Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage all Americans to take the time to prepare an advance directive. November is National Hospice and Palliative Care Month, and this month should serve as a reminder for individuals to take the time to discuss with their loved ones important end-of-life and medical decisions.

As people discuss their end-of-life health care wishes, there are two legal documents that can help. The first is a living will. Living wills are probably the most recognizable and familiar document to aid individuals in communicating their wishes.

However, Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the American public to a different type of advance directive, a medical power of attorney. A medical power of attorney, or health care proxy, allows you to appoint a person whom you trust to serve as your health care agent.

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 an individual's behalf. Mr. Speaker, people should not be scared away by these forms; they are written in plain English, and they are very easy to fill out.

I have brought with me an example from my home State of Georgia in order to illustrate how easy this process can be for the American public. The form is simple and straightforward, and is only 6 pages long. I have highlighted two sections for us to look at today.

First is the portion where you identify yourself and then name your power of attorney, and I call my colleagues' attention to the first poster. It may be a little bit difficult to read from the back of the Chamber but basically, Georgia's statuary short form durable power of attorney for health care. And the instructions, again, pretty simple. Print the date, print your name and address, print the name and address of your agent. It is that simple. This authorizes the individual to act for you and, as my colleagues can see, in Georgia, you have the opportunity to initial the statement also. This is the second poster, Mr. Speaker, to check the box really that best reflects your wishes, and there are three. It is just a simple, initial process.

The first one is, I do not want my life to be prolonged, nor do I want life-sustaining or death-delaying treatment, et cetera.

The second check box: I want my life to be prolonged, and I want life-sustaining or death-delaying treatment to be provided, under certain circumstances.

And then the last box, and again, a simple check: I want my life to be prolonged to the greatest extent possible without regard to my condition, the chances I have for recovery, or the cost of the procedure. It is as simple as that.

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

Mr. Speaker, executing living wills and powers of attorney are so important, I plan to introduce legislation next week that encourages all Americans at all stages of life to prepare these advance directives. My legislation will offer a one-time, refundable tax credit to those individuals who prepare an advance directive.

The refundability of this tax credit is essential in incentivizing lower-income Americans, who often are unaware or unable to adequately prepare for end-of-life medical decisions, to prepare advance directives to ensure that their wishes are honored and valuable health care resources are used where they are needed and wanted.

Mr. Speaker, it has been shown that medical care at the end of life consumes almost 15 percent of our country's health care budget and nearly 30 percent of the Medicare budget. In addition, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, it has been estimated that hospice care and advance directives can save between 25 and 40 percent of health care costs just during the last month of life.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government needs to provide an incentive to the American people to have these conversations and to take these important actions. It is not only in the best interests of patients and families, but also our country's health care system and the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding, and I do want to speak a little bit about the Medicaid program.

The gentlewoman from Tennessee and the struggle that that State has had with their Medicaid program and TennCare, the cutbacks that have been necessary, she understands as well as anybody how important it is to make sure that these programs work the way they were intended to work, Mr. Speaker.

As the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) points out, we are not talking about cutting anything. We are talking about reforming government. I mean, this Republican majority has a plan to reform government, to effect savings for our taxpayers and to spend their money wisely and efficiently and to spend it for those who have the need and to eliminate all this waste, fraud and abuse that is so rampant in government and certainly in the Medicaid program.

But as the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) points out, this is no cut. The reduction in the growth rate is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. Medicaid, over the last 5 years and in this current fiscal year, is growing at 7.3 percent a year, 7.3 percent a year growth rate. So we have in this plan to cut that growth rate by three- tenths of 1 percent, cut it from 7.3 percent to 7 percent over the next 5 years.

Today, in fiscal year 2006, before this cut, we are spending $200 billion with a B on the Federal part of Medicaid. Over a 5-year period, in 2010, because of that 7 percent rate of growth, we will be spending $260 billion. So our colleagues on the other side, they want to say, oh, you are cutting, you are cutting to the bone, you are taking away. They call it Robin Hood taking away from the poor and giving to the rich.

This program, Mr. Speaker, will continue to grow at a healthy 7 percent rate, but we are talking about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. Yes, we are going to cut that. We are going to cut out this situation where people are gaming the system and it happens. It happens in every State, including my own.

What is so tragic about that is that then you end up taking money away from those people, those pregnant women, those young children, those aged and infirm that really, really need our help. With this plan and these savings that we can effect, that is who the help will go to, exactly where it is needed.

I want to take a little time to explain one thing that I think is so important that my colleagues and anybody who might be listening to these proceedings tonight understands very clearly.

With long-term care in this country, we have a huge problem; and it is shocking when you find out that probably 70 percent of nursing home care is paid for with Medicaid dollars. Some of those people who are in long-term care facilities, a skilled nursing home is what I am referring to, they clearly are low income. They do not have the financial wherewithal once their Medicare benefit runs out, and it does pretty quickly; and they need to have that Medicaid benefit.

But 70 percent of all expenditures for skilled nursing home care is coming out of the Medicaid program. Something is wrong with that, and what it is is people and maybe it is not the individual so much as a smart lawyer figuring out a way to game the system.

So in this reform, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that if a person, an individual, has more than $500,000, I believe that is a half a million if my math is correct, if an individual has more than $500,000 equity in their home, then they are not going to be eligible for Medicaid to pick up the tab for nursing home care.

What is happening, and we are going to eliminate this, is that families, and I guess in a way I can understand their thinking, but it is just not right, they do not think about the fact that it is taking needed dollars away from people that really need this benefit.

