Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 491) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the United States, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 491, the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 491, a resolution to applaud the goals and activities of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Computers and the Internet have been integrated into our daily routine in our businesses, schools and homes. These information and communication systems underpin our government and they increase the productivity of our industries, financial institutions, and transportation systems. However, our increasing dependence on computers and computer networks exposes our society to the risk of cyber attacks, destructive viruses, malicious hacking and identity theft.

This is why the National Cyber Security Alliance, a cooperative effort between government, academia, and industry, has organized National Cyber Security Awareness Month for this October. As is only proper for a cybersecurity-related effort, there is a central website with online resources that offers tips and tools to help computer uses protect themselves from viruses, worms, hacker attacks, phishing, identity theft, spyware and more.

In addition to these online resources, there are weekly events all over the country on specific cybersecurity topics aimed at consumers, students, children, parents, small businesses, and educational institutions. Thirty Governors across the United States have issued proclamations declaring their

support and observance of National Cyber Security Awareness Month. And as part of these activities, Texas State University hosted a ``Cyber Security Awareness Day'' on October 6. In New York, the Governor will host a conference on protecting our children on the Internet.

Of course, cybersecurity is not just an issue in October but year- round. National Cyber Security Awareness Month is a chance not only to raise awareness about computer vulnerabilities and threats, but also to inform people about programs that exist throughout the U.S. to educate students, parents, business people, law enforcement and government employees about cybersecurity. These include programs like a cybersecurity camp for high school students in Rome, New York, and an Information Technology and Security Academy for high school juniors at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Cybersecurity is an important part of homeland security. Just last month, the Science Committee heard testimony from energy, electric power and telecommunications companies about their dependence on information systems and their concerns about the Nation's vulnerability to cyber attacks. The connectedness of the Internet means that each person not only must protect himself in cyberspace, but each person's cybersecurity efforts contribute to the Nation's overall status of cyber and homeland security. Progress is being made, but we as a Nation still have a long way to go.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their leadership on this issue. We applaud the associations, companies, organizations, and agencies involved in National Cyber Security Awareness Month for their efforts to help all of us become more responsible, safer computer users. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering appropriations for The Department of Homeland Security, which was created with one mission in mind--to help protect the country. Unfortunately, it seems that not all of the agencies within the Department take that mission as seriously as they should.

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, is responsible for processing petitions for immigration benefits. This includes petitions for green cards, visa issuance, asylum status, and marriage benefits. The adjudication process must be thorough and secure to ensure that those who want to harm America are not allowed to enter the country.

Monday's Washington Times included a disturbing article about a Congressional briefing by an internal CIS investigator that highlighted alleged corruption and dysfunctional practices at the Agency. If true, these practices would comprise a threat to national security.

According to the article, the allegations include CIS employees exchanging immigration benefits for sex, being influenced by foreign governments to provide benefits, and not having access to the appropriate systems to do background checks on those applying for benefits.

When an agency receives Federal funding it is obligated to do everything in its power to complete its job. The Department of Homeland Security needs to better protect our country from those who would do us harm.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824. Reform of the Endangered Species Act is much needed. The law has adversely affected thousands of farmers, ranchers and homeowners whose private property has been taken without compensation.

Over 90 percent of endangered plant and animal species are found on private property. There should be a balance between the rights of property owners and conservation.

H.R. 3824 will allow the Secretary of Interior to compensate private property owners for the fair market value of the loss of use of their property when the Secretary concludes that the use of the property would be a taking. The compensation will be made available as aid and through a grant program. This is a fair and long-overdue process that will actually promote preservation and conservation of endangered species and at the same time protect private property rights.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3132. It is an important bill that will help ensure the safety of American children against sexual predators.

In recent months we have heard all too often about the innocent lives of children being shattered by an adult who sexually abuses the child.

We are all familiar with the cases, some of which have been mentioned today, such as Jessica Lunsford who was kidnapped, held captive, abused and tortured for 3 days by a

convicted sex offender who ultimately killed her by burying her alive.

And there was the case of 8-year-old Shasta Groene who was kidnapped, sexually abused, and held captive for weeks by a convicted sex offender who murdered her family.

