Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I also thank my friend from New Jersey for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 934, a resolution that supports the goals and ideals of a Plan Ahead with an Advance Directive Week. This resolution is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. It is endorsed by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and it is backed by the Cobb County Medical Society in Georgia, and commended to me by my friend and colleague, child psychiatrist Dr. Durk Huttinback.

As a physician for nearly 30 years, I wholeheartedly believe in executing advance directives. Every individual in this country, in every stage of life, should have conversations with their families, friends and loved ones regarding their wishes as they pertain to end- of-life care. Advance directives help clarify the desire of individuals to their health care providers, their care givers and family members during these difficult and trying times.

Advance directives are valuable tools to help communicate wishes about future medical care. Thoughtfully prepared advance directives can ease the burden on those who must make health care decisions for us. This resolution encourages all Americans to set aside time for what may very well be one of the most important conversations a family can ever have.

Giving advanced direction to those who are providing your medical care and explaining to your loved ones your wishes are essential ways to ensure that these wishes are fulfilled if those painful times present themselves and communication is not possible.

Mr. Speaker, I believe advance directives are a great avenue for facilitating these vitally important conversations, and therefore I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

The Federal Government can encourage the American people to have these conversations and take these important actions. By passing this resolution, groups like the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, as well as hospitals and nursing homes around the country can use this momentum to intensify the work they already are doing to notify and educate the American public on the importance of advance directives.

Advance directives are available to individuals through many different avenues. Each State government has a medical power of attorney form that a citizen can fill out and have witnessed. This then authorizes the appointed agent to make health care decisions on that individual's behalf.

In addition to State government and public health departments, there are many organizations and hospitals around the country that have advance directives available for patients and loved ones who may find themselves facing these tough decisions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it enough. This resolution simply encourages everyone to take a moment and discuss with their loved ones what their wishes would be in a health care situation where they are unable to communicate.

I encourage my colleagues to please take this opportunity to support these many fine organizations and institutions around the country who work tirelessly to support the simple goals of education and awareness. In addition and perhaps most importantly, this is a chance to take a moment and do what is in the best interest of patients and families in our great country. Please join me in supporting House Resolution 934.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Deal from Georgia, for yielding.

This slow-talking Georgia physician can't say a whole lot in a minute, but I hope my words will strike a nerve.

Just as the author's poster showed the striking of many nerves in this procedure called late-term abortion on these infants, the youngest of our children, I want to just relay to my colleagues an experience, a life-changing experience, if you will. We have twin granddaughters, identical twin granddaughters, born at 26 weeks. They will be soon celebrating their 10th birthday. So we watched them for 80 days in the neonatal intensive care nursery, and the neonatalogist would come by every day and say we are not going to stick their heel again today because it is too painful and we are going to make sure that we only draw blood when it is absolutely necessary. And I, as a physician, having delivered many of these premature, immature male infants, offer anesthesia before a circumcision procedure. It is required as part of an informed consent. So this is what this bill is about. It is informed consent carried to its logical extent, and it is an act of compassion.

I commend the gentleman for the bill because this is simply trying to make sure that the informed consent is there. And even the National Abortion Rights League does not oppose this bill, and I commend them for that.

I support wholeheartedly the legislation, and I commend Representative Smith for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, and Dr. Price, thank you for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on this. I appreciate Representative, Doctor Price, leading this hour. It is such an important issue and time, of course, is of the essence. The physicians, the chart that Dr. Price is showing, is a clear indication that, as he points out, Mr. Speaker, the cost of doing business, in this instance, the business of providing medical care to our seniors especially, continues to go up, as does the cost of doing business in any other profession.

Yet the reimbursement is not even staying level. Our physicians, our providers, are not just running in place, they are losing ground each and every year, and that therefore the need is to try to fix this ultimately on a permanent basis by eliminating this flawed formula, this so-called SGR way of reimbursing our providers.