As an example, say mom or dad needs to go into a nursing home, a skilled

nursing home, and is going to be there for a long time. They may have $750,000 in equity in their home. So all of a sudden they figure out a way to transfer the ownership to a son or a daughter or a first cousin and let mom or dad rent the house and live in the house or pay out of their Social Security check.

That is totally wrong. I think my colleagues understand that, and I think the American people understand that.

So we, again, are not talking about cutting benefits to people that really need them. We are trying to make sure that in this reform we get the dollars where they need to be. That is really what it is all about, cutting out waste, fraud and abuse and spending the money efficiently and effectively. That is what we are doing.

I really appreciate the gentlewoman from Tennessee for leading this hour and giving me the opportunity to talk about this. You see, I spent 30 years practicing medicine and seeing some of these patients and writing prescriptions for those who need that Medicaid benefit. So I know how important it is to do it the right way, and I commend my leadership in the Republican majority for facing up to the problem we have.

I can remember, and I will say this in closing, Mr. Speaker, when we were trying to bring some sense in solvency to the Social Security program for our needy seniors, the other side of the aisle said, Well, you know, you do not need to be doing this because the need is in Medicare and Medicaid. It is going to run out of money much quicker; you need to reform that. Why are you all spending your time on Social Security?

So here Social Security seems to have been pushed off to the back burner, much to their satisfaction, and we are trying to deal with the problems of Medicare and especially Medicaid.

Every one of our 50 States is suffering. Governor Huckaby, Republican Governor from Arkansas, and Governor Warner, Democratic Governor of Virginia, both agreed with a bipartisan governors' report that we need to do this. So this is what we are talking about.

And with that, I will yield back to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for controlling the hour, for bringing this important information to us, and for allowing me to weigh in on it.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting that the other side of the aisle, when we had a plan to reform another mandatory, big, mandatory spending part of our budget, and that is Social Security, they wanted to say that, no, we do not need to be addressing that right now, because we have other more serious problems, we have the serious problem with the mandatory spending in Medicare and Medicaid. So while they did not want to address the needed reform, good reform to save money and sustain that program for our seniors, for their retirement, now we want to try to come forward, this Republican leadership, with a plan, a good plan of government reform, so that we can effect meaningful savings, and that is exactly what we are here to talk about this afternoon. I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to weigh in on one of those items in particular, and that is the Medicaid program.

The Medicaid program is so out of control that it is rapidly approaching 50 percent of our State budgets. Within another 5 years, if we do not do something to control and to reform Medicaid spending, Mr. Speaker, then we will be up to 80 percent, and it will not be in the too distant future that it will absorb the total amount of our State budgets. We cannot let that happen.

In fact, the Governors Conference did great work on this. I want to commend the Democratic Governor of Virginia, Governor Warner, and the Republican Governor of Arkansas, Governor Huckabee, who together took this as an ad hoc committee that took on this responsibility and made some very, very significant, needed suggestions to reform Medicaid.

A perfect example would be in those States who are under a waiver program, Mr. Speaker, that allow Medicaid coverage for people up to 150, 185 percent of the poverty level, at those higher levels to start having a little bit of a copay, just a little bit of a copay, maybe $3 on a generic drug or $5 on a brand-name prescription that their physicians feel that they need, and possibly even, yes, for the higher- income people under the waiver program to have a little bit of a deductible, to ask them, to ask these beneficiaries to show a little bit of responsibility for their own health, for their own health care, and how the spending is utilized.

The gentleman from Texas is absolutely right: We desperately need Medicaid reform. Just listen to this: We want to put Medicaid on a more sustainable path; grow it, yes, absolutely. We are not here today to talk about cutting. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are always wanting to scare people, the poor, the elderly, the infirm: These greedy Republicans are on the verge of cutting your benefits. Not at all. It is just reducing the growth rate by one-tenth of 1 percent. We need to do that. Who would argue that we need to root out waste, fraud, and abuse from the Medicaid program or, in fact, the Medicare program? We want to make sure that we give flexibility to the States to enact, if need be, some copays and some deductibles.

But pharmaceutical spending is out of control, as it certainly is. Listen to this: Medicaid once paid $5,336 for a prescription that only cost the pharmacist $88 to obtain. The Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General found, this was back in 2002, that Medicaid reimbursements exceeded pharmacists' true costs during that year, 2002, exceeded the actual cost by $1.5 billion.

Every dollar wasted on overpayment is a dollar that does not go to the patients who truly need that benefit.

Well, let me repeat that, because I know it sounds unbelievable. It is even more unbelievable than the gentleman from Texas just stated. Medicaid once paid $5,000, not $1,000, but $5,336 for a prescription that only cost the pharmacist $88 to obtain. Now, was that a mistake on the part of the pharmacist? Possibly. We are not trying to single out any individual.

But the point is that there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse; and this oversight is needed. We absolutely need it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question. Another thing that is astounding, and I think that we cannot state this often enough, is the fact that the nursing home reimbursements in this country, probably close to 80 percent of nursing home reimbursement is through the Medicaid program, and most of those dollars are Federal tax dollars. There is a State match, of course. For example, in my State, it is 60/ 40. The States with lower average incomes appropriately pay less. But when we are in a situation where people game the system to get their loved ones into a nursing home and hide their wealth, I mean, it is understandable why they might be inclined to want to do that, but that is taking money directly away from these children, many of whom are disabled. We have something called the waiting list for care, home- bound care for disabled people and pregnant women who are not getting prenatal care, and all of this money needs to be spent wisely and spent appropriately.