These stories are atrocious and that is why Congress is acting to further protect American children with the Children's Safety Act.

The bill requires jurisdiction-wide sex offender registries containing information like where the sex offender resides and is employed or attends school. The bill requires a sex offender to appear in person at least once every 6 months to verify their registration information.

The bill also creates a new Federal crime for failure to register as a sex offender and sets the mandatory minimum for that offense at 5 years and a maximum of 20 years.

The bill sets other mandatory minimum sentences for crimes of violence against children like murder, kidnapping, maiming, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse or where the crime results in serious bodily injury.

The statistics surrounding child sexual abuse are astonishing--1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach adulthood. And one of every six sexually assaulted victims is under the age of 6.

We must protect our children by every possible means. The Children's Safety Act of 2005 will help us do so and for that reason I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3650, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005. H.R. 3650 authorizes Federal courts to conduct business outside of their geographic jurisdictions during times of emergency. Congress must enact this legislation immediately so that the affected courts in the gulf region can continue to operate in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged, perhaps ravaged is a better word, Federal courthouses in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. We must act with a sense of urgency. To illustrate why, consider the Eastern Judicial District of Louisiana, where operations are currently suspended.

There is virtually no Federal district court presence there. Judges and court staff are physically scattered throughout Louisiana and other States. But crime in the district, assault, rape, and robbery, has not taken the week off. Yet there is no court that can act and no judge to preside. Criminal defendants will walk if deadlines established in the Speedy Trial Act cannot be met. In other words, we must restore the rule of law in the Eastern District of Louisiana as well as elsewhere.

The bill contemplates that affected courts could use other facilities that are convenient and practicable to participants under the circumstances. The special circumstances allowing courts to operate outside their normal jurisdictions would continue only until the vacated courthouses could be restored for normal business activities.

We need to enact H.R. 3650 as part of the initial effort to help the displaced citizens of the region get back on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the HEALTH Act, which is identical to two other bills that passed the House during the last Congress. The HEALTH Act is modeled on California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, called MICRA, which has resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing only one-third as much as they have in other States.

MICRA's reforms, which are included in the HEALTH Act, include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages; limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge; a fair-share rule by which damages are allocated in direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines, but not caps, on the award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for products that meet FDA safety requirements.

According to the nonpartisan organization Jury Verdict Research, the median medical liability award has more than doubled in the last 7 years to $1.2 million.

Doctors and other health care providers are being forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, brain surgery and obstetrics and gynecology.

Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income neighborhoods and rural areas. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, ``Unless a State has adopted limitations on noneconomic damages, the cost of these awards for noneconomic damages is paid by all other Americans through higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher taxes, reduced access to quality care, and threats to quality of care.''

Many doctors are no longer available to treat patients. Mary Rasar's father did not get the medical care he needed following a car accident last summer, because the only trauma center in his area closed for 10 days due to medical liability costs. Her father died from those injuries.

Melinda Sallard, a 22-year-old mother, was forced to deliver her own baby on the side of the road after her physician stopped delivering babies and her hospital's maternity department closed because of rising medical liability costs.

Leanne Dyess' husband Tony sustained head injuries in a car accident and could not find a neurosurgeon to treat him because rising liability costs had forced insurers to drop their coverage. Tony was airlifted to a hospital in another State that still had neurosurgeons, but 6 hours had passed, and it was too late. As a result Tony suffered permanent brain damage.

In my hometown, the CEO of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital has seen his premiums increase 400 percent. He has been sued three times. In one case the only interaction with the person suing was that he stepped in her child's hospital room and asked simply, how is your child doing? Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than an hour. But the doctor's insurance company spent a great deal of time, effort and money in his defense.

It is no surprise the American College of Emergency Physicians found that large majorities of both rural and urban hospitals had inadequate on-call specialists coverage. And there has been a 40 percent reduction in medical students entering obstetrics and gynecology.

According to the chair of the OB/GYN department at the Yale School of Medicine, ``Within 2 years we will be faced with a very real possibility of having to shut down our high-risk obstetrical practice, a practice that cares for the sickest mothers in the State.''

As for legitimate cases of medical malpractice, nothing in the HEALTH Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims, including children. The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award of economic damages to injured victims. Economic damages include lost wages or home services, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care.

