Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for allowing me to participate in this hour to discuss something of such tremendous import to the people of this country and to the small business men and women who are suffering so much because of class action and lawsuit abuse.

The President was so clear in his recent State of the Union address in talking about the need to reform the civil justice system. He talked about it being kind of a three-legged stool. And class action is an extremely important part of that reform; asbestos litigation and how we deal with a trust fund for people that have been possibly exposed to, and more serious, if they actually have health problems related to asbestos. We need to make sure that that is done in a fair way so that those who are truly hurt are the ones that benefit from any awards that are given or, in the case of asbestos, from a trust fund that is set up.

Class-action reform is something that we have been trying to do in this Congress for a long time. Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that this is a bill that has not been marked up, that we just bring this before the House and it does not go through the committee and it does not go through the hearings and the markup of that sort of thing.

Senate bill 5, which we are dealing with now, which we will have an opportunity to debate tomorrow and pass in this Chamber, is almost the exact same bill, I think it is H.R. 1115, that passed this body in the 108th Congress and passed with really strong bipartisan support.

So these arguments from the other side suggesting that we are rushing something through, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in the Rules Committee, of which I am a member, we agreed to make in order a rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute from our friends on the other side of the aisle. In that amendment essentially is every amendment, maybe except for one, but almost every amendment that was offered to this bill, Senate bill 5, in the other body that was thoroughly discussed and debated and defeated in a bipartisan fashion.

We are going to give those on the other side of the aisle an opportunity for one more bite at the apple tomorrow in the abundance of fairness, to give them an opportunity to argue those points once again. I think that it is time. Over 10 years we have been working on this bill, long before I got to the Congress.

Let me just, if I might, go through a little bit of chronology in regard to this bill. The 105th Congress, that is four Congresses ago, 8 years ago, almost 10 years ago, the Senate had a bill, 2083, Class Action Fairness Act. The Senate hearing held, reported by the Senate subcommittee. H.R. 3789, Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998, committee hearing, markup held, reported from the House Judiciary Committee, 17-12.

106th Congress, H.R. 1875, Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Committee hearing, markup held. Passed the floor of this body 222-207.

107th Congress, H.R. 2341, Class Action Fairness Act, committee hearing, markup held, passed floor 233-190. And on and on and on. So those who would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this has not had a fair hearing, nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to ask my colleagues to look at this slide here to my left and the title of the slide, ``Who Wins?'' This is pretty clear. This would be a typical class-action abuse case. Maybe it was in Madison County, Illinois, where so many of these cases are filed in State court. I do not know if this particular one was there but we know lots of cases have been filed there in Madison County. Class members. Coupons for crayons, a video rental, apple juice, popcorn, golf balls. And what do the plaintiffs' attorneys get? $11.45 million. That is the problem.

Let me just give you an example of another case, this one from Texas, Jefferson County State Court. Shields et al. v. Bridgestone. The suit involves customers who had Firestone tires that were among those that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated or recalled, but who did not suffer any personal injury or property damage. After a Federal appeals court rejected class certification, the plaintiffs' counsel and Firestone negotiated a settlement which has now been approved by the Texas State court. Under the settlement, the company has agreed to redesign certain tires, in fact, a move that already was underway irrespective of this lawsuit, and also to develop a 3-year consumer education and awareness campaign. But the members of the class received nada. Nothing. The lawyers? They got $19 million.

This, Mr. Speaker, is why I am here and grateful to the chairman for letting me participate in this Special Order to make sure that we all understand that when people are injured, when people need a redress of their grievances, they do not need to be getting coupons that are worthless unless they take the trouble of redeeming them, and then they are worth very little and all the money goes to plaintiffs' attorneys. This is just about leveling the playing field.

We will be talking about the other two legs of the stool. I mentioned asbestos and, of course, civil justice reform in regard to medical liability, the Health Act of 2003, so-called tort reform. That is the other leg of the stool that we need to address, because the unintended consequences of not doing anything is if you put small businessmen and -women totally out of business because of the cost of defending these frivolous cases in the health care field, people do not have access to health care in a timely fashion.

Then doctors who practice in a high-risk specialty, such as emergency room care or obstetrics or neurosurgery, hang up their stethoscopes and white coats and pick up a fishing rod or a set of golf clubs at the prime of their career.

So that is why we are here. There is why this is so important. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Carter Wallace, a Brookstone High School student from Columbus, Georgia, who has been named one of the top two youth volunteers in the State.

On Tuesday, Carter accepted the Prudential Spirit of Community Award for his inspiring work on behalf of low-income families in western Georgia.

Carter is the founder of Habi-TOT for Humanity, a nonprofit foundation that purchases and assembles playgrounds for children who move into Habitat for Humanity homes. Carter motivated friends from his Boy Scout troop and Brookstone High School to lend a hand in building the playhouses.

He said he was moved to start this project because many of these children had never had a back yard to play in, and he wanted to make their first one special. Carter's creativity and dedication to low- income children is inspiring.

He organized fundraising bake sales and wrote to nearly a hundred community members soliciting support. His efforts paid off. In the first year and a half, Habi-TOT for Humanity bought, assembled, and delivered 36 playhouses to needy families.

Carter is a role model for us all. He set a fine example of community service for young people across this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in commending Carter Wallace for this award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues now know, the C- 130J multiyear procurement contract was canceled in the administration's recent budget proposal. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about the history and the significance of the C-130 Hercules program and why we in Congress need to continue to fund this crucial airlift program.

Mr. Speaker, the C-130 aircraft has been the workhorse of the military's tactical airlift fleet for more than 50 years. The versatile Hercules was originally designed in the 1950s as an assault transport. Over the years, however, it has been adapted for a variety of important missions, including special operations, close-air support and air interdiction, mid-air space capsule recovery, search and rescue missions, aerial refueling of helicopters, weather mapping and reconnaissance, electronic surveillance, firefighting, aerial spraying, Arctic-Antarctic ice resupply and natural disaster missions. It has even landed and taken off from a carrier deck without the benefit of arresting gears or catapults.

Currently, the Hercules primarily performs the intra-theater portion of the Air Force's tactical airlift mission. This medium-range aircraft is capable of operating from rough dirt strips and is the prime transport for paratroop and equipment drops into hostile areas, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Currently, more than half the fleet of combat delivery C-130s is over 30 years old. Although their longevity is clearly a testament to the value of these crucial aircraft, we should be very concerned that the C-130 E and H models continue to age at alarming rates, putting our tactical airlift capability at risk in the near term.

In fact, yesterday, the Air Force announced that they are grounding much of the C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their wings, including a dozen that have been flying missions in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, some of these planes were used in Vietnam, and we are literally flying their wings off in the Middle East.

The Air Force has long anticipated the aging of the older models, which only makes it more remarkable that the multiyear contract to replace these planes has been carved out of the budget.

Another astonishing fact is that the Department of Defense will not save any money. In fact, the perceived savings generated by the proposed cuts will unquestionably be consumed by over $800 million in termination liability costs and billions of dollars in increased costs to support aging and less capable aircraft.