So I thank my colleague for letting me as a physician Member to weight in on some of these things. I have seen certainly not just since I have been a Member in the 3 years that I have been here in this body, but also over 28 years of practicing and seeing the need for this kind of reform by the Republican Party, reform to government, this good plan of reform that will save money and effect better care in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, next week, on November 15, senior citizens across America will have the opportunity to sign up for a benefit that is long overdue, and that is prescription drug coverage.

The initial sign-up date for Medicare part D runs from November 15, 2005, through May 15, 2006. Coverage starts January 1, 2006, so the sooner seniors sign up, the sooner they can start saving.

Here is what seniors should know about Medicare part D. It is available to all Medicare beneficiaries. The benefit is voluntary, so seniors will need to choose to sign up. They will have a choice of plans with a low monthly premium, and all Medicare-approved plans will cover both generic and brand-name prescription drugs and will be accepted at pharmacies close to home.

There are several ways seniors can sign up for Medicare part D. Watch the mail for information from Social Security and Medicare; call 1-800- Medicare, where trained staff can answer questions and help you sign up 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; or visit the Web site www.medicare.gov. If our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs, they will reap the benefits of modern medicine and live healthier lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding, and I rise today in support of H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education, or Grace's Resolution, as the acronym goes. I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Deal of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the leadership, for bringing the resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, in America, ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women. It afflicts one out of every 57 women, and more than 22,000 will be diagnosed with the disease in 2005. Out of these 22,000 women, more than 16,000 will die from the disease.

While Americans have made much progress toward decreasing the mortality rate for many other women's cancers, such as cervical, uterine and breast cancer, the numbers have remained stubbornly high for ovarian cancer. For example, the 5-year survival for breast cancer is 98 percent; uterine cancer, 96 percent; cervical cancer, 73 percent. Unfortunately, the ovarian cancer 5-year survival rate lags at 44 percent, Mr. Speaker.

If it is detected early, the disease is very treatable. In cases where ovarian cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 94 percent of women will survive longer than 5 years; but, unfortunately, only 19 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the United States are diagnosed in the early stages. Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate of all gynecological cancers. As the National Cancer Institute statistics demonstrate, a woman's risk of dying from ovarian cancer is not less today than it was 10 years ago.

The resolution on the floor today stresses the need for more ovarian cancer education. Education is the key to detecting this cancer early. Currently, 86 percent of women state that they have little to no knowledge of gynecologic cancers. Forty-five percent of women are unaware of risk factors associated with developing a GYN cancer, and 45 percent are unable to name any symptoms of gynecological cancers. Perhaps most startling, 43 percent of women believe that they are not at risk of developing gynecological cancer.

Fortunately, researchers have discovered several common symptoms of the disease; but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, ovarian cancer often first presents with little or no symptoms. Persistent symptoms such as abdominal pressure, bloating, discomfort, nausea, indigestion, constipation, abnormal bleeding, unusual fatigue, unexplained weight loss or gain, and shortness of breath usually occur and they increase over time; but these are all particularly late in the disease process.

There are also groups of women who are at higher risk of developing the disease. They include women over the age of 50, women who have a personal or a family history of ovarian, breast, or colon cancer and women who have had children after the age of 30 for the first time.

Ovarian cancer, however, is often a missed disease by patients and doctors alike. While a woman can have a mammography to detect breast cancer and they can have a pap smear to detect cervical cancer, there is currently no reliable, reasonably priced and readily accessible screening test for ovarian cancer. There are still large gaps in knowledge on key scientific aspects of the disease. At present, healthy women, their best alternative for screening is to be aware of ovarian cancer symptoms and to have an annual physical and pelvic exam done by their physician.

This resolution commends men and women across the country who are working to increase awareness of this disease. President Bush proclaimed September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month; and during that month, 46 States and local groups held hundreds of events across the country to increase public awareness of the disease. It also stresses that ovarian cancer research should be well funded so that a reliable screening test can be developed and a cure can be found.

I especially want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for bringing the resolution to the floor today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker, and am happy to be with him during this time and conducting this special order. My colleague, Dr. Burgess, of course, just did a 5-minute on this issue of avian flu, and also engaged in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania just moments ago.

We are in a situation, Madam Speaker, where you are darned if you do and you are darned if you don't in regard to what is the proper level of response to this avian flu outbreak in the Far East. I was interviewed recently on television, and the very first thing the reporter asked was, Congressman, do you think that what the President is recommending in regard to this potential, in combating this potential pandemic of flu is just a make-up call for his slow inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina? I immediately challenged him in regard to what he was suggesting.

But it is important, I think, that the media get it right. I do not think, quite honestly, they got it right in regard to Katrina. There was terrible, terrible loss, and the loss of any lives is tragic, but at one point they were predicting 10,000 lost lives along the gulf coast; and it was closer to 1,000. They missed it pretty badly. It is important they understand their need to get it right, Madam Speaker. Because while we want to be prepared, and I commend the President and Secretary Leavitt for bringing this plan to us, we do not want to create a pandemic of panic.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, was talking about 1976- 77 and the so-called swine flu. Well, at that time, as Dr. Murphy pointed out, the government actually purchased something like $150 million worth of vaccine, subsidized that, and began to administer vaccine for swine flu. Lo and behold, what happened shortly after that was people started getting some side effects, which may or may not have been related to the vaccine, but there were some cases of a neurologic condition called Gillian Barre syndrome where all of a sudden you became paralyzed. Fortunately, it is usually a temporary condition, but the Federal Government, assuming all liability for this vaccination against swine flu, not only had the $150 million cost, but ended up spending about $90 million more settling hundreds of claims of liability.