In fact, in just the last few years, juries in California have awarded the following damages to medical malpractice victims: An $84 million award to a 5-year-old boy, a $59 million award to a 3-year-old girl, a $50 million award to a 10-year-old boy, a $12 million award to a 30-year-old homemaker, and a $27 million award to a 25-year-old woman. Other examples include damages of $7, $22, $25, $30, and $49 million, all in just the last few years. Awards of these same sizes would be available under the HEALTH Act. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated

that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap'' on noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.

The HEALTH Act will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``Under the HEALTH Act, premiums from medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

The American people support the HEALTH Act. The Gallup poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for noneconomic damages. The HEALTH Act also respects the judgments of State legislatures because it does not preempt any State law that limits damages, be they higher or lower than the limits provided for in the HEALTH Act.

Finally, this legislation is supported by some 200 organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Council of Women's and Infant's Specialty Hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of those who need health care, for the sake of health care providers who simply want to practice their professions, please join me and these selfless organizations in supporting the HEALTH Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) the primary author of the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a subcommittee Chair of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of Committee on the Judiciary and an expert on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of reform claim that the current crisis is driven by a small number of so-called bad doctors. But as Yale Medicine Professor Dr. Robert Auerbach has explained, ``The American Trial Lawyers Association has perpetrated myths on the American public, including the myth that a very small proportion of all physicians are responsible for the majority of claims. This is a sort of statistical magic, because, unfortunately, a small proportion of the physicians in high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology and neurosurgery, are responsible for a disproportionate number of the claims.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have spoken about this before. I happen to think that the problem lies with current law and not with this particular piece of legislation. But in any case, I share the gentleman's concerns and will work with him to address those concerns as this bill progresses to conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who just spoke, voting for this legislation in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary and now a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, regarding Vioxx, some have alleged the company knowingly misrepresented or withheld information from the FDA. If so, they would be denied the protections in the bill because the bill specifically in section 7 says and excludes any instances in which a person, before or after premarket approval, clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly misrepresented to or withheld from the FDA information that is required to be submitted.

If we look at the language of the bill, we can see that what the gentleman said is not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).

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

I also rise in support of H.R. 5, which will bring needed medical liability reform to health care providers in Washington State.

As I travel around eastern Washington, I hear from desperate doctors and health care providers that these lawsuits are increasing costs to patients and driving doctors out of business. It is not unusual to hear that doctors are being forced to drop their insurance or stop delivering babies, or younger doctors are quitting to practice overseas. This is at a time when we have a health care personnel shortage. This has happened in areas within my district, such as Odessa, Republic, and Davenport, where we have no OB/GYNs, and pregnant women must travel over an hour now for care. Additionally, it is becoming impossible to recruit and retain specialists, such as neurosurgeons and cardiologists, when 30 to 50 percent experience lawsuits annually. Emergency care is in no better shape with over 30 percent of trauma surgeons being sued each year. This is unacceptable for 21st century health care.

Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs for doctors and health care providers has caused the American Medical Association to declare that Washington State is in a medical liability crisis. In the past 10 years, the average jury findings in my State have increased 68 percent. As well, the number of million-dollar settlements has risen almost ten times.

This is an important bill that limits excessive lawsuits, but also ensures that those who are truly harmed are going to get their day in court. Over the past few years, had this law been enacted, Washington would have saved an estimated $53 million. HHS estimates that by setting reasonable guidelines for these noneconomic damage awards, we will save between $70 billion and $126 billion in national health care costs annually.

H.R. 5 will bring common-sense reform to outrageous liability rates and will protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and former attorney general of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply very quickly to the point that was made, and that is that this bill does not violate any States' rights. Section 7(a), it very clearly says that if any State has any cap of any amount, be it higher or lower than the caps in the bill, then that State's cap will prevail.

So this recognizes States' rights. It is friendly to States' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law.

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what was just said was actually contradicted by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The report stated that ``GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of the insurers' costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases.''

The GAO found that insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The GAO report states that insurer ``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates.''