But at this point we have to do something about the scheduled 5.1 percent decrease update, a loss of reimbursement for the fiscal year, or calendar year 2007. And we have a very short period of time to do this. Dr. Price and Dr. Boustany and Dr. Burgess and the other physicians, medical and dental, doctors in this House of Representatives, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, understand the urgency of this.

It is not about necessarily boosting the income of any of our providers, although those who practice the specialty of primary care, our pediatricians, our family practitioners, our general internists, their income is certainly not extravagant by any stretch of the imagination.

But it is really about, and I am sure that Dr. Price has already mentioned this, the availability of providers for our seniors. That pressure is getting greater each and every day. Thank God, they are living longer and healthier lives, and I think the Medicare part D provision that we passed in November of 2003 is really adding to that well-being, that our seniors are going to get the benefit of a prescription drug coverage that they never had.

But if we don't have any of these primary care physicians willing to accept these patients because we are not paying them enough to even reimburse their practice overhead, much less a small profit margin, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, then the situation gets worse and worse.

So thank you to my colleague and friend, Dr. Price. As a physician, Members are here today to try to emphasize the importance to each and every Member, to our leadership. Let's get this done. Let's make sure that we not only mitigate a 5.1 percent loss that is calculated on the basis of this flawed formula, but let's have a positive, a slight increase of maybe 1 percent for all of our providers. Then if voluntary reporting is a part of this bill, then, fine, increase it a little bit more. That is an issue that Dr. Price may want to discuss in more detail as we go forward in the hour.

But I want to thank him again for taking the leadership on this issue and giving me an opportunity to weigh in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a great man who led a purpose-driven life that touched many in my State of Georgia and around the country. Unfortunately, he lost his life Friday afternoon in Marietta, Georgia, riding home from work at Kennestone Hospital on his motorcycle, just a mile and a half from his home.

Dr. Robert Lipson, the chief executive officer and president of Wellstar

Health System, was a man of honor and genuine character. For 5 years, he has boldly led Wellstar, a renowned health system of five hospitals in northwest Georgia. Under his leadership, the Wellstar Kennestone Hospital recently gained an open heart surgery program and an expanded 84-bed patient care tower. Moreover, he has worked to attract world- class physicians to the entire five-hospital system.

Before moving to Atlanta, Dr. Lipson obtained his medical degree from Tulane University, and then he served his country for 2 years in the United States Army. When he moved to Cobb County, he began his 25 years of practicing internal medicine at Kennestone Hospital, and it was my good fortune to meet him then, and we became close friends and colleagues, often caring for each other's patients.

When Dr. Lipson saw the great need for primary care physicians in his community, he decided to leave his lucrative practice and put together the Wellstar team. There, he helped build the Wellstar Physicians Group, which currently is comprised of 250 physicians who are responsible for nearly a million annual patient visits in Northwest Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Lipson will also be remembered as a prolific philanthropist. He was known for his generous spirit, always willing to support charities that needed his help. And due to the financial success of the system he led, he was able to give back compassionately to the community.

Dr. Lipson was also an esteemed amateur photographer, with his art being most recently displayed at Kennesaw State University in Cobb County. And admirers of his work describe the photographs as, and I quote, ``awe inspiring,'' and him as a remarkable talent.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough about this fine man, a man who did more in his too-short 60 years than many can aspire to in a much longer lifetime. Dr. Lipson is survived by his gracious wife, Livvy; his daughter, Dr. Rachel Lipson, who is a practicing neonatologist in Boston; and his son, Aaron, who specializes in health care law. His family meant so much to him, and I want to offer my sincere condolences to them during this time of their profound loss of a loving husband, a devoted father and devoted grandfather.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Rules Committee colleague for yielding the time.

I rise in support today for this rule and, of course, the underlying conference report, H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Rogers and, of course, our dear friend Martin Sabo for their tireless effort in keeping our homeland safe.