So we really need to be very careful, particularly, I would say, in regard to a mass immunization against avian flu, bird flu, H5N1, as Dr. Burgess described it, that type of flu.

Now, we have, and there has been some money suggested and appropriated for the NIH to develop something like 20 million doses of this vaccine to the bird flu, when as yet there have been no, and I repeat no incidents of human-to-human transmission. There have been a total of about 125 cases in the Far East where humans have contracted this so-called bird flu. But in every instance it was people working very closely with poultry, maybe in their back yard slaughtering chickens with unsanitary conditions. But absolutely no incidents of human-to-human transmission.

So while I commend the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the plan and do not necessarily say that they are asking for too much money, I think we need to look very closely at how this money is spent. I think it is appropriate, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to spend money to develop a technique where we can go from egg-based vaccine production to a cell culture technique, which is much more efficient. But it is going to cost some money, and I think in the $7.1 billion it calls for about $2 billion to develop that technique.

Also, as Dr. Burgess said, it is very important that we are better able to vaccinate against the routine, I think he described it as H3N2- type virus, against the typical garden variety flu and not just vaccinate children under 2 and seniors over age 65 or first responders. We need to be able to do better than that. We are losing 36,000 people every year dying from influenza in this country, and I think we can do better than that.

So, again, I think the President does find himself in a Catch 22 situation. This is the worst possible time for us to have to deal with this, but we do have to deal with it. And whether it is $7 billion or something less than that, hopefully not more, I think we, the Congress, are going to have to step up to the plate and realize there is something that has to be done.

Madam Speaker, there is no question what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is talking about is very important. He mentioned the potential of saving $160 billion a year. I am not sure if that figure includes the savings that would be affected from cutting down on medical errors and the liability costs, not just for the physician health care provider, but also for the facility provider, for the hospital systems, many of which are essentially what we call going bare. They have a huge deductible. In some instances, a huge hospital system, it would not be unusual to have $20 million for no insurance coverage for some of these claims for medical errors. So that $160 billion may be a very conservative estimate.

I think it is absolutely essential that we move in this direction. I know my colleague is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and they are working closely on trying to develop a system. We are working closely in Congress with Secretary Leavitt of Health and Human Services to make sure that we have one system. We have to have this ability to communicate.

I think it is important and I want to mention this, there are a lot of private vendors out there. There is a very excellent company in my district, the 11th Congressional District, which is essentially west Georgia. In the heart of my district there is a wonderful company, the Greenway Company. They have been working on this for a number of years. They have this software package, and we refer to it as electronic medical records; and we are not just talking about billing. That is kind of old hat. That has been around for a while, but this is taking it much beyond that so that no matter where you are in this country, indeed in the world, when you have that little radio frequency ID card that he is talking about or swipe card, if you can charge something on American Express when you are visiting India, certainly you ought to be able to go to the hospital if an illness overcomes you or you fall victim to some accident out of country, they would be able to clearly identify your entire medical record almost in an instant.

Some of these companies, like Greenway and others that have developed these systems, they want to make sure that they can connect and communicate with a hospital as well. So as our committees of jurisdiction, which of course would be Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means, and our appropriators, we want to make sure whatever money we spend, that we give an opportunity for entrepreneurs to connect and be part of this; and it not just be hospital driven.

I have heard some discussion about giving some incentives to staff members who practice at a certain hospital so there is some benefit to get them to communicate with a hospital. But again, competitiveness, the free marketplace is usually important, but they have to have a similar system, at least one that speaks to the other. That is usually important.

Madam Speaker, the opportunity to communicate with Dr. Murphy on this issue, and let me just say this, we cannot overemphasize the importance of this. The gentleman described the cost of this Medicaid program which is running wildly out of control. In 2010 it is $257 billion. We all know there is a price to pay in the State budget, and in some States, of course, the Federal match can be as high as 75 percent. But that is just a couple of States, and many, many are 50/50. We have got to get this working and save money out of this system.

And more importantly, it is not just cutting down on the cost of these entitlement programs. It is also a matter of saving lives and increasing and saving productivity. You mentioned both of those points, and I think those are extremely well taken.

I just want to say that what you have brought to the Members tonight regarding what I think you would agree we could call mental health parity is a hugely important issue. I think my colleagues in the medical profession who are still practicing, especially those whom I know so well back home in Marietta, Georgia, expected when I came to Congress that I would have all of the answers and be able to solve all of our problems but the truth is I have learned just about as much as I have contributed and realizing today after being out of the practice of medicine, the bedside care of patients for almost 4 years now, how important this issue of mental health parity is that you bring to our attention tonight. You are right, absolutely. There are so many people who suffer from mild, moderate, severe depression, they are not psychotic, they do not need to be institutionalized, they do not even need to be hospitalized, but their illness, their depression, results in decreased productivity. You mentioned that. Away from their job. It also is detrimental to their physical well-being whether, as you point out, it is heart disease, diabetes, or whatever. You talked about the effect on platelets. There is no question about that. And, of course, the very important point you made about their compliance with medical treatment, again, whether that is heart disease or diabetes. If they are depressed, they are not going to follow the regimen they need to follow and it is going to end up costing this country, particularly when the money is coming from the Federal revenue and John Q. Taxpayer, it is going to cost more.