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that the opponents of this legislation are forgetting, I hope not ignoring, a study by the Harvard Medical Practice. What this study found is that over half, over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by their health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues might be interested in some quotes. One quote is from a former Democratic Senator, and the other quote is from a liberal Washington Post columnist. I would like to read those now.

Former Democratic Senator George McGovern has written that ``legal fear drives doctors to prescribe medicines and order tests, even invasive procedures that they feel are necessary. Reputable studies estimate that this defensive medicine squanders $50 billion a year, enough to provide medical care to millions of uninsured Americans.''

Mr. Speaker, this is from a prominent liberal commentator, Michael Kinsley. He wrote in the Washington Post, ``Limits on malpractice lawsuits are a good idea that Democrats are wrong and possibly foolish to oppose. Republicans are right about malpractice reform.''

Mr. Speaker, also we have a number of polls showing that the American people support the HEALTH Act. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the American people support exactly what we are trying to do. Just this week a poll conducted by Harris Interactive showed that 74 percent of those surveyed support reasonable limits on the award of noneconomic damages and limiting payments to personal injury attorneys.

A poll by the Harvard School of Public Health found the following: ``More than 6 in 10, 63 percent, say they would favor legislation that would limit the amount of money that can be awarded as damages for pain and suffering to someone suing a doctor for malpractice.''

The same poll found that 69 percent of the people surveyed say a law limiting pain and suffering awards would help either a lot or some in reducing the overall cost of health care.

Finally, the results of a recent Gallup poll show that the American public strongly supports the HEALTH Act. The survey asked whether those surveyed would favor or oppose a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for their emotional pain and suffering. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent were in favor. That means three-quarters of the American people favor this HEALTH Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues the result of three studies,

and let me emphasize that these studies are not about hypothetical situations. They are not theoretical studies. They are studies of the actual experiences of States that have enacted reforms similar to the ones we have in this bill that we are talking about today.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, States with reasonable legal reforms including caps on noneconomic damages enjoy access to more physicians per capita: ``We found that States with caps on noneconomic damages experienced about 12 percent more physicians per capita than the States without such a cap. Moreover, we found that States with relatively high caps were less likely to experience an increase in physician supply than States with lower caps.''

Mr. Speaker, also, research shows that California reforms, which the HEALTH Act is based on, have not resulted in unfair awards to deserving victims. A recent comprehensive study of California's MICRA reforms by the Rand Institute concluded that under MICRA, ``awards generally remained quite large despite the imposition of the cap, and California's reforms have not resulted in any disparate impact on women or the elderly.''

Mr. Speaker, in another study, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap by noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague who just spoke that our separation of powers provides that all aspects of the government are limited to some extent. If juries or judges give outrageous awards, like any other exercise of government power, they should be subject to reasonable checks and balances.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that unnecessary and frivolous litigation is threatening the viability of the life-saving drug industry. To encourage the development of life-saving drugs, the HEALTH Act contains a safe harbor from punitive damages from a defendant whose drugs or medical product comply with rigorous rules or regulations. The provision is manifestly fair.

Why should a drug manufacturer be found guilty of malicious conduct when

all they did was sell a product approved as safe under the comprehensive regulations of the FDA? Claims for unlimited economic damages and reasonable noneconomic damages could still go forward under the HEALTH Act. The safe harbor does not apply if relevant information was misrepresented or withheld from the FDA.

Eight States have, in fact, provided an FDA regulatory compliance defense against damages just like this bill. Those States are Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. Opposing this bill jeopardizes those State laws. And the Members who are from those States might want to remember that.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. Without legal reform, patients will continue to go without needed doctors: women will continue to deliver babies on the side of the road because the nearest OB/GYN is hundreds of miles away; parents will continue to be forced to watch as their child with brain injury suffers because lawsuits forced the nearest neurosurgeon to stop practicing.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as we are prepared to close on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleagues who are not usually concerned about States rights that if they will look at section 11 of the bill, they will find the bill respects the right of any State to set a cap of any amount, be it higher or lower, than the caps in the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act is the only proven legislative solution to the current medical liability insurance crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this bill, ``Premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

H.R. 5 allows unlimited awards of economic damages. These include past and future medical expenses, lost or past and future earnings, the cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities. Deserving victims can be awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages, as we have already seen in the States that have similar reforms to those contained in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Harvard Medical Practice Study found that over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by the health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease.