H.R. 5441 is one more piece of pro-security legislation advanced by this Congress, and its passage prior to our adjournment, Mr. Speaker, is critical to ensuring funding for homeland security programs that do keep our Nation safe.

This is a comprehensive bill. It addresses several aspects of our porous border problem. It provides increased technologies for use in explosion detection. It beefs up maritime and chemical security and, most importantly, overhauls FEMA.

As we know a big part of keeping our homeland safe is protecting these borders. The bill includes $1.8 billion in emergency funding for border and maritime security. It includes $1.2 billion for the construction of a border fence, and it provides for the hiring of an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and includes a commonsense provision brought forth by our chairman of the Rules Committee criminalizing the construction of border tunnels.

However, Mr. Speaker, despite the great things in this legislation, I realize that it is not a perfect bill. One of the most notable problems is securing our ports of entry with better background check technology. As you remember, we passed language in the 9/11 bill and in the REAL ID Act last year to require biometric passports by a certain deadline, along with the proper equipment to read the high-tech identification. The deadline was extended 6 months, and with this appropriation bill, unfortunately, it is extended another 17 months because someone in the other Chamber from a northern border State put language in there to further delay this crucial, crucial program. We cannot afford to keep extending the deadline when our security is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, shoe bomber Richard Reed, we all remember him, entered our country on an unsecured visa waiver. This visa waiver program allows 28 countries, their folks, to come into this

country with nothing, really, to prove their identification. He came in with a visa waiver. We have to know who is coming into our country to prevent terrorists from having a free pass.

Despite all the improvements made in this appropriations bill, they are meaningless without securing our ports of entry.

Mr. Speaker, all week long we have witnessed this Congress passing legislation to fund critical Department of Defense programs, to try terrorist detainees in military courts and to listen in on the communications of terrorist operatives plotting our destruction. Heather Wilson from New Mexico explained that so well yesterday on this floor.

It is unfortunate that throughout this week we have witnessed obstructionism on just about every front and some on the other side advocating for a cautious approach to fighting terrorism out of concern of treating the terrorists fairly. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong approach, and we must remain aggressive in our efforts to keep America safe.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep this in mind, to ensure we give our government the tools it needs to protect our homeland.

I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me this time.

As my colleague pointed out in his remarks, this is about a same-day rule. It is very simple and straightforward, as Mr. Putnam explained so clearly. We are asking this body to allow us to debate and pass legislation regarding military commissions so that we can try and bring to justice these terrorists. And by the way, 164 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday voted against that.

Also in this same-day rule is to allow us to address this issue of wiretapping necessary to listen to the conversations, international conversations between al Qaeda and people in this country who would do us harm, to modernize that 1978 law which needs modernization to protect our American people. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and did not intend to speak on this rule, but I heard my colleagues talk about all of these issues and things that we haven't done, and then they got to the Medicare modernization and the all-important prescription drug part D plan for Medicare that we finally delivered to our American seniors back in November of 2003 when they have been asking for the 40 years that the Democrats controlled this body for relief and got now. And now they are railing against this issue saying it is a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry and that we would not allow government price controls. No, we would not because we don't like price controls. We want the free market to determine the prices; and, indeed, they can't deny the fact that the prices are coming down. This is working, and they can't stand it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out finally that in their version of the bill, and I will mention just one, back in 2000, Congressman Stark of the Ways and Means Committee had a bill that included the very same language in regard to no government price controls, let the free market work, and 204 Democrats voted in favor of that.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman knows that in the defense appropriations bill, that we have language in there right now that would allow it to be legal for our seniors that live at or close to the border to go across the border either into Canada or Mexico and buy those lower priced drugs.

But the point is this bill, Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act, is lower in prices to the point where all of that is not even necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding.

I just wanted to come down quickly and support Representative Issa and H. Con. Res. 473, this resolution regarding gynecologic cancer.