Consequently, this proposal to end the C-130J program could end up costing the American taxpayer more than the cost of completing the multiyear contract, and it will leave our military with far less capable planes.

Furthermore, not a single study or any analysis of the total effect of terminating this program was conducted prior to the cancellation decision. And that, Mr. Speaker, is troubling.

If left unchecked, this dismantling of our aerospace manufacturing base will also come just when subsidized foreign competitors are jockeying to displace United States manufacturing. Once lost, hard- acquired industrial skills will not easily return to our workforce. In some cases, they will never come back. Once the Department of Defense inevitably realizes they cannot continue to rebuild old planes, their only viable option to replace the medium-range tactical airlift would be to purchase new aircraft from France.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues realize that the C- 130J is not just designed to replace the older models. In reality, the J model has revolutionized the world of tactical airlift. In addition to being 15 feet longer, the

J is faster, more powerful, more reliable, easier to maintain, more technologically advanced and capable of flying higher and farther than ever before. Today, both U.S. and Allied C-130Js are performing operational missions in the Middle East in support of our warfighters, as well in support of the tsunami relief effort in Southeast Asia. The J is performing superbly and testimonials from the pilots using the new planes have been extremely positive.

Mr. Speaker, there is a glimmer of hope that the Department of Defense has realized the negative implications of this decision in the short and long term and may be working to reverse the decision. But we in Congress must continue to do everything in our power to ensure America's ability to transport troops and supplies and to perform critical humanitarian missions both today and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to speak in favor of reforming our system for asylum and against the move to strike the necessary reforms incorporated in H.R. 418. It has been suggested throughout out this debate yesterday and today that because there is no specific recommendation made by the 9-11 commission to reform our asylum system that we in Congress should do nothing to fix it.

That in my opinion is insane. My colleagues and friends on the other side of the isle suggest we stick our heads in the sand and ignore one of the tools used by terrorists to gain access to and remain in our country.

Make no mistake, the 9-11 commission report does specifically state that our asylum system was and is used by terrorists to carry out their schemes to kill Americans.

Let me quote from the report and its accompanying statements:

The report states, speaking of the first Trade Center bombing, ``. . .Ramazi Yousef, who had also entered with fraudulent documents but claimed political asylum and was admitted. It quickly became clear that Yousef had been a central player in the attack. He had fled to Pakistan immediately after the bombing and would remain at large for nearly two years.''

Later in the report it talks about the outdated immigration benefits system, ``. . .when Doris Meissner became INS Commissioner in 1993, she found . . . the asylum and other benefits systems did not effectively deter fraudulent applicants.

Finally, ``Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition.'' ``this could be accomplished . . . by applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit (such as claiming asylum) sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.''

So, if I am to understand my friends on the other side, we are to ignore the problem of asylum abuse and do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on Rules. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying bill.

I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who keep saying, we are not given enough time and we are rushing all of these complicated issues that we have not discussed, but these provisions I remind my colleagues, they were in the original bill that we passed on the House side, the Intel bill. Unfortunately, they were taken out by the Senate conferees.

We are asking to do the things that the 9/11 Commission, all 10 of them, in their unanimous report, asked us to do. Listen to this: ``If terrorist travel options are reduced, they may be forced to rely on means of interaction which can be more easily monitored and to resort to travel documents which are more readily detectable.''

The 9/11 Commission Report, page 65, ``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of United States identification document, some by fraud.'' Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities.

The 9/11 Commission Report, page 390, ``My daughter worked at the Republican Convention this summer. I worried about her. Unbeknownst to me, during the convention an illegal alien from Pakistan was picked up and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station. She rode on that subway every day going back and forth to work.'' He was quoted as saying, ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in a single day.'' And that alien had applied for asylum.

Mr. Speaker, these are sensible provisions. We are completing the work of the Intel bill, and I support it. We need to get it done and we need bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, in Washington, officials commonly use studies and reports to legitimize various policies, and often the guidelines by which these studies are established can force a researcher into predetermined results. Traditionally, the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, has been above this type of sincere process, as it is a serious exercise intended to produce a Pentagon strategic blueprint for defending our Nation from future threats. This year, however, I fear that the new QDR guidelines will overtly deemphasize conventional threats, which would result in long-term setbacks for our national defense.

I recognize the need to focus greater attention on the current asymmetric threat of terrorism and the need to drastically rein in Federal spending this year to decrease the budget deficit. However, it should not come at the expense of our ability to defeat well- established threats in the future.

Released on Monday, the Pentagon's 2006 budget would cut off the procurement of the F/A-22 Raptor after 2008. With these cuts, several high-tech sectors within our Nation's defense industrial base would be crippled, costing America good-paying jobs, future innovation and, most important, critical military capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed budget, the Pentagon would buy just 179 F/A-22 Raptors, well short of the original 381 proposed by the Air Force. In exchange for nominal short-term savings, the move would significantly increase the cost of each aircraft at a time when production would otherwise be affordable through economy of scale. Investing nearly $30 billion in research and development in the world's best fighter jet and then buying less than what the Air Force needs to guarantee future air dominance just does not make sense.

It is as if we discovered the cure for cancer and then we skimped on the lifesaving drugs.

Remarkably, the proposed cuts appear to have been made against the advice of the war planners, because Pentagon bureaucrats are ignoring the Air Force wartime requirement of the 381 F/A-22s, a number that the Secretary accepted in the last QDR. The Pentagon arrived at these pre- 9/11 force levels because the F/A-22 offers unique capabilities against growing threats in the western Pacific and elsewhere. Also, a recent military exercise between the United States and Air Force fighter pilots from India, called COPE India, proved beyond a doubt that the new foreign-made fighters now outmatch our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s.

Furthermore, these bureaucrats are ignoring the impact that the proposed F/A-22 cuts will have on future domestic high technology production and design capacity. The American aerospace industry stands to lose more than 40,000 jobs nationwide, with some 160 suppliers in 43 States. This dismantling of our home-grown technology base would come just when subsidized foreign competitors are jockeying to displace United States manufacturing. Once lost, these hard-acquired skills will not easily return to our workforce; and, in some cases, they will never return.

In the end, at stake are vital national interests: American technology know-how, our global positions in the aerospace industry, and, most importantly, the safety of our men and women serving overseas. We must focus our armed services on more than just the asymmetries of a global war on terrorism. We cannot ignore, Mr. Speaker, a rising China, nuclear Iran, increasingly unstable North Korea, and other unconventional military threats that may need to be faced by the capabilities found in the F/A-22.

It is the job of any administration to produce an annual budget that satisfies the Nation's immediate needs like the war in Iraq. But we in Congress also have a leadership responsibility to prevent rash and unwise decisions destined to actually increase spending and cripple our ability to effectively defend against future threats.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and today I rise in strong support of the Solomon Amendment and as a proud cosponsor of the resolution that is before us.

