemies of America who are embedded, in many instances, in our country off the street and keep them from killing innocent American citizens?

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more vile on Earth than the terrorists, absolutely nothing. They have no credibility in any way, form, or fashion because they are not human beings enough to fight a real fight with somebody that can fight back. You never see these terrorists out there trying to get in a knock down drag out punch out one-on-one with anybody. They hide and sneak and skulk up and down alleys and plant bombs and kill innocent human beings who they do not even know or care about. And they kill them by the hundreds and occasionally, like in the World Trade Center, by the thousands.

Just today, praise God, a faulty bomb did not go off entirely in Great Britain. We are still waiting to find out the damage that was done. Again, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, has been attacked by these terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the picture that I have just painted to fight these terrorists? I say there is nothing wrong with it. It has been a procedure used by the law forever. And yet we hear from someone that it paints the picture as if somebody is totally walking all over people's rights without any warrant.

You never heard him say, they get a warrant to go in and look at your records. They get a warrant and go in and look at your premises. You did not hear that spoken from the other side here tonight. So the American public gets deceived into thinking that there are police officers and law enforcement officers walking all over their rights. That is not the case. It is the same way we always have handled it. We have a search warrant.

It just infuriates me, having worked in the courts for 20 years, for people to step up and make statements that hide the real truth of the matter with regard to the procedures we use in our courts. I am proud to have been a judge for 20 years. I am proud of the American judicial system. I am proud of the law enforcement officers that every day put their lives in harm's way. I am proud of the lawyers fighting terror in this country right now. Just like our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, those brave men and women that put their lives on the line, our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line, too, fighting these horrible vermin right here in our country. I am offended, and I think we should all be really suspicious of someone who gives us only a partial truth and not the whole story.

I would be glad to have anybody look at my library records. Who cares what is in your library records? But you do care when you find out that terrorists go to libraries because they believe, sometimes truly and sometimes falsely, that if they get on a computer at a library that every day they clean the hard drive of that computer. They know if they seize their computer back home they might be able to find out they were talking to al Qaeda and to their operatives overseas. But if they go to the public library and use that computer and it gets erased every day, who is going to know?

Well, I tell you who is going to know. The law enforcement officer that executes that warrant and examines that hard drive to find out that they were doing that. They should not be able to hide in one of our greatest institutions, a public library. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of this country, gave us the concept of the public library in the United States. Why should our enemies think they can hide in a public library on a computer or in the stacks reading their bomb manuals and we cannot find out about it, especially when we have gone through the proper ordinary procedures that every court goes through to be able to seek those records.

And, in fact, there are more procedures in the PATRIOT Act protecting those records than there would be if you went to a grand jury and got a grand jury subpoena to get the exact same information. So let us not have partial stories told here in this House tonight. Let us have the whole story. And the whole story is we have taken and given to the intelligence community and those who are defending us from terrorists the same tools we have given to law enforcement over the years to protect us from the vermin that would destroy us from within. Now we can use it against our enemies from without who are hiding within our country to protect the American citizens so that people can get up and go to work in the morning and raise their children and go to the park at night and not be afraid that some creep is going to blow up the means of transportation that they are on.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what a patriot in this country ought to be concerned about. That is what I think we have done here tonight. We have reaffirmed the tools of the war against terror within the United States and given our law enforcement officers weapons just like those rifles that our soldiers are carrying in Afghanistan that will protect our freedom.

We should never be ashamed for what we did here today. We should be proud. And I am proud that a bipartisan effort passed through this House of Representatives. I think that we can count the numbers and we will see that that is the truth, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to have a chance to stand up here for just a few minutes. I do want to point out one more thing before I stop. I served on that Committee on the Judiciary for 2 years, and I served side-by-side with my colleague here, the gentleman from Iowa. In fact, we were partners right there at each other's elbow. I can tell you that the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) runs a perfectly tight ship in his committee. When he says the rules are going to be abided by, they are abided by.

I will also say this. I will defy anybody to check the record. He never gave a member of the Republican matter one extra second in their time limit, but he constantly gave extra time to the minority. And almost every day I served on that committee, they would ask for additional time and he granted it. I personally have asked for additional time on that committee and he did not allow me to have that additional time. I think his reason is clear. We are the majority. We know the rules. We should get our job done within the time limit. And I respected him for it.