I spent a lot of years in my former life as a practitioner of the specialty of gynecology and obstetrics, and that dreaded fear of the big C-word, cancer, for women, particularly ovarian cancer that is so deadly. That is why it is so important that this resolution be brought forward to the Congress and bring some recognition to this dreaded disease.

Mr. Issa and I were talking earlier today about ovarian cancer, in particular, and how difficult it is to detect. It is commonly thought you can do a blood test, but it is not a good screening test for ovarian cancer. There are other things that we can do, and we need to make sure that the American public and our colleagues in the Congress are aware of that. It costs money, certainly, but it saves lives.

I wanted to drop in for a few seconds, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I urge Members to support this very, very important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know I talk slow, but I hope I won't take 3 minutes. But I appreciate the opportunity.

I mentioned just a moment ago that my specialty was gynecology, but there is another part to that, and it is the obstetrical part, the birth and babies part. So it is an honor and a pleasure to be here and to support H. Res. 402; and I want to thank my physician colleague in this House and another OB/GYN, Dr. Mike Burgess, Representative Burgess from Texas, who also practiced OB/GYN for 17 years, for bringing this resolution; and, also, of course, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Westmoreland; and my good friend from Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis just said it perfectly. When you lose babies in the first year of life at the rate of 7 per 1,000 live births and we are 28th among industrialized nations and we brag about the fact that we have the greatest health care system in the world, there is something wrong with that picture. And, as he pointed out, it is even worse for African American minorities; and the big problem, of course, is lack of prenatal care. Deaths occur because of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. We are still struggling to figure out why that occurs, but we clearly know why prematurity occurs, low birth weight babies that Representative Davis was talking about, and we can do something about that.

So this resolution is very timely, supporting the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality Awareness Month; and I just want to thank the gentleman for letting me put in my 2 cents worth in regard to this very, very important issue.

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

I too want to thank Representative Latham for bringing this resolution to the floor and stressing the importance to make people understand that a million babies lost a year, in addition to probably another million or so that are aborted deliberately, is a lot of lost lives.

Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this resolution is to let people know that when couples have a miscarriage, it is a child. It might be for some people, well, it is just a miscarriage. They were only 6 weeks or they were only 9 weeks, and they did not even know whether it was a boy or girl.

But in the minds of that couple in many instances it is their very first pregnancy, and they are already thinking about that little boy or the little girl and what the name is going to be and the clothes that they are going to pick out and the joys they are going to have sending that child to school and raising it and seeing it play sports and become an adult some day and contribute to our great society.

We tend to forget that. And this was brought home to me pretty vividly recently when my daughter-in-law, pregnant with their first child, found out at 10 weeks that the baby did not have a heartbeat. And so that baby was lost. And she went on, of course, and miscarried. And that loss will be with them forever. And so I think it is just so important for us all to realize that when somebody, when you hear about somebody having a miscarriage, do not think, well, it was just a miscarriage, it is not like losing a child or an older child, which of course I do not know that anything compares to that.

But this is a significant loss. And that is why this resolution today is so important. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Congressman Latham for bringing it forward and Congressman Davis as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am sitting here listening to the two gentlemen speak; I am ready to grab my bat and glove and hat and furthermore take me off the streets so I can go out and play ball again.

But they are absolutely right. This is a fantastic achievement from this team from Columbus, Georgia. I am especially proud to share a few moments, because I have part of Columbus in my district. This team is from Representative Westmoreland's district, but what a great community Columbus is, Muscogee County, and the great people there. I know they are so proud of this young ball team and the coaches.

Of course we have already mentioned names. I am sure that one of those coaches decided to ask that team from Japan to join in that victory lap. That is the kind of sportsmanship that is developed by these men and women that volunteer their time to work with our youth and achieve such great results.

My colleague from Georgia, Congressman Westmoreland, mentioned that we had another team from Georgia. Indeed, back in 1983, and my nurse,

I was, of course, in medical practice at the time. Her son was the third baseman on that team.