For the last several years, a growing number of law schools have subjected military recruiters to various degrees of harassment designed to make military recruiting difficult and to frustrate their objectives. Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces retains highly qualified new military personnel; and it is an integral, effective, and necessary part of overall military recruiting.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to attach reasonable stipulations to those who accept Federal dollars. The Solomon Law simply ensures that the military has fair access to recruited institutions of higher learning that willingly accept this Federal funding.

Mr. Speaker, every year, without fail, the military comes under a great deal of criticism for hiring too many low-income, disadvantaged young adults. However, I find it remarkably ironic that these institutions are obstructing a more balanced recruiting effort that includes a patriotic commitment from all sectors of society.

Furthermore, the point has to be made that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that are being treated like second-class citizens at these universities are also the same brave men and women that are providing the freedom these schools enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, efforts by these universities to restrict military recruiter access can only have the harmful effect of increasing Federal spending to achieve mandated end-strength goals and ultimately compromising the readiness and performance of our military.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. I sincerely hope there will be a strong bipartisan effort of support, and I commend my good friends from Minnesota and Alabama for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, as I was waiting for our time to arrive this evening listening to this previous hour, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle started out by telling us what the President might say tomorrow night about Social Security for the 21st century. Then for 60 minutes the Democrats proceeded to use their typical scare tactics to frighten seniors just as they did last year with the issue of the prescription drug benefit for our neediest Medicare beneficiaries.

They have the prerogative to talk about anything they want to during this Democratic leadership hour, and they make a decision or their leaders decide whatever the theme du jour is going to be. After all, my colleagues, remember, our 2006 congressional elections are just around the corner. We have only got 639 days left. So let us be just as partisan and negative as we can possibly be toward President Bush and his Republican majority. That is their theme du jour. As I say, my colleagues on the other side, the Democrats and their leaders, they had a choice of topics tonight. They could have talked about anything they wanted to on this eve of what will be one of the most historic State of the Union addresses in the history of our country.

My fellow Members, for almost 2 years now, we have been in a shooting war, fighting to rid the world of terrorism, and to bring liberty and freedom to the long-suffering Iraqi people. These brave souls had an opportunity this past Sunday, just 3 days ago, January 30, to vote for the first time in their lives, indeed a vindication, a renewal of spirit, a new beginning for a great and proud people of the Middle East. I fully expect the President, and my colleagues were predicting what he might say tomorrow night, I fully expect the President to talk about this great, historic occasion.

And that, my colleagues, is what we the Republicans and our leadership have decided to talk about tonight to the American people on the eve of the State of the Union address, to talk about the historic election that occurred in Iraq just 3 days ago. I think that is what is important to the American people. It is important to the Iraqi people. It is important to the world. And to delve down into pure, raw partisan politics at a time like this again, as I say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can do what they want to, but I think they missed a golden opportunity to hear some joy and good news and vindication, yes, of our efforts and the efforts of the Iraqi people over the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the Members' attention to a couple of charts that we have here tonight. The first one, from the Los Angeles Times, Monday morning, January 31, look at it: ``Iraqi Turnout Trumps Violence.'' Yes, there were some people killed, I think some 44. At least half of them were Iraqi security people who were trying to secure the polls and making sure the good men and women, some of them disabled, struggling to get to the polling place in Iraq, could vote and not be harmed. Look at that headline from the Los Angeles Times.

Here is another, The Washington Post, Monday, January 31: ``Iraqis Defy Threats As Millions Vote.'' How many million? Eight million, 60 percent of the registered votes. In fact, that percentage is just as high as we had in our recent Presidential elections in many parts of this country, where we do not have to worry about getting to the polling place. We have to worry about maybe missing a son or a daughter's soccer match or being late for work, which of course we are permitted to do that on Election Day; but we certainly do not have to worry about the threat of violence or indeed losing our lives and here, 60 percent, millions, vote, 8 million people in Iraq. And expatriate Iraqis around this world in 14 different countries had an opportunity to vote on this historic occasion and in many places here in the United States as well.

So this is what we want to talk about. This is what the Republican leadership, this is what the rank-and-file Members want to talk about tonight as we celebrate and we look forward and we are so happy and grateful for the sacrifices that the Iraqi people have made for themselves and that we have made on behalf of them, and we want to commend this President for having the courage to stand strong in the face of unyielding, terrible criticism of his efforts.

So tonight it gives me a lot of pleasure to manage this time on behalf of the majority to talk about something that is really good and positive for this great country and for our world, certainly for the Middle East. I am so pleased that many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle have joined me in this hour, and we will be hearing from a number of them.

I want to start out by yielding to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who serves with me on the House Committee on Armed Services, a great Member of this body who just got back from Iraq, led a small congressional delegation of members of the House Committee on Armed Services to be over there to see, to understand what the people were going through in the lead-up to these elections. At this point, I would like to let him share with us exactly what he saw on the ground in Iraq in the lead-up to these historic elections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, and I thank him for being with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so the congressman actually had the opportunity with that delegation to visit not only Iraq but also Afghanistan and to sort of compare what it looks like a year later after free elections were held and what hopefully the Iraqi people can anticipate for themselves. He might want to elaborate on that for the Members.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to share with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the poster, exactly what he was just depicting, and I think maybe we can get that up here because this is poignant. This is something that we absolutely need to make sure that each one of us focus in on. I am so glad that the gentleman from Minnesota brought that up, and I think this is the picture to which he is referring.

Let us come back.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I share the joy of the gentleman from Minnesota; and I commend him, and I thank him for being with us tonight, and I commend him for his service on the Committee on Armed Services and for his service to our country. He is a veteran, one of the 5 percent of the 435 Members of the Congress who served our country in the military. People serve in other ways, but I have a special place in my heart for people like the gentleman from Minnesota.

For him to come tonight and talk about what he saw in Afghanistan a year after elections, 30 percent of the voting in Afghanistan was by women, and talk about that lack of infrastructure, and then to go on to Iraq in the days leading up to the election itself and to see those Iraqi security forces working hard to try to secure, to protect these people who were having the first opportunity in their lives to vote.

Yes, there were terrorist attacks, as the gentleman points out. I think there were some 68 or 69 attacks. But do my colleagues know what? Forty-four people lost their lives and over half of them were the Iraqi security forces themselves, the police, not the people standing in line to vote.

I have been to Iraq, like the gentleman from Minnesota has, I am sure on more than one occasion. He knows that these improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades and these shoulder-mounted missiles, when these terrorists strike, they do not intend to kill less than one person per attack, and that is what happened on election day in Iraq this last Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I have a couple of Members on our side of the aisle, a couple of additional Members who have joined me and will be talking about this historic occasion as we look forward to the President's address tomorrow night. One of my colleagues I would like to yield time to now is a dear friend and a fellow colleague on the House Committee on Armed Services, and that is the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Well, I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah, my good friend, for joining us tonight and for bringing some historical perspective. Absolutely, once a history teacher, always a history teacher; but I would say tonight to my colleagues, we are talking about a world-class history teacher, and he gave us a good lesson in Romanian history. I am standing up here listening to my colleague, and yes, I have long since forgotten they went through this struggle less than 15 years ago, in talking about of course the French Revolution and the fact that something historic happened on Sunday.