But the facts are, they have had advantages in that committee and they are in here crying like we did not treat them fairly. Mr. Speaker, that is not true.

I had better calm down here and thank my friend from Iowa and give him the opportunity to talk for a while, and I thank my colleagues for being patient with me.

It is, and it is something we should be very proud of, and I am personally proud and I know the gentleman is too.

Mr. Speaker, after 9/11, my fellow lawmakers wanted to make sure that the PATRIOT Act would protect Americans without trampling the civil rights that we cherish in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, today, 4 years later, the verdict is in. The PATRIOT Act works and is helping defeat terrorism. Those of us who thought the threat of terrorism receded can only look at Great Britain to know that this is not the case. Complacency allows waves of terror to come crashing over free nations. The attacks on London show that the war on terror is not over nor is it confined to a specific location. Securing our homeland is only one facet of the war. Spreading democracy in the savage lands where terrorism propagates is another.

The PATRIOT Act gives us enforcement tools that keep America safe. The PATRIOT Act has removed major legal barriers that prevented law enforcement agencies from coordinating their work. It has also allowed law enforcement to use surveillance against terror-related activities and allowed the issuance of nationwide search warrants. The PATRIOT Act is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. We cannot allow these terrorists to gain momentum in this fight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about something we are going to be going into this week, something that is of major importance to every man, woman, and child in the United States of America and around the world, and that is the USA PATRIOT Act, the reauthorization of some certain sections of that act, and the reexamination of the PATRIOT Act.

As we all know, it is no news to anybody that this Nation had the most heinous attack in its history on 9/11, and the question has been raised, why do we need a PATRIOT Act? As a judge for over 20 years, I believe it is necessary to give our law enforcement folks the tools and the resources that they need to protect our citizens and our citizens' rights. We do not need to create sanctuary for terrorists to operate in our country.

The USA PATRIOT Act removed major legal barriers that prevented law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from taking and coordinating their work to protect the

American people and our American society. Now, FBI agents, Federal prosecutors, and intelligence officials can protect our communities by connecting the dots to uncover terrorist plots before they are completed, while respecting the constitutional rights of all.

To do this, certain tools are necessary for our investigators to fight terrorism. Many of the tools the act provides for law enforcement to fight terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers and have been reviewed and approved by the courts.

Specifically, the PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror, such as the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It allows Federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorist training to evade detection. It allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off the terrorists. It authorizes the court the discretion to issue an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases. This act is in the business of disrupting terrorist threats and capturing terrorists. It is in the whole business of catching them and preventing them from doing what they have been doing in the past.

Since 9/11, our law enforcement and intelligence community and our partners both here and abroad have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells. Worldwide, nearly two-thirds of all al Qaeda known senior leadership has been captured or killed, including the mastermind, one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks. Worldwide, more than 3,000 operatives have been incapacitated. Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and northern Virginia have been broken up. More than 401 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in international terrorism investigations. Already, 212 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including the shoe bomber, Richard Reid and the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh.

The PATRIOT Act deals with increasing penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. The PATRIOT Act increases penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. And Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for the bomb as the one who detonates the bomb. We should even consider eliminating, in my opinion, the loophole and making sure that any terrorist who commits a crime resulting in death will be eligible for the death penalty or life in prison.

In particular, this act prohibits individuals from knowingly harboring terrorists who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses, such as destruction of an aircraft, use of nuclear, chemical, biological or other weapons of mass destruction, bombing of government property, sabotage of nuclear facilities and aircraft piracy. It enhances the maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists, including arson, destruction of energy facilities, material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations, and destruction of national defense materials. It enhances the number of conspiracy penalties, including for arson, killing of Federal officials, attacking communication systems, material support to terrorists, sabotage of nuclear facilities, and interference with flight crews. And it punishes terrorist attacks on mass transit systems, such as we just witnessed in Great Britain. It punishes bioterrorism. It eliminates and lengthens the statute of limitations for certain terrorist crimes.