And he today is a medical doctor, a radiologist. But he was a great little ball player. And I think one of the players on that team was a dominant pitcher just like in this year, that led them to victory. He ultimately was a major league baseball pitcher.

But what happens with most of these kids, of course, is that they go on to other careers, like Adam Olmsted. Ken and Lynn's son is, as I say, a doctor now. And they go on to very successful careers. And it is not often that they go on to become Major League Baseball players.

But the ideals, the sportsmanship, the determination, the relationship they have with their teammates is the thing that they learn, that they take with them through life. And it makes their lives successful no matter what endeavor they pursue.

So we have honored these young players at Georgia Tech halftime, University of Georgia halftime. I want to say to any of them that go on and play college baseball, do not go to Auburn or Alabama just to cross the river. Stay in Columbus, go to LaGrange College, University of Georgia, Bulldogs, Georgia Tech, Kennesaw State University. We have got some great baseball teams in Georgia, and that is where we want them to play.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Putnam, for yielding.

I rise today fully in support of this rule and the underlying legislation for H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006, because I believe protecting innocent Americans from terrorist plots is one of our government's most critical duties.

This bill updates the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to authorize the expanded use of electronic surveillance on suspected terrorists, with mandated congressional oversight. Its immediate passage is absolutely essential to prevent future terrorist attacks against this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, much has changed since FISA was enacted in 1978. The war on terror has replaced the Cold War as our preeminent national security issue. There have been monumental advances in technology, and our terrorist adversaries are capitalizing on these changes in technology as they aggressively plot our destruction. If we are to be prepared for the foremost threat to our Nation's safety today, the 1978 bill must be amended for the realities of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the international, let me repeat, international communication of suspected terrorists inside the United States, while respecting our citizens' privacy.

Simply put, this bill streamlines the process by which a FISA warrant can be obtained. It gives NSA more time to conduct emergency surveillance on suspected terrorists without a warrant, and it allows the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for up to 90 days of suspected terrorists when it is believed an attack on America is imminent.

While this bill helps us stop terrorists before they inflict destruction, it also protects the rights of law-abiding United States citizens by requiring our President to inform Congress and the FISA court of these emergency surveillances.

Mr. Speaker, authorizing the electronic surveillance of terrorists is a matter of common sense. By listening to the phone conversations of al Qaeda members and of organizations working in support of al Qaeda, we stand to learn much more about their terrorist activities, including likely targets of attack.

Mr. Speaker, I was tremendously disappointed that 160 of my Democratic colleagues voted yesterday against the Military Commissions Act, and I am still struggling to understand why. But I am hopeful that they will not vote today to limit our ability to monitor the terrorists' phone calls so that we can disrupt these devastating plots.

In any regard, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to the safety of this Nation. To ensure that we give our government the tools it needs to fight and win the war on terror, I urge support for this rule on both sides of the aisle and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank President Bush for declassifying key judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate so the American people can understand the absolute critical importance of our war on terror, and why the bills we are debating this week, from defense appropriations to military commissions, are essential to keeping America safe and our homeland secure.

Mr. Speaker, despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might claim, American is not responsible for the rise of terrorism. We did not bring this war on the terrorists. They brought this upon themselves when they attacked freedom and our way of life in Kenya, Tanzania, aboard the USS Cole, New York City, Pennsylvania, and right here in Washington, D.C. on September 11.

America has a winning strategy of relentlessly hunting down those who wish us harm, and working to defeat terrorism by encouraging democracy in the Middle East. If the terrorists are emboldened by the spread of this newfound freedom, it is because they know that free people will terminate the terrorist way of life.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incumbent upon us and this body to give President Bush, our CIA, and our military the tools they need to prevent future attacks on our Nation.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me this week in voting to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the rule for H.R. 6166.

I hear from a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and particularly heard in our hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee, a complaint about process.