H.R. 5 is modeled on California's legal reforms. Those reforms have resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing at a rate that is only one-third the rate of those of other States.

Mr. Speaker, we need to act, and we need to act now. The nonpartisan Annals of Medicine predicts that the current doctor shortage could get worse, and we could lose 20 percent of needed doctors in the coming years. Let us protect patients everywhere. Let us pass the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit must be defeated because it contains zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law, and in some cases it actually makes the current crisis even worse.

The Democratic alternative would require that before a health care lawsuit is filed, the claimant file an affidavit declaring that a qualified specialist has been consulted and has issued a written report that says the filing is meritorious.

Mr. Speaker, the definition is so broad it is meaningless. The Democratic alternative also imposes another wasteful layer of bureaucracy on the health care system, mandatory mediation, which simply has no binding effect.

The motion to recommit even makes the situation of OB/GYNs worse than it is today by allowing someone as old as 21 to file a lawsuit claiming the doctor who delivered them caused their injury 21 years before. The motion to recommit would subject OB/GYNs to even more nuisance suits and drive even more of them out of business.

So the Conyers-Dingell substitute contains zero legal reforms and would make the current litigation crisis even worse; yet legal reforms are needed to solve the current crisis in medical liability insurance and increase access to health care.

H.R. 5 is the only proven legislative solution. According to the Congressional Budget Office under the HEALTH Act, ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of health care providers and the people who need them, let us keep doctors practicing their profession and defeat this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who is an expert on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Science, for yielding me this time. But I would also like to thank him for his initiative, for his leadership, and for his enthusiasm whenever it comes to space issues.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the NASA authorization bill, as do most Americans. A recent Gallup survey shows that almost 80 percent of the American people support space exploration.

As the country gathers to witness NASA's return to flight in the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery, a new generation of young people will be inspired and older generations will honor the pioneers of the Apollo program.

The launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery is historic. It represents the first step towards our bold new vision for space exploration, a vision that takes us and our international partners back to the International Space Station, returns our Nation to the surface of the Moon, and directs our gaze towards Mars and beyond.

The exploration of space is about hope, imagination, and new technology. The Space Shuttle and research programs on the International Space Station will help us maintain our Nation's leadership role in a globally competitive economy.

Americans of all ages and backgrounds support our human spaceflight program because they have a clear understanding that it has changed our lives and is critical to our Nation's future. The launch of the Discovery and continued research on the International Space Station are part of the vision that will carry us to new frontiers in both space and technology.

Mr. Chairman, I hope our colleagues will support this legislation. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this subject.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the USA PATRIOT Act of 2005. The continued threat of a terrorist attack in the United States and this month's terrorist attacks in London remind us of the need to prevent, investigate, and prosecute all terrorist acts.

The PATRIOT Act was a long-overdue measure that enhanced our ability to collect crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist network. It passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate and by a margin of 357-66 in the House.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union last April said, ``Most of the voluminous PATRIOT Act is actually unobjectionable from a civil liberties point of view. The law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist attacks.''

Many of the tools of the act provided to law enforcement officials have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers. They have been reviewed and approved by the courts and found constitutional. For instance, prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. Well, what is good for the Mob should be good for terrorists.

America is a safer country today than before September 11 because of the PATRIOT Act. Giving the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the FBI information-sharing powers enabled law enforcement officials to disrupt terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Florida, and Virginia. Since September 11, 2001, over 200 people charged with crimes stemming from international terrorist investigations have been convicted or have pled guilty. The PATRIOT Act helped also investigate and apprehend an individual who in Texas threatened to attack a mosque.

Mr. Chairman, our success in preventing another attack on the American homeland would have been much less likely without the PATRIOT Act. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the powers they need to protect all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this amendment.

First, we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the Flake/ Delahunt/Otter/Nadler amendment--protections for recipients of a National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena used in terrorism investigations or in covert Intelligence activities. They are a necessary and critical tool in our fight against terrorism.

Current laws prohibit the recipient of a National Security Letter from disclosing the fact that they received it. This amendment creates a safe haven for individuals who tell others that they received a National Security Letter, by prohibiting them from being punished for violating the order not to tell.