The PATRIOT Act is a tool creatively created by the United States Congress to maintain the Constitution and give our law enforcement and intelligence folks the tools they need to fight.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for talking to us about the PATRIOT Act. It is always good to get the perspective of a lawmaker and a mother. The reality is if the mothers ran this country, we probably would be a whole lot better off.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and just note that our districts are neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) for giving us great insight from a prosecutor's standpoint of a man who has used the tools, and seen a Department effectively use the tools. The Chair knows, as I know, that we have used these tools in law enforcement for years. We have used them to fight gang activity, organized crime, drug activity, and other activities in this country. We have now authorized our intelligence communities to use the same tools to stop international terrorism and attacks upon the United States of America by these heinous terrorists who strike the innocent of our society.

Mr. Speaker, we heard this experience from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), and I think it is great to know from a prosecutor's standpoint exactly what is enhanced by the PATRIOT Act and the ability to fight these crimes, the front-page crimes in the world today. So I am very pleased we were able to hear that perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who would like to address this body concerning his views on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, whom I very much enjoyed sitting next to and talking to and working with on issues on the Committee on the Judiciary. We Texans are proud to have him here with us tonight because he is a true patriot in the sense of the American term ``patriot,'' and we are very proud of him.

And the gentleman mentioned these issues of obtaining these records, this fear, this absolute fear that people have of somebody looking at their library records. Grand jury subpoenas have looked at library records for years. Grand jury subpoenas can be issued by the foreman of a grand jury. I do not know where the panic comes from. This has been going on forever, but somehow there is a panic.

At this time I would like to welcome the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), from East Texas. I feel really kind of like we are in a judicial conference. We have got a judge in the chair. We have got two of us down here on the floor. We are proud that we might as well just call a quorum and start doing some legal business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a good colleague and close friend, to talk about some of the issues and the answers that we see in the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman being willing to address this body and to talk about this.

Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing this, when I heard the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) talk and also as I heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) talk and others, I thought about something that many of us in the Judiciary deal with every day, and it dawned on me that one of the things we toyed with for a while was defining ``gangs'' and what makes up gang violence.

Basically a simple definition of a gang is a group of organized people bonded together for the purpose of committing some type of criminal activity. That is the way the law looks at a gang.

We are dealing with an international gang when we deal with terrorists. There has become a magic or mystique that is being created by those who oppose the PATRIOT Act that for some reason we are stepping on the toes of some group of people, and yet the same tools that are in the PATRIOT Act have been used against gang violence, have been used against organized crime, have been used against gangs, against street gangs in this country. The tools have been used against drug dealers and drug importers. They have been used for years, and no one seems to be feeling like for some reason there is something terrible about those rules and those laws that we have used.

But they do feel for some reason that using them against the largest, most organized gang on Earth, there is something wrong with that, the gang that has killed in one fell attack more Americans than were killed at Pearl Harbor, more civilian Americans than were killed at Pearl Harbor, that started the Second World War.

For some reason, people are concerned about a PATRIOT Act that does nothing more than make uniform in many instances laws that exist in different jurisdictions across the United States.

We hear talk about the sneak-a-peak warrant. For a while that was the section of choice to talk about for a long time, the sneak-a-peak warrant. It just sounds terrible. It sounds like a peeping tom looking through your window,

and that is great terminology and well-worded by those who oppose it.

So what is a sneak-a-peak warrant? Well, one time before I went on the bench, I was a young lawyer and I had a client who had a house out in the country. And he took it in on a debt and he was trying to sell it, but until he did, he wanted to rent it, so he rented it to a graduate student from the University of Texas.

They came by my office every first of the month and laid $200 on my desk for that house, and for a year that graduate student lived out there in that house in the country outside of Round Rock.

Then along about in the November time frame of the next year, I got a phone call from my client, who happened to be in the great State of Pennsylvania, and he said, ``I think I have got a buyer. I ought to be able to close this thing. I need to get the tenant out of the house. Would you go out there and tell him we will give him a month to vacate the house.''

I took my little boy, who now is a 35-year-old football and baseball coach at Round Rock High School, but at that time was about a 4-year- old, and we went out in the country to the house. We knocked on the door. Nobody was home.