As the gentleman points out, we get more credit for the fact that we are, overall, going to reduce health care costs by paying more attention to something like this.

I know a lot of my colleagues will try to treat mental illness and, really, I will use the expression ``on the fly,'' I think Dr. Murphy knows what I am talking about, in a hurry. You do not have time and you do not do a prolonged mental health inventory, a counseling session, with the patient, you just write a prescription for some antidepressant, whether it is Effexor or Zoloft or whatever, in many instances, not all. Certainly some general physicians, internists, family practitioners, even gynecologists take a special interest in mental health care and know a good bit about medications. But I think in many instances, those patients are better served by a mental health professional, a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but I really appreciate the gentleman bringing that point to us.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will allow me to continue, I did want to just shift just for a few minutes to the issue of the Medicare Part D, the prescription drug part that is part of the 2003 Medicare modernization program. We are in tough budget times. My colleagues understand this, and of course we talked earlier in the hour during a colloquy about avian flu and the fact that the President has no choice but to bring to the Congress a request for money, in this instance an additional $7 billion, to help prepare for the possibility of a worldwide pandemic right on the heels of the need to spend $150 billion to $200 billion on the horrific hurricane that struck the gulf coast, Hurricane Katrina.

We just had tornadoes in Indiana and Kentucky with the loss of life. Last summer we had four hurricanes strike Florida, and we continue to spend necessary money fighting this global war on terrorism. I mean it is a tough, tough time. And people in my district, the 11th District of Georgia, and I feel sure the gentleman's constituents from Pennsylvania, are very concerned with fiscal responsibility and hopefully look for some offsets.

That is what we are about in the Congress this week. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to exercise some fiscal discipline in regard to the growth rate. Not cutting mandatory spending, but just limiting the rate of growth from 5.7 percent to 5.6 percent, looking for $50 billion in savings over the next 5 years. These things are hugely important, and our constituents are demanding it.

But this suggestion that we find some savings by delaying or indeed canceling the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare modernization I think would be a huge mistake, Madam Speaker. Because, as Dr. Murphy pointed out, we have heard this estimate of $750 billion additional Medicare costs over 10 years, but that is giving absolutely no credit to the fact that if this program works, and I truly, in the deepest depths of my being, feel that it is the right thing to do and that it will work and will shift some cost away from Part A and Part B, that part that pays for open heart surgery, it pays for an emergency room visit if you had a stroke. Indeed, it pays a little money under Part A and Part B for prolonged skilled nursing home care, possibly for the rest of your life.

Madam Speaker, I am very familiar with Washington Hospital, although I did not realize it was in the gentleman's district, the great work that they did. But there is no question about it, this issue.

I mentioned the cost-shifting from Part A and Part B, and I think that will be substantial. But this emphasis, and the gentleman is right, it is part of this bill, not just prescription drugs Part D, but also that entry level physical, that focus on disease management and making sure that people, whether they do it through Medicare Advantage, whether an HMO-type program, or even traditional Medicare, in screening for things like colon and rectal cancer, breast cancer with mammograms, prostate cancer screening, cholesterol screening so that we do not wait until the person has a heart attack and has to have that quadruple bypass that is very expensive. So again, I wanted to make sure, and I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania giving me the opportunity to have time to discuss that, because we are hearing it. We are hearing it on the floor of the House, maybe from both sides of the aisle, and folks back home, naturally they want us to spend what we have to spend, but not a dime more, and I agree with that.

But I think this will be clearly the wrong message to send to our seniors. I mean, this President and this Congress were not the first elected folks to promise to deliver a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Indeed, Medicare started in 1965, so what are we talking about is about 40 years of the program, and they have been waiting a long time. And to ask them to wait a couple of years or indeed maybe indefinitely so that we can offset some of these costs of responding to the bird flu or responding to Hurricane Katrina, I think would be a huge mistake.

Yes. And I think too it needs to be said that when we had this debate, a huge debate, in December of 2003, as my colleague recalls, we were freshmen at that point in our political careers, both of us, but there were a lot of folks, particularly on the other side of the aisle, that were very angry, very angry with AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, because they had the unmitigated gall, the audacity to support this President and this Republican leadership in trying to get this Medicare modernization prescription drug bill passed and to fulfill this promise that was made. They even suggested that people tear up their AARP card as an act of defiance and protest against this bill, and discourage people, the working poor who could get the prescription drug discount card in that transitional program, and get $600 worth of credit for each of 2 years during that program's existence, $1,200. To think that they discouraged people, and many of them were discouraged and did not get that benefit. I hope now that for Medicare Part D, and the sign-up is beginning soon, that they will be encouraging them, not discouraging them, to sign up.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 27th annual National Hospice and Palliative Care Month. This month health organizations all around the country will be educating individuals on what it means to have an advance directive, or living will. So today I am joining with these organizations to encourage everyone to take a moment and discuss with their loved ones what their wishes would be in a health care situation where they were unable to communicate them.

Madam Speaker, the term ``advance directive'' describes two types of legal documents that can enable you to plan for and communicate your end-of-life issues in the event you are unable to convey them yourself.

First, Madam Speaker, is a living will. It allows you to document your wishes concerning medical treatments at the end of life. The second is a medical power of attorney, or health care proxy, which allows you to appoint a person you trust as your health care agent. This person would be authorized to make medical decisions on your behalf.

Madam Speaker, living wills and medical powers of attorney 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.