But there is a lot more work to be done, as the gentleman from Utah so clearly pointed out. We are not through, and for us to listen to naysayers as we had to listen throughout this entire recent Presidential and congressional election cycle, about declare victory and come home even if you have not won. Look for an exit strategy. Bring the troops home. Give us a day. How many? What day? This is totally wrong, and I really appreciate the gentleman bringing that to our attention tonight.

We have been joined as well by my colleague, the gentlewoman from the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and she is a passionate Member of this body and works very intently for the people of her State and her district and for this great country. It is a privilege tonight for me to recognize her and thank her for being with us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and I sincerely appreciate her sharing that poignant testimonial, that anecdote from the Iraqi woman voting in those elections and what they wanted to share with the American people and to say not a simple but an elaborate thank you, a deep, heartfelt thank you. I really appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) sharing that with us, and I thank her for being with us this evening.

It is truly amazing that our friends on the other side of the aisle spent one hour, the previous hour, of course, the determination of what they talk about just as our subject matter is made by our leadership. And their leadership decided, well, this was the great opportunity to attack the President on Social Security for the 21st century. They spent an entire hour and not one word, not a single word about this historic election, free elections in the Middle East for the first time in hundreds or maybe thousands of years. And certainly none of these people that had that opportunity, some of them literally stepping over pools of blood to get to that ink, to put on their finger that indelible ink, as my colleagues pointed out, that will not wash off, will not go away.

It was a way to make sure that people voted once and only once and everything was secure. These people, not only were their lives at stake before they got to the polling place and while they were waiting in line, queuing up sometimes waiting hour after hour in the hot sun, in dust, in misery, waiting to vote, but then they dipped that finger in that indelible ink, knowing that for at least 2 days, maybe longer, there was no way they could get that off their finger. So they are putting their lives at risk even after the fact, but they did not care because they are brave, courageous, wonderful people, and I am extremely proud of them.

I am disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle went 60 minutes without not one comment. They do not have to praise President Bush or the Republican majority or this leadership, but to not spend one word talking about what the Iraqi people did 3 days ago is just beyond any imagination.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here tonight and manage this time, and we do have one additional speaker before we get into conclusion and I do want to hear from the gentleman from Texas, but I just want to say, share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, some of the thoughts that I have had since this historic happening this past Sunday.

We all represent maybe 630 or so thousand people in our districts across this great country; 435 of us who are Members of this body, this House of Representatives. And we have all suffered and our people have suffered, mainly our young soldiers men and women who have been in harm's way, Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen, some 1,600 maybe, close to 1,600 now, who were killed in action and others that we have gone and we have seen. Sometimes we visit them in theater, dying with them, or talking to them or maybe been out to Bethesda to see them struggling to recover from their injuries, proud that they have served this country and served it well.

And I cannot help but think about three soldiers in my district, the 11th of Georgia, West Georgia, and its 17 counties. There have been more injured, but there are three that lost their lives in this conflict. I have been thinking about them for the last couple of days, as I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have reflected on the families, the loved ones from the funerals that they have attended over the last year and a half as we have paid this great sacrifice on behalf of the Iraqi people and freedom in this great world that we live in as the President talked about in his inaugural address just the other day.

And I want to mention them. I want to mention them because I do not want to ever forget them. I do not want us to ever forget them. I want to think about them. I want to think about their faces. I want to think about the face of Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke, whose uncle lives up in Calhoun, Georgia, in Gordon County just on the outskirts of my district, who, after serving almost 30 years this country in conflict, in battles in several venues, gave his life on Christmas Eve 2003, two days after I visited with him in theater.

He went on a mission in a Humvee, and he took the shrapnel that probably was intended for somebody else, and he gave his life for this great country.

I want to think about specialist Justin Johnston from Rome, Georgia, Floyd County, 19 years old when he joined the Army, barely 21 years old when he lost his life on Easter Sunday last year. And I think about Janet and Joe, his parents, his brother Josh and people that have paid this sacrifice and what did they give it for? What did their sons and daughters give up their lives for?

Last but not least, I think about First Lieutenant Tyler Brown. Lieutenant Tyler Brown, president of the student body at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, just a few years ago, 26 years old at the time of his death, killed by a sniper in Iraq, just 2 weeks after being redeployed there from the demilitarized zone. No picnic. But Tyler Brown gave his life. He was a wonderful young man. His parents, I think about them. I see their faces as I stand here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I think about these people. I know that they have the comfort of knowing as well that their sons and daughters did not die in vain. I mention these three. There are many others. My colleagues, maybe they have there, maybe they have been to more funerals than I have been and seen more mayhem, but this is seared in my memory, and it always will be. When you go to Arlington, when you visit as a tourist, it is one thing, but when you go to Arlington to watch a young soldier whose family you knew and represented laid to rest, who died for our country, this is something of a totally different story.

That is why I am proud. I am proud to talk about this tonight, and I am proud of these young men and women who have done this for us and served us so well. So that is what I want my colleagues to think about.

Let me, before we use up all of our time, Mr. Speaker, and I get too carried away, I do want to introduce another Member on our side of the aisle, a new Member, a gentleman from the great State of Texas, a judge, a fine judge, a member of the appellate branch of the judiciary who might be a freshman Member, but he has got a lot of experience and a lot of things to share with us tonight, not only on this issue that we have been talking about for the last 45 minutes but also a point that is very near and dear to his heart as well.

I proudly yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman obviously speaks with passion and knows of what he speaks, and I suspect that we will be hearing more from him on this issue as we go forward in the 109th Congress because it certainly clearly needs to be addressed, and the time tonight, of course, is in the context of talking about freedom, talking about liberty, talking about the rule of law and what we are trying to share with the Iraqi people and other oppressed people of the Middle East and other parts of the world and other Arab nations who have not yet felt that fresh smell of liberty and democracy. So I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and speaking so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to mention a couple of quotes that mean a lot to me, mean a lot to everybody who has ever heard them, mean a lot to this great country, mean a lot to Great Britain, but first of all, this one.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787. The blood of patriots indeed and the blood of tyrants indeed, and this is what we are talking about.

This is a sacrifice that the Iraqi people have made on behalf of themselves and what we have been making on behalf of them over these nearly 2 years now as we have sacrificed our sons and daughters.

The other quote: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have ever been tried. Of course, Sir Winston Churchill. We are sharing, and that is what the President talked about during his inauguration address on January 20. That is what we are talking about, sharing. That is what he will talk about tomorrow night.