I understand that, Mr. Speaker. That is what the minority party does. That is what we would do if we were in that situation. That is what we have done in the past. I understand those complaints about process.

But this is now where the rubber meets the road. This is about policy. This is a bill that we need their full support on. The men and women that work in our intelligence community, the CIA agents, the interrogators, the military personnel, they need our support. We shouldn't be giving more rights to the terrorists than we do to our own people who are fighting every day to protect us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that these detainees, whether they are in prison in eastern Europe or at Guantanamo Bay, they are not there because they were caught chewing bubble gum in class, or throwing spitballs. These are very, very bad guys that were caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan with weapons in hand. Or in some instances, preparing improvised explosive devices to blow our young men and women to smithereens. So I don't think they deserve any special rights. They deserve the right to counsel and a fair trial, and that is what we are giving them. These people are out of uniform. They are not fighting for any particular government. They are targeting civilians. They are beheading the prisoners, including Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and from my own district, Mr. Speaker, a government contract worker, a husband and a father, Jack Helmsley.

They don't qualify for rights under the Geneva Convention, even though the President has tried to extend them those rights. The Supreme Court, of course, in their recent ruling, says we have to do that, so that is what we are doing. We are giving them rights. We are being a whole lot kinder to them than they ever would be to us because of our moral standards. I think that is important.

I think this is a bill that gets it right and it deserves the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I hope my colleagues, when the rubber meets the road, when we get to the vote, they will think about policy and not process.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1038 is a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1038 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as you and many others may have noticed, if you look up from the front podium, in the center of the molding above the gallery is a sculpture of Moses, the man who freed the slaves in Egypt and introduced God's law to man. Moses is at the forefront of all of the great legal scholars depicted in this Chamber because of his responsibilities as both a religious leader and the custodian of God's law.

The Ten Commandments are the foundation of common law and the ``rights endowed by our Creator.'' However, in recent decades, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols, and religious liberties in general have been under attack. More specifically, they have been under attack by the same interests that claim to represent civil liberties and free speech.

On July 19, 2005, a month after the Supreme Court ruled on the two Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, United States District Court Judge William O'Kelley ruled in my home State of Georgia that the courthouse in Barrow County, my daughter-in-law's home, had to remove a framed poster of the Ten Commandments and awarded the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, $150,000.

Mr. Speaker, small counties like Barrow cannot afford these costly lawsuits; and my daughter-in-law's parents, Emory and Pat House of Winder, Georgia, experienced an increase in their taxes to help pay for these court costs and the legal fees.

This past July, we had a debate over legislation to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, from having to remove a cross. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder how those Korean War veterans, many of whom gave their lives for this country, might have felt had that cross been removed from their memorial cemetery. Thankfully, Mr. Hunter's legislation passed and was signed into law, but I am stunned at how far our society has fallen when people are compelled to sue a major city to have a cross removed from, of all places, a memorial cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow frivolous and, frankly, unwarranted lawsuits to stifle the beliefs and self-determination of our great communities. This is a textbook example of an issue that needs to be addressed by this Congress.

I have always believed that one man's rights end where another man's rights begin, and we need to draw the line to clarify our first amendment and ensure impartiality for legal challenges.

The rule we are debating today would allow for the consideration of H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006. I want to thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Sensenbrenner for the opportunity to discourage frivolous obstruction to our constitutional rights of religious expression.

The Public Expression of Religion Act would prevent Federal courts from

awarding monetary relief to parties claiming violations based on the constitutionally prohibited ``establishment of religion.'' In addition, H.R. 2679 would prevent plaintiffs who have won such claims from being awarded attorneys' fees and so-called court expenses.

However, what is more concerning is when a defendant decides, a city or county like Barrow and Winder, Georgia, to settle without challenging the frivolous accusations not because they could not win but because they cannot match the challenger's legal war chest. H.R. 2679 will ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit shoulders its own costs.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the issue of religious expression, this is an issue about lawsuit reform. We need to move away from this current sue- or-be-sued society, which offers little to no repercussions for those seeking financial gain or the advancement of some personal or political agenda.