In conclusion, I want to encourage all Americans to set aside time to have what may very well be one of the most important conversations that a family can have.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 527 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a structured rule. It provides 90 minutes of general debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read. It makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the Rules

Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of House Resolution 527 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I would like, first, to express my personal pleasure in seeing this important piece of legislation come before the House for consideration.

Since the Supreme Court's now infamous Kelo decision, homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball.

Madam Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to commend Representative Sensenbrenner, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this legislation; Ranking Member Conyers; Representative Goodlatte, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee; and Ranking Member Peterson not just for the underlying bill, but also for the thorough and expeditious way in which the committees have moved to legislatively address this Kelo decision.

With a margin of only one vote, a very divided Supreme Court struck down over two centuries' worth of precedent and constitutional protections for property owners across this great Nation. In response to the deplorable Kelo decision, this body passed House Resolution 340 that I proudly sponsored along with 78 other Members from both sides of the aisle; and on June 30, 2005, we passed this resolution by a wide margin of 365 to 33.

Madam Speaker, the very last subparagraph of House Resolution 340 states: ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address, through legislation, any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government in light of the ruling in Kelo, et al v. The City of New London, et al.''

Well, Madam Speaker, the day of reform is at hand, and this Congress has an excellent opportunity to set the record straight and to reaffirm the traditional meaning of the fifth amendment that guarantees no private property shall be taken except for public use and with just compensation.

Accordingly, H.R. 4128 will prohibit State and local governments from taking property from one private party and giving it to another private party. If a court determines that a State or a local government violates this prohibition, that State or local government will become ineligible for Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years.

Nevertheless, any government found in violation of this provision will have an opportunity to restore fully the private property owner in order to preserve Federal economic development dollars; and by ``fully,'' I mean completely restore to its original state prior to the government taking of this property. Additionally, this bill expressly prohibits the Federal Government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic purposes. So not just the State and local governments, but the Federal Government, as well, is prohibited.

Madam Speaker, while the title of this bill, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, fits this legislation to a tee, one could also accurately call it the Private Property Rights Enhancement Act, for this bill will ensure that private property owners can take States and local governments to court in order to enforce the provisions of this act. And this bill also allows a prevailing property owner to recoup legal and expert fees for litigation involving the enforcement of this bill.

H.R. 4128 answers the call of almost every American and a diverse, expansive array of interest groups who have railed against the Kelo decision and its judicial encroachment on our rights. Listen to these, Madam Speaker: the National Association For the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP; the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP; the American Farm Bureau; and various religious groups that include the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are just a few of the organizations who stood up in the face of Kelo to fight for the rights of the disadvantaged who might lose their home, business, or yes, even house of worship to some well-connected developer's sweetheart deal.

These organizations have stood up for the rights of rural America which grows our food and sustains our country. They have stood up for the rights of our houses of worship that should not have to fear because God does not pay enough in taxes. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that today we in this House stand with them in defense of the private property rights of every American.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to again express my gratitude that this House has the opportunity to consider such a fundamentally important and fundamentally just piece of legislation. By a one-vote margin, the Kelo decision ripped from the Constitution the private property rights of the fifth amendment, and we are going to put them back. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will close the debate by again thanking both the Committees on the Judiciary and Agriculture for all the hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today. H.R. 4128 would restore the centuries-old protections guaranteed by the fifth amendment's takings clause. Property rights have been fundamental to the foundation of our society and have been one of the pillars that have supported our form of government and enabled our Constitution to endure the test of time. While it has only been 4 months since the Kelo decision, 4 months without these fifth amendment protections is 4 months too long; and one abuse of the eminent domain power is one abuse too many.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, following the passage in the House of Representatives today, I would encourage the other body to take up this legislation quickly and to pass it so that we can get it to the President's desk.

I also want to encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill. Let us get this done for the American people because it is simply the right thing to do.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today in support of this amendment I have offered to H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. Chairman, from Matthew 22:17, we know that the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus regarding allegiance to the Roman government; and, of course, Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's but render to God the things that are God's.

Mr. Chairman, for over 2,000 years God has owed no taxes to the government, but that all changed on June 23, 2005.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add an additional section to this bill to ensure that our houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are not penalized because they are tax-exempt and, therefore, provide no revenue to the treasuries of State and local governments. Thus, they became low-hanging fruit, ripe for the taking.

In the wake of the Kelo decision that gutted the property protections of the fifth amendment, the properties of religious organizations and other nonprofits have indeed become potential prime targets for the government wrecking ball.

State and local governments should never target, or even contemplate targeting, our houses of worship or nonprofit organizations simply because another use of the property would almost certainly build up their tax base.

Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment turns this unique vulnerability into an asset for our houses of worship and nonprofit organizations. Its chilling effect will force State and local governments to think twice before they contemplate buying gasoline for a steamroller to plow down our houses of worship.

Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment and the overall bill to strengthen private property rights for the sake of all Americans.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

That is correct.

That is correct. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, certainly we would be glad to work with both chairmen in regard to that in the conference if there is any confusion regarding the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who has asked for time on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for giving me an opportunity to share this time with her.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Iraq twice, December of 2003, shortly after Saddam's capture, then again in February of this year. On each of those trips, they are bipartisan trips, many of the Members, of course, that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and the theater of operations are members of the Armed Services Committee. But I think many other Members, of course, have been as well.

One of the best opportunities, Mr. Speaker, is to meet with troops, soldiers, men and women from your own State, indeed when possible from your own congressional district, and to have an opportunity to talk with them and, more importantly, that they have an opportunity to talk with us.