God bless you, Mr. President, and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, we just finished our elections, and we hear a lot of browbeating and weeping and gnashing of teeth from the other side of the aisle concerning what went wrong. Goodness gracious, what in the world went wrong? We thought we ran a good campaign. We were ready to elect a President, we were ready to take over the House, we were ready to get the majority in the House and the Senate, and none of those things happened.

Of course the pundits are on television every day, 24 hours a day it seems, talking about exactly what went wrong. And there is a lot of talk, of course, about the issue of moral values, traditional family values, and Christianity. I am sure that that had something to do with it. But I will stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and say to my colleagues that I ran a race in which I won with 57.4 percent against an opponent on the other side of the aisle who I think was a very strong Christian man, a good man, and one who had great values. But he was running on a party platform that did not embrace those traditional values that mean so much to I think middle America and those of us where I come from in Georgia.

But I think it goes beyond that. I think it goes far beyond that. And I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, as they try to play Monday morning quarterback and figure out what went wrong, to think about issues like medical liability reform and the fact that the Nation, 75 percent or more, the American people in every poll that has ever been done, are very much in favor of medical liability reform. And yet an issue like that, which really should not be a partisan issue, because there is absolutely no reason why access to health care and fixing a broken system should come down along party lines, certainly did become partisan. It did in this body, and it did in the other body.

In March of 2003, the HEALTH Act was passed in this House Chamber, as my colleagues know, and there were Members of the Democratic minority who voted for the bill, but only a few, only a handful, and practically none in the other body. So today, as we stand here going into the 109th Congress and President Bush's second term, we once again have a chance, an even better chance, I think, to get medical liability reform passed because we have increased our margins in the other body.

So there are a lot of reasons you can look back and try to figure out why you lost, but that is one, I think, that my Democrat colleagues need to take a close look at. When this issue comes before us in the 109th, if you want to do something positive, if you want to respond to the will of the American people, this is certainly a great first step. I would encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle and my fellow Republicans in the House and the Members in the other body that it is time. The American people want this. They need it.

Access to health care is hugely important. We are seeing more and more physicians, and I will get to some specific numbers a little later regarding doctors in high-risk specialties, like neurosurgery, emergency room physicians, and OB-GYN, which is my specialty. I think all my colleagues know that in my prior life I practiced medicine for almost 30 years, and as a pro-life OB-GYN physician, delivering those 5,200 babies. Many of my colleagues in that specialty are dropping

out at the very peak of their practice productivity, in their late 40s, early 50s. They are literally trading their stethoscopes for a fishing rod or a set of golf clubs. They do not want to do that, but they have been forced to.

I have a number of posters here, Mr. Speaker, that I want my colleagues to pay attention to, which really give testimonials to the statistics. Maybe my colleagues know some of these individuals, or individuals just like them, or families who have suffered because, when they went to the emergency room, there was no emergency-room physician to take care of their injured child or their loved one who had had a stroke and needed immediate care from a neurosurgeon.

Just look at some of these posters. This is talking about women's health care in particular. Women's Health in Jeopardy: A pregnant Texas woman was forced to drive 80 miles to a San Antonio hospital because her family doctor in her rural hometown had stopped delivering babies because of malpractice insurance concern. This was in the Fort Worth Star Telegram January of 2003.

Nationwide, doctors are leaving and patients are suffering. Look at these people. Look at these physicians. I do not know if my colleagues can see some of these posters, but they are not saying ``Vote for George W. Bush, or Reelect Bush, or Vote For Kerry and Edwards, or I am a Democrat, I am a Republican.'' They are saying ``tort reform now.''

Insurance rates are driving doctors out of business. What good is insurance, health insurance, if you cannot find a doctor to provide the care, and on and on and on? Look at some of these headlines, Mr. Speaker: ``Doctors Protesting Skyrocketing Malpractice Premiums.'' Springfield State Journal Register, February 2003. ``Malpractice Insurance Prices Send Physicians to the Streets.'' USA Today, February 2003. ``Caps on Noneconomic Damages Most Common Solution Considered by States in Crisis.''

There are twelve States in crisis, and 30 more near crisis. If my colleagues do a little quick math, that is 42 out of 50 that are either in crisis or near crisis today. USA article, February 2003. ``Medical Malpractice Premiums Jump 50 Percent, Average Cost Tops $1.4 Million Per Hospital.'' PR news wire, January of 2003.

It is not just the physicians; it is the hospitals that are suffering as well, many of whom are self-insured up to probably $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million; and it is literally driving the small rural hospitals out of business. And in so many instances, the hospitals and the school system might be the only two employers in a whole county, or the two major employers in a whole county. When you shut them down, you are talking about job loss.

So this is really an economic issue. It is a health issue, no question about that. Lack of access to health care is a real tragedy and a real crisis, but we have heard for the last 2 years, as we led up to this Presidential election year, the other side of the aisle talking about President Bush being the only President since Harry S Truman who actually lost jobs on his 4-year watch. Three million of those happened to occur after the dot-com bubble burst and the recession that started during the Clinton administration. The rest of it occurred shortly after 9/11, which cost the economy of this country almost $3 trillion.

The other side kind of changed their tactic, Mr. Speaker, as we began to grow jobs as those tax cuts for all Americans with their special emphasis on small businessmen and -women began to put people back to work. All of a sudden, when we gained 1.7, 1.9 million jobs back, then they had to change their tactics at the last minute.

But make no mistake about it, this medical malpractice crisis and lack of access to care, and the fact that physicians are shutting their offices, it is a job issue as well because it is not simply one physician but in many cases it is 15 to 25 people who are actually employed in that office and all of them are without a job. Talk about outsourcing of jobs.

We could have done a lot to prevent that right here in our own country with some meaningful leveling of the playing field with fair and balanced tort reform in regard to medical liability.

Continuing with some of the posters, these are real-life situations that I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues.

Michelle, a breast surgeon, serving more than 5,000 patients a year, experienced a 760 percent increase in malpractice insurance over an 8- year period of time. That is an average 76 percent increase per year. This was a testimonial on 60 Minutes in March, 2003.

Doctors in rural Mississippi can expect to pay over $70,000 in malpractice premiums. Their average salary in rural Mississippi, certainly not an affluent State, about $72,000 a year. They are literally almost as much, not more, but almost as much in malpractice premiums as they are making in income and probably working 70 hours a week.

Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, lost one-third of its neurosurgeons due to unrelenting problems with medical malpractice insurance. That is in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.

Listen to some of these numbers. Talk about bullet points. This really cuts right to the chase. Let me give my colleagues a few numbers to ponder.

America's medical liability crisis, we all pay for a broken system. The number 19, as I said at the outset of the hour, the number of States in a full-blown medical liability crisis in which the cost of frivolous lawsuit settlements and jury awards cost physicians' medical liability premiums to skyrocket. As a result, patients lose access to care when physicians are forced to give up parts of their practice, such as delivering babies or performing high-risk surgery.