As many of my colleagues know, before being elected to this Congress, I had a career as an OB/GYN physician. Most of my patients thought I was a successful, good doctor, but I was in constant fear of medical liability lawsuits, like many of my colleagues, and struggled to make these exorbitant malpractice insurance payments. As a result, one of my primary objectives as a retired doctor now and Member of Congress is to help pass medical malpractice reform and, as a direct result, reduce the cost of health care. What we have with the Establishment Clause litigation is very similar, because the multiple lawsuits tie up our court system and they affect everybody.

Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is a revolutionary and sacred document on many levels. Our Founding Fathers had great foresight when they designed our government. The first amendment is an absolute right and should not be misinterpreted to allow these attacks on our freedom of religion. The attack on our religious heritage is just as wrong as denying a person the freedom to worship. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And it is my hope that with the passage of this legislation we can prevent future Barrow County rulings and preserve our Nation's heritage.

I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talking about the rights of people to sue, and that this bill would discourage that right because we are taking away the ability to recover monetary damages or legal fees and court costs, the American Civil Liberties Union probably files most of these lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs. They have said very clearly that their motivation is not fees, is not compensation. If there were no fees involved, they would continue to file these lawsuits even though in many cases of course there are tremendous legal fees and court costs awarded, monetary damages.

I want to just, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, list a few examples of what I am talking about. I mentioned already in my home State of Georgia, Barrow County of the $150,000 cost. And that small struggling county elected to defend themselves. And that is what it ended up costing them.

Another example. The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the city of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts. The ACLU received $121,000 in Kentucky in a case to remove a Ten Commandments monument outside of the capitol.

The ACLU and two other groups received nearly $550,000 in an Alabama case to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I could go on and on and on. But in regard to rights, this case as we will hear, I am sure, from the author of the legislation as we discuss the bill, is not about removing anybody's rights under the establishment clause, not at all.

But we are talking about the rights of these small counties and cities, which represent a lot of people, and their ability to defend themselves when they have not violated the Constitution at all. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and a freedom from the imposition of a state religion, but it does not call for the total elimination of religion and the removal of a cross from a veterans cemetery in San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, if we continue down this line, pretty soon Moses will be removed from this Chamber based on the same argument. So I say to my friend from the other side that we need a balancing of rights. That is what this is all about. Let's level the playing field. We are not eliminating anybody's constitutional rights under the establishment clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana for the purpose of clarification and response to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I reserve my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring the Public Expression of Religion Act and Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the principles of life, liberty, and property make up the foundation of our constitutional Republic. Under liberty, we are guaranteed the freedom to worship as we please, a freedom that should be protected and not taken for granted. The freedom of religion is one of the positive social institutions in our country, and we should encourage this constitutional protection throughout the world.

Almost every State in the Union has chosen to acknowledge God within its State constitutions. However, too often today, overzealous courts have infringed upon an individual's right to worship. Courts have attempted to ban holiday decorations reflecting religious traditions such as Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs from school events. Federal courts have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses across our country, sought to remove the words ``in God we trust'' from our currency, as well as remove emblems from State seals, flags and logos.

As I stated earlier, these attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous and unwarranted. For every decision a court makes, there are countless out-of-court settlements and even more pending lawsuits aimed at removing anything that acknowledges a divine authority.

The debate over religious freedom is old and contentious, but it should be fair. When organizations like the ACLU are rewarded, rewarded, for filing lawsuits, it is not a fair debate. Congress needs to close that loophole, to restore impartiality to our system of justice, and it needs to act on preventing frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, will help protect the freedom of religion, restore impartiality and reduce lawsuits.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1039 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1039 is a closed rule which allows one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin debate on the rule for S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, I want to refresh the memories of some of my colleagues and offer historical context to Members who were not here in early 2005.