The one thing that I can tell you that I never heard was, Congressman, it is too hot over here. It is too dry over here. It is too dusty. It is too cold. I cannot sleep. I do not like the food. Congressman, can you not use your political influence somehow to get me out of here.

Of course, many of those soldiers, as we heard from the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) about the corporal who was serving his third rotation in Iraq, had that premonition in harm's way, knowing that they possibly could be paying the ultimate sacrifice. None of them are asking us to get them home.

Last week, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) had an hour, just as we are doing tonight, I had an opportunity then as well to say a few words. I made a feeble attempt to recite that famous poem, In Flanders Fields. I will not try to do that again tonight for my colleagues, because I think all of you know it maybe even better than I do.

But in the last stanza, though, it says, take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing falling hands we pass the torch. Be yours to hold it high, for if you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flanders Field.

What they are saying, and our colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, have said this repeatedly, we cannot break faith with these men and women, 2,000 plus who have lost their lives, maybe 8,000 or so who have been injured, some, yes, severely. The worst possible thing that we could do would be to pack up and come home, literally bring them home against their wishes.

They would have no choice in that matter, if we listened to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. You know, you hear them, Mr. Speaker, talking about how much they support the troops and all of that. I do not doubt that. I am not going to stand up here and suggest that they are not patriots themselves and that they do not care for our troops and they do not want to arm them and make sure that they have the equipment they need. I do not doubt for a minute that they support that.

But they are using our soldiers, our brave men and women, these youngsters that we are talking about here tonight, as pawns really to continually criticize and undermine the Commander in Chief, the coach, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, indirectly the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), because they want to undermine this team so that they, in the next election, are in charge.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I think we all need to realize that, that there is a lot of politics here; and it is a dirty rotten shame that our soldiers, our brave men and women, are being used as pawns in this political process. God forgive them.

We owe more to these troops than that. And I feel very strongly as a member on leave of absence from the Armed Services Committee to come at any opportunity I have got to take a few minutes and to stand up before my colleagues in this body and say, no, we will not forget you, you soldiers, you men and women who maybe in high school were not the football or track stars, cheerleaders, many of you decided to put off going to college and enjoying the football weekends so you could serve your country. Some of you may have been pushed around, kicked around by the schoolyard bully who does not know anything about a fair fight, but you had the courage to go and to serve this country as an all-volunteer military, whether you are active duty, Guard or Reserve; and I have seen them all in the theatre of operations at the tip of the spear. We owe them so much, and I am proud to stand up here as part of this team tonight.

I really compliment the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for leading this team and for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and my other colleagues that we have heard from and others who are going to speak. I am proud to be a part of this.

Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and our constituents who may be listening to this hour this evening, we are going to talk about something that is well known to the general public, and that is the subject of eminent domain. It is well known, maybe not particularly liked by the general public, but certainly it is well known that, under the power, the government has the power under the Constitution and the fifth amendment to take private property for public use. This is something that has been recognized for 200 years.

An example, the obvious example, of course, of public use would be for a school in a community that is growing rapidly, and youngsters need a place to get that public education. That is a public use of the power of eminent domain, that ability for a government entity, the Federal Government, the State government, a county government or municipal city government to literally take a person's private property for public use purposes and, of course, with just, fair market value compensation. That is something that we all recognize.

As I said, when it is the individual who may have that little tract of land that they have owned for their lifetime and it was willed to them by their parents and willed to their parents by their grandparents, and maybe it is 50 acres, maybe it started out as farmland and ended up as just a homestead and a paid-for residence and a front porch with rocking chairs and a great view and clean air and clean environment and a place for the children and the grandchildren to come and play on the weekends. It is pretty painful indeed when John Q. Public comes knocking on the door. It may be the local school board, good, dedicated men and women who are trying to provide education for the children in the community; and that 30 acres is the last remaining plot of land in the whole county where a new high school is desperately needed because of development, economic development, new subdivisions, new roads.

And people, of course, are powerless in the face of that authority of eminent domain. The only recourse they have, of course, is a plea and an appeal for fair market value of the land that they do not want to sell, they are forced to sell under this constitutional right of eminent domain.

Maybe there is some negotiation. Maybe they are not happy with what is the public entity that is doing the taking, has set the price; and the homeowner, the property owner, small business owner, feels that that is not fair. Then certainly they have the right to appeal in our court system and our judicial system to the superior court of the judicial area in which they happen to lie.

My colleagues, I think you all know that the Supreme Court on June 23 of this year, 2005, made a decision, a narrowly split decision, as this court has done in so many other cases, particularly regarding our traditional values. That is not the purpose of this debate and this discussion, Mr. Speaker, tonight on the floor of this House.

But this 5 to 4 decision all of a sudden expanded this power of eminent domain to include the taking of a person's home, small business for economic development, that is now being interpreted by this split decision of the Supreme Court to qualify under the fifth amendment, under the Constitution, the right to take someone's property by eminent domain for economic purposes, redefining, completely and totally redefining this definition of public use that probably a sixth grader would answer correctly if you asked them: Well, give us an example of public use. They would say a road or a bridge or possibly a public library, certainly a school, maybe even a sewer line easement, a natural gas line easement.

But to suggest to them that, oh, no, now we are talking about taking somebody's property for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue. Let me just kind of set the scenario for my colleagues just as a perfect example.