I had a key and the right of the landlord to enter, so I entered the home to write a note to put on the kitchen table. I discovered the house looked fairly unlived in. As I looked around to see if my tenant might have moved out, I opened a door to a bedroom and there stacked floor to ceiling were thousands of kilo blocks of marijuana, packed so dense you could not see the windows in this 12-by-14 room, floor to ceiling.

My son, not knowing anything, and I, backed quickly out of the house and went to the police in Round Rock. The police, after a long effort, found a judge, applied for a search warrant, got a search warrant and an arrest warrant and went out to that house. They went to execute the warrant.

There was no one at home. They examined the fact that there was a ton at least of marijuana in that house, and so they backed off and waited for those who were in possession of that marijuana to come home, because they had no one at that point in time. Ultimately, four individuals came back to the house. At that point in time they executed the warrant.

That was a sneak-a-peak. They looked at it, they saw it, they backed off and executed later. Those gentlemen's rights were not violated. That is a tool we have used in law enforcement for years.

Now, why does it sound so bad? Because we use the term ``sneak-a- peak.'' It sounds like peeping toms in somebody's neighborhood.

We have got to get away from this terminology that is trying to take good, valid laws that have been tested time in and time out by our courts, both State and Federal courts, and putting some cute phrase on them that makes them sound like they step all over people's constitutional rights and causing our public to be concerned about what we are doing here.

This PATRIOT Act follows the guidance the courts have given us over the years concerning law enforcement tools that we have used and we have used effectively. This PATRIOT Act has put together these tools not only which have been there in fighting the criminal justice issues in this country, but now the intelligence and international terrorism issues have the ability to use these same lawful instruments without fear of being crossed over between the various Federal acts that are involved in dealing with the terrorist issues.

One of the things that the people are concerned about is that you get a search warrant that can be served across the United States. Just on that case I was giving you, before we went to a judge we tried to figure out which law enforcement agency ought to be seeking the warrant. Should it have been the constable, should it have been the sheriff in his jurisdiction, should it have been the city cops in their jurisdiction, or should it have been the Department of Public Safety in their jurisdiction?

That was just a little old dope case in Texas, trying to go out and who seeks the warrant.

We have now gone and said it is crazy when you have got people that operate instantly on the Internet, who can move across this country in record time and do crimes in various jurisdictions simultaneously and store elements of destruction in various jurisdictions simultaneously, to have to go to every jurisdiction in the Nation to get a valid search warrant. So all we have done is something that we have had, we have allowed one warrant to be served across the country.

All of these are the various complaints that we hear about the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is just that. What is interesting is it is a patriot's solution to the War on Terror, a group of patriots, both Republicans and Democrats, who joined together after a heinous attack on our Nation and passed the PATRIOT Act.

This is a bipartisan bill that was passed in Congress. This is both sides of the aisle saying we have had enough. And it was put together I think effectively. This time in the reauthorization, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) explained, we have addressed concerns about should we have a little more due process. On some of the issues, we have enhanced the due process provisions.

A grand jury foreman, he can subpoena records, business records or library records. He does not have to have anybody's permission to do it. The DA comes to him, he subpoenas them. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) explained, in the PATRIOT Act a judge looks at the thing, examines it to make sure there is probable cause, and he makes sure the law is abided by.

Why are we worried about that, when we already have a procedure that we have used for years and years and years and nobody seems to have been crying about it? I never heard anybody complain about it at all.

So let us get back to being patriots. Let us get back to saying, we have an enemy without and within that chooses to attack innocent people in this Nation for the purposes of imposing their will, their criminal will, upon society, and their number one target is our society and our way of life. Let us go back to being patriots and say, we will give our warriors, both the warriors that fight in the streets and on the Internet and in the law courts of this United States, and our warriors who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever the enemy may meet us overseas, all of the tools and weapons necessary to fight and destroy this evil war on terrorists, these terrorists who attack our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, let us be proud that we are patriots who have created a PATRIOT Act, a bipartisan PATRIOT Act that protects the freedoms of Americans and protects the lives of Americans from terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, on June 22, 2005, I was unavoidably detained on official business in my Congressional District.

On rollcall vote No. 293, if present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 294, if present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 295, if present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall votes Nos. 296 and 297, if present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 298, if present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall votes Nos. 299, 300, 301, and 302, if present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 303, if present, I would have voted ``yea.''