Mr. Speaker, 72 percent of Americans favor a law that guarantees full payment of lost wages and medical expenses but limits noneconomic damages. That is the point that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to miss. We spend all this money on polling. We poll and run TV ads, and then we send out mailers depending on what the public perception is of an issue. And 72 percent, talk about a plurality, a supermajority of Americans understood this issue, and clearly today understand that we are a country in crisis in regard to our health care delivery system. They want change, they want fairness, and yet my colleagues who have a lot of heartburn over this recent election are still trying to figure out what went wrong. Certainly they were wrong on that issue.

The figure of $70 billion to $126 billion a year, the cost of defensive medicine which could be significantly reduced by medical liability reforms. Now we just passed yesterday an increase in the debt ceiling of $800 billion. There was a lot of rhetoric from the other side and a lot of complaining about the runaway deficits and the growing, burgeoning debt.

With medical liability reform, it is estimated that we would save the government close to $40 billion a year. Keep in mind that the Federal Government really pays about two-thirds of all of the health care in this country with four programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for our military personnel and their dependents, and our VA health care system. If we put all of those programs together, we are talking about two- thirds of the health care costs in this country the Federal Government pays. If we had some meaningful tort reform and doctors did not have to do all this defensive medicine and add all of these additional tests which we know and the hospitals know are totally unnecessary in many instances, but doctors are just trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit, if we could get all of that out of the system and go back to just practicing common-sense medicine, this is the amount of savings we would incur. Then we would not have to increase that debt limit.

I am very pleased tonight, Mr. Speaker, to be joined by one of my colleagues on my side of the aisle and a fellow physician, not only a fellow physician but also a fellow OB/GYN physician. He has not practiced quite as long as I have nor delivered quite as many babies as I have, but he is one fine doctor and a fine Congressman.

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

I thank my colleague from Texas for joining us this evening for this discussion, and I appreciate his very accurate remarks. I know one thing he was talking about, physician access and which specialties doctors choose today based on this liability crisis.

I want my colleagues to listen very carefully to this number: 48 percent, the proportion of American medical students in their third or fourth year of medical school who indicated that the liability crisis was a factor in their choice of specialty, threatening patients' future access to critical services. I am sure that Dr. Burgess would agree with me that when we were in medical school a few years ago, OB-GYN was one of the most popular specialties. It was the one that everybody wanted to go in. It was the compassionate, the feel-good specialty, delivering babies, being with a family, at what usually is the happiest day, the happiest moment of their lives, the birth of a child.

Yet today because of this crisis, as he well knows, we are having fewer and fewer, not only fewer and fewer of our best and brightest students from college wanting to get into medical school and go into the practice of medicine in any specialty but particularly OB-GYN and general surgery and neurosurgery and some of these higher risk specialties.

The gentleman is absolutely right. I am pleased to have another physician Member with us tonight in my colleague from Florida, Dr. David Weldon. Dr. Weldon is an internal medicine specialist. I think I am recalling correctly that he is about to begin his sixth term in this august body and has certainly been a great mentor to both Dr. Burgess and myself as we came in 2 years ago as freshmen and really needed to get up to speed on the Medicare law and all the nuances of that. It is certainly a distinct honor and a pleasure to have Dr. Weldon join us this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Florida so much. We appreciate him being with us tonight and sharing those thoughts. It is so important that he pointed out to our colleagues that this really is not just about doctors and their practice, Dr. Weldon's practice, Dr. Burgess, Dr. Gingrey, or an individual like this Dr. Leon Smith, Jr.

I happen to know Dr. Leon Smith, Jr. He practices medicine in Athens, Georgia. I went to medical school with him. I knew him very well. Both he and his brother are OB-GYN physicians. His group, I think six or eight of them, recently stopped practicing, had to stop obstetrics and curtail their practice drastically because of this crisis. Dr. Smith was actually interviewed on ``60 Minutes'' on March 9, 2003. Here is what Leon said, Dr. Leon Smith, Jr.:

``We're giving up something I have always wanted to do because of the malpractice crisis after insurance premiums broke a million dollars.''

This is real life. This really puts a face on this problem. But as Dr. Weldon points out so vividly, it is a jobs issue because it is not just Dr. Smith and colleagues like him that have to give up their practices. It is the fact that small business men and women over the last 5, 6, 8 years are seeing double-digit increases in the amount that they have to pay for health insurance to provide to their employees. And they cannot do it. It is becoming the highest cost of them doing business. And a lot of small businesses fail. This is one of the main reasons that they fail.

And so we are not just talking about doctors not being available to help patients. We are also talking about small businesses closing and people being out of work. I think it is so important that we keep that in mind as we try to address this crisis and try to do it in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show this last poster before I go on with some additional remarks, but this is pretty telling and the title of this poster is ``Show Me the Money.'' ``Show Me the Money.'' And I have heard, I am not sure who it was, maybe some wise, erudite talk show host recently say, If you want to know what the problem is, just follow the dollar. Follow the dollar.

I can remember during the Medicare Modernization, Improvement, and Prescription Drug Act debate that we had on the floor of this House last year, this Medicare modernization, which we had not done in 38 years, and this prescription drug benefit, which seniors have been begging for, pleading for, been promised by previous Presidents and previous Congresses and nobody ever delivered, we finally delivered on that promise.

And the criticism we received from the other side of the aisle was well, it was just a giveaway from the pharmaceutical industry. That is all it is. All these Republicans getting all this money from the big drug companies. And in fact, it was said, Mr. Speaker, by so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the pharmaceutical industry wrote the bill. I guess they think the doctors and hospitals wrote the original Medicare bill that was passed in 1965, but I do not think the doctors and the hospitals have done too well, but it has been a boon to seniors. Medicare has worked well. It is going to work even better. But while they were criticizing us purportedly for accepting money from pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, look at what is happening on this ``Show Me the Money'' poster.

Why do Democrats put trial lawyers before patients? That is my question. That is the question I want my colleagues to answer for me. Seventy-four percent of the campaign contributions made by lawyers and law firms during the 2002 election cycle went to Democrats. I am not sure what the number is in 2004, but I imagine it is probably a little higher than that with a couple of lawyers on the Democratic ticket, one a trial lawyer who made his living suing doctors like me and my colleagues. Seventy-four percent of the campaign contributions made by lawyers and law firms during the 2002 election cycle went to Democrats. Over $87 million to Democratic candidates during that cycle. Seventy- four percent came to over $87 million. In fact, the average contribution to a House Democrat totaled $57,281.

I like to think that we cannot be influenced by money, and I think that that statement is, in fact, true. I think most of my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle would agree with that. Men and women of honor and integrity. But these figures certainly have to be frightening, and maybe it is some of the explanation why, which has no reason to be partisan. A high-risk mom who desperately needs obstetrical care, she is not worrying about whether that white coat has an R or a D on its shoulders. She is looking for an M.D., of course, and this should not be a partisan issue. We need to get beyond that. It is too important. It is hugely important. Just as Medicare modernization, Social Security, these other issues, education, none of that should be partisan. So I hope that as we go forward in the 109th that we will all join together and finally get this job done.