Non-disclosure orders prevent others being investigated for involvement in terrorist activities from being alerted to that investigation. If a person knows he is being investigated, he may destroy evidence, tell others with whom he is working about the investigation, and flee the country.

While I understand the motive behind not punishing mentally incompetent individuals or those under duress, the law already allows for that through the use of an affirmative defense.

Any amendment that makes it easier to tip off terrorists to the fact that they are being investigated is irresponsible and should not be supported. The Waters amendment should be opposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, many great Americans have served in this House; men and women of conviction who represented their constituents with integrity, energy and devotion to assuring the American dream becomes a reality for all.

Few Members of Congress have served with such unbridled enthusiasm, such untiring good humor and such true pleasure in the task as did my late colleague from Texas, Jake Pickle.

Jake's passing last month at the age of 91 was, in many ways, the end of an era in Texas history. A longtime confidant of President Lyndon Johnson, Jake represented the 10th District of Texas for 31 years. During that long tenure, he set an enviable record for constituent service and responsiveness. No constituent concern or problem was too small for Jake's attention.

Jake loved this House and took seriously his responsibility to uphold the integrity of the institution and the responsibilities of representative government.

Sometimes his enthusiasm was expressed in his tireless work for legislation. At other times, it was expressed in his support for his beloved University of Texas Longhorns. And at other times, it was expressed in a quiet talk with a troubled constituent he encountered on Congress Avenue in downtown Austin.

It is most fitting that Jake's funeral service was conducted in his church that stands in the shadow of the dome of the Texas State Capitol. And it is fitting that he rests now in the Texas State Cemetery with other leaders of the Lone Star State.

It was both a tremendous honor and a great learning experience to have served in this House with Jake Pickle.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to congratulate the Nation's 2005 College World Series champions, the University of Texas Longhorns.

This is an amazing sixth national title for the Longhorns. It also represents a record 32nd trip to the College World Series.

The Longhorns' win caps off another impressive season of University of Texas baseball. The team had a combined 51-16 record in the regular season and the playoffs, setting up another opportunity to compete for the national championship.

Under the guidance of Coach Augie Garrido, the Longhorns went undefeated in their five games of the series, pulling off a 6-2 victory over the Florida Gators in the final match-up on Sunday.

Credit for this outstanding victory is due to the entire Longhorns' baseball team, coaching staff, and the athletic department at the University of Texas.

Special recognition for the win is also owed to the most outstanding player of the series, third baseman David Maroul. His six hits and six runs were a major factor in the Longhorns' championship win.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations go to Coach Garrido and all the Longhorn players on their great victory.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to recognize our 2005 National Basketball Association champions, the San Antonio Spurs.

After going head to head for 6 games, the Spurs and the Detroit Pistons met for their final showdown in San Antonio Thursday night. In front of their hometown crowd, the Spurs demonstrated once again why they are the best team in the Nation.

Following a tight and evenly matched first half, the Spurs pulled away from the Pistons in the final quarter to win 81-74 over Detroit, closing out an incredibly hard fought championship series four games to three.

Congratulations are also due to the Detroit Pistons and their coach, Larry Brown, for putting up a battle worthy of a championship series.

With the NBA's number one and number two defensive teams battling against one another for the title, this was an exciting game not only for the Alamo City, but for fans around the Nation and in more than 200 nations around the world where sports fans watched and cheered.

Under the guidance of Coach Gregg Popovich, the Spurs' Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Nazr Mohammed, Brent Barry, Beno Udrih, Rasho Nesterovic, Glenn Robinson, Devin Brown, and Tony Massenburg played valiantly to bring the NBA trophy back home to San Antonio. My congratulations go as well to the Spurs' owners, Peter and Julianna Holt, as well as the many other people in the Spurs organization.

Much credit is due to Tim Duncan, who with 25 points and 11 rebounds, was appropriately named the Most Valuable Player of the Finals series. This marks the third time he has won the award for his outstanding athletic skills, leadership and performance on the court.