Last year, on April 27, I sponsored and managed a rule to consider H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This rule passed by a vote of 234-192, including the support of eight Democrats. Two Democratic amendments were considered and failed by a recorded vote. No Republican amendments were considered to H.R. 748, and the legislation passed by a vote of 270-157, which included the support of 54 Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. However, this time we will consider the legislation passed by our colleagues in the Senate. S. 403 passed the Senate by a vote of 65-34 two months ago, and it is a very close facsimile to H.R. 748. Indeed, it is almost identical to the House bill.

So, as I begin my remarks, I would like to recognize and thank Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her dedication and leadership not only on

the House version of this legislation but also on the overall issue of protecting children.

Likewise, I would like to offer a special thank you to Senator John Ensign of Nevada for sponsoring today's legislation and both the Senate and House leadership for their willingness to address this vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, like the debate we had in April of 2005, I anticipate that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's so-called right to choose. Despite this allegation, S. 403 has nothing to do with Supreme Court imposed rights but simply ensures that no minor is deprived of protection by her parents under the laws of her State.

S. 403 is a common sense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor.

In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the law. In other words, this bill not only ensures the protection of minors, but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parent from her home State.

The Child Custody Protection Act also affirms the principles of Federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Thirty-four States, let me repeat, 34 States have passed parental notification laws. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature passed a new abortion notification law just last year in overwhelming and, I might add, bipartisan fashion. Now this legislative body has the responsibility to defend that Federalism and the integrity of State laws on interstate matters.

Mr. Speaker, I can address this issue wearing three different hats. As an OB/GYN physician who has delivered many babies over the course of a 31-year medical career; as a Member of Congress; and, most importantly, as a proud father.

I have four children, three of whom are grown women and two of them with children of their own. As a father, I have an obligation to defend my children and grandchildren against danger. As a Member of this body, of Congress, I have the same obligation to the children and grandchildren of every parent in this country. As a physician, I have the obligation under the Hippocratic Oath to, in the first place, do no harm.

The Child Custody Protection Act recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and a child, and it reaffirms the obligation of a parent to be involved and help make important decisions affecting both the life and health of a minor child.

In a society where children cannot be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly believe that having an abortion is less traumatic than taking an aspirin. However, I understand that this is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to S. 403.

During this debate I want to encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children.

I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and pass this much- needed underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to

the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the gentleman from Massachusetts know I have no other requests for time, and I will reserve for the purpose of closing.

Madam Speaker, as I close this debate, I want to respond to some of the points that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have stated. They stated their concern about situations where a minor has been raped or a minor has been abused by her own parent, indeed, a case of incest and what do you want to do about that. I want to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, indeed, on both sides of the aisle understand that there are clear exceptions in this bill. And they are important. They are very important exceptions, and I don't argue with that point that is made.

Let me, Madam Speaker, enumerate a couple of those exceptions. It allows an out-of-state abortion to be performed without parental notification if it is done to save the life of the minor. And it allows an out-of-state abortion, and this is most important to that point, an out-of-state abortion to be performed where a physician is given documentation showing that the court in the minor's home State has waived parental notification requirements which certainly would be waived in those situations.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me reemphasize the importance of Senate bill S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for our minors. Almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws according to a poll conducted by the New York Times, yet current State laws can be circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.

I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we can talk about process all day long, you have a right, but to vote against this rule and this bill is just beyond my imagination.

With over 30 States already requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and a moral duty to children and to their parents to make sure State laws are upheld to prevent nonguardians from making medical decisions for our children.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, our Nation's parents and children deserve better, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need. Again, I would like to thank

the sponsors of this legislation, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Mr. Ensign in the Senate; and I want to thank all of my colleagues who support efforts to preserve the authority of parents to oversee the well-being of their own children.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.