I was giving some numbers a little bit earlier, and I would like to give a few more. The number 29. Mr. Speaker, 29 is the number of years that California's comprehensive medical liability reforms have protected the State of California and their patients, physicians, and taxpayers. 1975 was when MICRA, Medical Injury Reform Compensation Act, was passed; 1975, 29 years ago. Since then premiums in the United States, the rest of the 49 States, have grown by 750 percent. In California premiums have increased only 245 percent. Another very telling statistic.

Listen to this one. And I want my colleagues to listen carefully to this: $778,334, that is the amount a patient would receive for a $1 million jury award, an injured patient, a patient that deserves compensation, and we all are aware of that in many instances, $778,334, the amount a patient would receive for $1 million jury award by reforming the current contingency fee system. Now without any reform, a trial lawyer typically takes $400,000 or more of that settlement. That is not right. Mr. Speaker, that is not right.

The people who are injured, the mom, the dad, the parent, the child, in cases

that are not frivolous, somebody has practiced below the standard of care. Maybe it is one of my physician colleagues. Maybe it is a hospital. Maybe something happened in the emergency room. That patient has been injured and suffered and has significant economic losses, and they deserve fair and just compensation. But they are not getting it because of this contingency fee system which causes a lottery mentality among a lot of trial attorneys. Not all of them. Certainly not all of them. Most, in fact, I think are men and women of high integrity and provide a good service to their clients as they practice this subspecialty of personal injury.

3.9 million, and let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, 3.9 million, the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance if Congress were to pass commonsense reform. Almost 4 million more people would be able to afford health insurance. We have been talking about that issue ever since I have been here in this Congress about the 40 million or so mostly working Americans who cannot afford to have health insurance. Either they cannot pay their part of the premium or their employer cannot provide it for them. It is estimated with meaningful leveling of the playing field, not taking away anybody's rights, that an additional 4 million people would be covered by health insurance.

I could go on and on with these numbers and statistics, but let me just talk a little bit in some of the time that we have remaining. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in the bill that we passed, the Health Act in 2003. That bill primarily puts a cap on noneconomic, so-called pain and suffering. But what it does not do is it absolutely does not limit recovery for injuries, economic losses; and in many cases those awards are in the several millions of dollars. But there is no way that one can put any estimate on pain and suffering or noneconomic losses. And that is the hallmark really of MICRA, the law that was passed in California, and it is a model that we know works. And as I said before, if this bill is passed, and I feel that we will pass it in the 109th Congress, any injured patient would be well compensated for the economic losses and any medical care that is needed as they go forward in the rest of their lives.

Another provision in this bill is something that is called joint and several liability. I want my colleagues to understand this concept: joint and several liability. That is what exists today. That means that if 10 doctors are named in a lawsuit, it does not matter who is the major culprit or the one who practiced the least close to the standard of care. One of those physicians who had very little to do with the case could end up paying the whole judgment or the whole settlement just simply because they have the deepest pockets. In this law that we passed, the Health Act of 2003, it would be proportioned depending upon their degree of responsibility, as well it should be.

Another provision is called collateral source disclosure. Collateral source disclosure simply means that a jury needs to know if an injured patient has health insurance, has disability income, because their injury has been eligible and is now receiving Social Security Disability benefits and by virtue of that is now eligible for Medicare. Under current law in most States, the jury is not permitted to know that as they calculate what a just and fair settlement or award should be. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what I would call double-dipping, and that is wrong.

Another provision of course in the bill that I talked about a little earlier was contingency lawyer fees, and I think they ought to get paid and they will get paid and they will do very well. I do not believe there is a shortage of attorneys in the State of California. I do not see any of them coming to Georgia, thank goodness. I think they are doing well out on the west coast and will continue to do well. But if we are going to have a shortage, I think most of the Members of this body, my colleagues, would agree it is probably a lot better to have a shortage of lawyers than a shortage of doctors because we need access to health care. And that is what this is all about, that and job creation and to take some relief off the men and women who are trying desperately to provide health care to their employees.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor, really, and a pleasure to come here tonight and talk about something that is very near and dear to me as a physician Member of this body. And in closing, my plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my fellow Republicans and those Members of the other body is to think about that statistic that I gave them a little bit earlier. Seventy-five percent of the American people want this, and they are not going to wait any longer. And if they do not get it, they are going to hold them responsible in 2006 just as they obviously did in 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the reverend Dr. Bob Patterson for his message today. Bob is no stranger to the halls of the United States House or to Georgia congressmen named Phil. When he was a young man growing up in Hall County, Georgia, in the 1970s, he was appointed to serve as a House page by then Congressman Phil Landrum, and later, he was on detached duty with the House Press Gallery during the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

But Bob did not answer to the siren song of politics. He returned to Georgia to finish college, and then he headed to Texas for seminary. Ministers are not known for staying in one place too long, but Bob has made his home at the First Baptist Church of Warm Springs, Georgia, since 1986.

Warm Springs, Georgia, should sound familiar to those who take a strong interest in American history. Even before he was elected President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a frequent visitor and a part- time resident. He was convinced that the warm spring water that existed there had a healing effect on his polio, and he set up an institute in this west Georgia community where other victims of the disease, many of them children, could come for care.

FDR built a house in Warm Springs that is known as the Little White House, and it was in this house in 1945 that the President died.

FDR saw Warm Springs as a place to serve others, and Bob Patterson has carried on that tradition in the heart of Meriwether County. The thesis for his doctoral dissertation was entitled ``Developing a Need- Based Community Ministry Strategy for First Baptist Church in Warm Springs.'' He has personally ministered to the needs in his local community by serving the Family Connection initiative. In fact, he has been honored by both the Rotary and the Pilot clubs for his outstanding contribution to all of Meriwether County.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor indeed to be a part of this time tonight to introduce our new Members of the Republican majority, and it is my distinct pleasure to talk about three of them, two who are from my State of Georgia who will be representing the sixth and the eighth congressional districts.

First of all, let me talk briefly about Dr. Tom Price. Dr. Price is an orthopedic surgeon. I have known him for many years. He served in the Georgia senate for 8 years, the past 8 years, and actually was a mentor to me when I was first elected to the senate and served for 4 years. Dr. Price at that time was the minority whip and went on to become the first senate majority leader, Republican majority leader, in the history of the Georgia general assembly.

As I say, Dr. Price has practiced medicine in northwest Atlanta for over 20 years as an orthopedic surgeon. He comes to the Congress to represent the sixth district and will do an absolutely fantastic job as he did in the Georgia general assembly. And it is certainly my honor, as a physician Member, to have a fellow physician serving with me. I think that will make eight or nine physician Members, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Congress, and to have two of them from the State of Georgia and actually two who represent the same county, Cobb County, that has got to be unprecedented.

Tom Price is married to his wife, Elizabeth, Betty, who is also a physician; and they have a 12-year-old son, Robert. It is a great honor to be able to introduce Dr. Price for the very first time this evening to my colleagues in the House.