This is the Spurs' third championship victory in franchise history. They won their first in 1999, followed by their second in 2003. Three titles in 7 years isn't just a magnificent accomplishment--it's a basketball dynasty.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank Coach Popovich and all the Spurs players for an unforgettable season.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of 2005. In its report, the 9/11 Commission stated, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risk and vulnerabilities.'' This bill overhauls the current system for first responder grants and follows the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to allow for greater allocation on the basis of a State's or region's vulnerability to terrorist attack.

The current broken formula has adversely affected my State. In Federal funding per capita for first responders, Texas ranks 50th of the 50 States, despite the fact that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are three of the Nation's ten largest cities. Texas also has a 1,200 mile porous border with Mexico, 14 maritime ports and an airport, Dallas-Fort Worth, that is bigger than New York City's Manhattan Island. Clearly, Texas faces a more grave threat than some other parts of the country.

The bill we are considering today provides assistance to first responders serving where the risk is greatest, determines the essential capabilities of communities and encourages regional cooperation and mutual aid agreements through regional grant applications.

Mr. Chairman, these changes to the current grant allocation procedure are essential if we are to be ready for another attack. We hope all this preparation is for nothing, but we must be prepared. H.R. 1544 ensures that we are as prepared as possible.

Mr. Speaker, since 2003 Senate Democrats have filibustered or threatened to filibuster ten of the President's circuit court nominees. This is unprecedented.

Some believe that applying the filibuster to judicial nominations is a long and revered Senate tradition. Not so.

Never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Not until Miguel Estrada's nomination in 2003 has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been blocked by a filibuster.

Fairness in the justice system begins with the confirmation of capable judges. Each time a nominee is denied a vote, the American people are denied justice. The American people deserve better. It is time for every judicial nominee to receive an up or down vote.

Remember, never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), my friend, for his generous comments and especially for taking the initiative on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this resolution which supports World Intellectual Property Day and applauds the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO.

WIPO is the leading intellectual property organization that works globally to promote intellectual property. Its mission is to promote the use and protection of works of the human spirit.

The organization administers 23 intellectual property treaties and works to educate member countries about the importance of intellectual property.

In the United States, the intellectual property industries drive our economy. Whether it is the creative industries that produce music and movies or high-tech companies that produce software and research, nanotechnology, innovation keeps America competitive.

The United States is a member of WIPO. In order to safeguard our inventors and innovators, we must not only enact strong intellectual property laws in the U.S. but also must make sure our products are protected abroad. WIPO works to do just that.

April 26 was established by WIPO 5 years ago as World Intellectual Property Day. H. Res. 210 applauds WIPO for its work and commemorates April 26, 2005, as World Intellectual Property Day.

This resolution is an appropriate way to call attention to such a worthy organization, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Once again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) for his sponsoring of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill creates criminal offenses that are long overdue at the Federal level and are needed to prevent the disregard of a parent's right to know when their child is seeking a major medical procedure--an abortion.

The legislation makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor, for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, from a State that requires parental notification, across State lines to a State that does not require parental notification.

Almost half of the States, including my home State of Texas, currently require parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. However these laws are being circumvented by individuals who want to undermine the rights of parents. Such individuals can include abusive boyfriends who pressure their young girlfriends into having an abortion, older men who rape young females and want to hide their crime, and minor females who may not know all of the emotional and physical repercussions of having an abortion.

The bill also makes it a Federal crime for an abortion provider not to give the parent or legal guardian of a minor seeking an abortion 24 hours' notice in advance of the procedure, if the minor crosses State lines to have the abortion. The 24-hour notice period will allow parents the time necessary to discuss the ramifications of an abortion, and possible options such as adoption, with their daughters.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act protects a minor's ability to have an abortion in cases of parental sexual abuse as long as the abortion provider informs the appropriate State authorities of the abuse. The ability to have an abortion is also protected in cases in which the minor's life is threatened if the abortion is not performed immediately.

There is a great deal of support and precedent for a law like this. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of State parental notification laws. According to a March 2005 Quinniac University poll, 75 percent of those polled agree that parental notification should be required before a minor can obtain an abortion. We in the House of Representatives have shown our support for such laws by passing legislation similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act three previous times--in 1998, 1999, and 2002. Now it is time for this legislation to pass again and be signed into law by the President.