Representative Lynn Westmoreland will be representing the Eighth Congressional District of Georgia, the district that has been represented so effectively by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for the past 12 years. Lynn Westmoreland is from Sharpsburg, Georgia. He and his wife, Joan, have three children and three grandchildren. Lynn has served in the Georgia House for 12 years and 2 years ago became minority leader. Lynn led the Georgia house as minority leader and was very instrumental in this last election cycle when Georgia finally took over control of both the senate and the house.

And I think a great deal of credit goes to these two gentlemen, Dr. Tom Price, who will be representing the sixth congressional district, and Representative Lynn Westmoreland in the eighth. I share counties with both of these Members. I commend them to my colleagues. They will work tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion as we continue the leadership that we have in this great body.

Last but not least, it is my distinct honor to introduce to the Members Representative Bobby Jindal. Bobby will be representing Louisiana's First Congressional District. He was born and raised in the State of Louisiana. He has served as a public servant in both health and education. Before entering politics, he served as Secretary for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. And most recently he was appointed by President Bush as a health policy adviser to the administration. Bobby Jindal has also served as president of the University of Louisiana system, and during his tenure, the universities there raised their graduation and retention rates, increased private donations and the number of endowed chair positions.

A graduate of Brown University and a graduate degree from Oxford, Bobby Jindal has received the National Jefferson Award by the American Institute for Public Service and the Christus Health Advocacy Award for Leadership. He has been married to his wife, Supriya, for 6 years and is the father of two children, Selia Elizabeth and Shaan Robert.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, it is indeed an honor to be part of this Special Order as we introduce the new Republican Members of the 109th Congress. We look forward to working with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay homage to the life of a fallen American hero, U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Tyler Hall Brown of Atlanta, Georgia. Lieutenant Brown was killed by sniper fire on September 14, 2004 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, a town 70 miles west of Baghdad. Tyler was leading his unit on a reconnaissance patrol in the Iraqi town when he and his unit were ambushed by insurgents. He was a heroic leader to his men even until his passing as he, though mortally wounded by the sniper's shot, was able to

give a warning to his men, preventing any others from being injured.

His fellow officer, Captain Daniel M. Gade considered Lieutenant Brown one of the finest officers he'd known, saying that he was an inspirational leader, both on and off the field of battle who during numerous enemy contacts, was calm, leading his men with bravery and aplomb. He loved his men, and they loved him in return.

That is how Tyler lived life, a born leader, a born officer that had a passion for people and a passion for life. His leadership qualities were identified early. While President of his high school senior class at Woodward Academy, his classmates considered him a politician in the making; patriotic, red, white and blue to the core; and figured he could even become President of the United Stated some day.

After high school, Tyler proudly followed in the footsteps of his father, Carey and his older brother, Brent to Georgia Tech, which is my alma mater. At Georgia Tech, Tyler served as President of the Student Government Association for the 1999-2000 academic year, a position that his father had also held while in school. His hard work, dedication, and commitment to inclusion inspired fellow students to become more involved on campus and to get the most out of their college days. Tyler graduated in 2001 with dual Bachelor of Science degrees in management and in history, society and technology. Commissioned from the ROTC program at Georgia Tech, he earned paratrooper's wings and completed the rigorous Army Ranger training course before joining the Army's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry, based at Camp Hovey in Tongduchon City, Korea.

Tyler was among 3,600 troops of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division deployed to Iraq in early September from South Korea. He had only been in Iraq 2 weeks when he was killed. Tyler had been approved for service in the Army's famous 3rd Infantry Regiment, known as the Old Guard, one of the oldest and most respected Infantry Regiments in the United States Army. The Old Guard has the responsibilities of guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, serving as the Army's ceremonial unit and, as an active and well-trained Infantry Regiment, the 3rd Infantry is also responsible for the protection of Washington, DC.

Instead of accepting this prestigious assignment he chose to go to Iraq with his men. That decision exemplified his life, putting the good of others in front of his own interests.

On September 28, Tyler finally was joined with the Old Guard as they escorted him to his final place of rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery. He was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, and the Combat Infantryman Badge for his heroic service.

I had the privilege of being present at his interment and to pay respect to a young man who in only 26 years had made a difference and touched more lives than many do in their entire life. As the bugler began to play taps and the honor guard fired a rifle volley salute, I couldn't help but look around at some of those lives who stood beside me and see the heaviness in their hearts and the sadness in their eyes, but I could tell we were saying goodbye to a truly special individual.

My heart went out to the Brown family, a proud American family giving so much to their country, as the flag that draped Tyler's coffin was folded and presented to his mother, Sally, and the medals that had been earned by the ultimate sacrifice were placed into the hands of his father.

The heavy rain that fell down that day was fitting to the somber mood created by this loss. Tyler Brown was a young man, a son, a brother, a friend, an officer, a leader who left this world with so much potential and so much ahead of him.

His brother Brent said that Tyler ``died for the country he loved, doing what he wanted to do. He lived well and died a hero. He lived life to the fullest, he truly did. He became a role model to me.''

Mr. Speaker, Tyler Brown in his life and in his death has become a role model to me, a role model for all of us. I salute his service to our nation, the love he showed to his family and all those with whom he came into contact. We know that he is in a better place now and pray this knowledge will provide some measure of comfort for his family in the days ahead.

Mr. and Mrs. Brown along with the entire Brown family are to be commended and honored for their sacrifice and my thoughts and prayers remain with them as they endure this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a man whose selfless service keeps the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District safe each and every day.

I recently had the privilege of attending a Public Safety Appreciation Breakfast to honor Officer Andrew Phillips of the Marietta Police Department with the Award of Merit.

The Award recognizes a public safety employee for an act of bravery involving great personal risk and saved lives. Officer Phillips was nominated for an incident in March, 2004, where he placed his life in jeopardy to protect other officers who had been shot as they were executing a search warrant in Mableton, Georgia. Instead of retreating, he pressed forward and returned the perpetrator's gunfire until the man surrendered.

By putting other's safety above his own, Andrew Phillips exemplified the highest bravery and professionalism in police work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Officer Phillips of Georgia's 11th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, our sailors, airmen and Marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, this is the year of the soldier, and this ``soldiers' bill,'' as the chairman describes it, does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services. From improving the Survivor Benefit Program to a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, this conference report addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time for America.

For our Reservists who have been activated, this bill will provide TRICARE standard coverage for them and their families while they are working to get their feet back on the ground when they return home. For every 90 days consecutive active duty service, the Reservists and their families are eligible for 1 year of TRICARE coverage while on nonactive duty status.

For our deployed soldiers, this conference report contains $728 million for new up-armored Humvees, $100 million for vehicle armor kits, and countless other provisions to protect our troops on the ground.

I am also grateful for the work the House Committee on Armed Services has done to fund the F/A-22 program this year. The funding for 24 planes will go a long way towards providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.