Under this ruling, June 23, 2005, this atrocious, we think, and of course on the floor of this body of this House with overwhelming bipartisan support, not unanimous but overwhelming bipartisan support, we expressed our outrage over this, the sense of the House, a concurrent resolution expressing our absolute outrage over this decision.

What it basically says and what prompted and predicated this Supreme Court decision was a case in the State of Connecticut, the City of New London, and New London in this case being the defendant, the plaintiff was the property owner, Kelo. Their property was being taken for the purpose of nothing other than increasing the tax base, the tax revenue of that particular section of town where their property happened to be.

The justification for it from the standpoint of the City of New London, that local jurisdiction, was, well, if we are able to take this property, which in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, I think everybody knows I am not a lawyer nor am I a real estate expert, I am just a little old meat and potatoes OB/GYN physician. But what they were going to

do was take this property so they could redevelop it. And, again, maybe it could have been a bakery, a small business that some immigrant family two generations came to this country, could not even speak English, but started on a street corner selling bagels and finally developed this little business and had that loyalty and that customer base and that value which we call blue sky on that business; and yet the tax revenue from that little business could be a house, could be your home, was not sufficient.

So the local government entity, in this case the City of New London, decides, well, you know, if we can take that property, that business, indeed maybe even that church or synagogue or mosque, and we can take it by the power of eminent domain and get this broad definition of public use, and we could say, gosh, you know, the increased revenue will allow us to build more soccer fields in the county, more bike trails in the county. Well, maybe, just maybe, and I think without a shadow of a doubt Kelo felt that they did not want another soccer field and they did not want another bike trail, they wanted their property which had been willed to them and their family. They had obtained that property in a legal way. It was theirs. They are good public citizens, pay their taxes on time, contribute to the community, send their children to the public schools, volunteer for the booster's club, doing everything they can to make that community a better place to live.

But can they help it that their business base was such that they only had a certain amount of revenue in any one year? There were just so many doughnuts and bagels to be sold. So they did not have an opportunity to have a high value on their business so that the local community could tax them, and so now they are going to come along and they are going to take that business so somebody else could come in.

Mr. Speaker, in no way am I disparaging any good companies, but I mean, a Ritz-Carlton, even a Starbucks in this area that needs redeveloping pays a lot more taxes; and, yes, maybe some of that money could be put to the public use. But it is not at all what we understand and know and have known for 200 years the definition of a public use.

So that is what we are talking about here, my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle. That is why we are here tonight. I am very fortunate that I have several of my colleagues who have joined me during this hour. They know how important this issue is. It is an important issue of the right to property, second only maybe to life and pursuit of happiness. But the right to property, Mr. Speaker, is one that cannot, should not be abridged.

We are going to have legislation, we are going to have legislation this week, so this is a timely hour so we can explain to our colleagues a little bit about what this bill coming through the House, hopefully the Senate will have a companion bill, this bill coming through the House Judiciary Committee. This majority, this Republican majority is not going to let this Kelo v. New London decision stand, and my colleagues are here with me tonight to talk about that.

The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is here, and I want at this time to call on her for her remarks, because I know she cares so much about this issue and cares about the folks back in Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). It gives me a little bit of a segue as she used the term ``activist judges'' and I think that that absolutely, Mr. Speaker, is what is going on here. We are in the process, of course, we have just confirmed our new Supreme Court Chief Justice, and now there will be hearing soon in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for the confirmation, hopefully, of a judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And all the talk, of course, is about the litmus test of abortion. Has the judge, the candidate judge in this instance, a judge, a circuit court judge of some 19 years of experience, what is his record on abortion? Is he pro-life? Is he pro-choice?

Although our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the members especially of that Committee on the Judiciary, say there is no litmus test; it is not, and that is a huge concern, I think, that issue for the American public. And they are watching very, very closely these proceedings that are going to occur, the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But this is an example of other things of judicial activism, of legislating literally from the bench. They may not rise quite to the level of the issue of what happened in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, but this is an important issue as is taking God's name, the name of God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is hugely important, and I think we are going to go a little deeper in the hour. I am very pleased that one of our former judicial members probably will be talking to these same issues. At this point, I would first like to call on the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), one of our newest Members elected to this body recently in a special election. The gentlewoman and I have had conversations about this issue since June 23, 2005, shortly after she got here, as well as the outrage that she has expressed and the concerns that her constituents have over this back in Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, and I thank her for bringing this right down on a personal level because this is personal and she described it to perfection.

I did not go into the details of what happened in New London, Connecticut. Maybe we will touch on that in just a minute. But the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) is absolutely right. That shopping center mogul had the opportunity to offer a fair price, an attractive price, and ended up buying most of the property without exercising or some government entity on his behalf exercising the power of eminent domain.

That gentleman, that 82-year-old gentleman that the gentlewoman described so well, that felt the presence of his wife within the walls of that structure, that German structure, it is okay if he smells popcorn and doughnuts and sees youngsters going to the theater that has been developed all

around him. He has the right of property ownership to have that shrine of his, that little shrine right in the middle, and if they want another shot at it after he is gone and they want to deal with his heirs and his children, his grandchildren, then let him offer a price and buy the property.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point your attention to this first poster I have. I do not have many, but this is exactly what the gentlewoman was talking about.

It shows in the baby carriage homeowners and small businesses in the baby carriage. It shows the wheeler dealer with the lollipop. You cannot see it, but on that lollipop, the attraction of the lollipop, is the enticement or the power of eminent domain. And this little youngster on the other side is that shopping center mogul that the gentlewoman was talking about or maybe it is the pharmaceutical company that wanted to build this new research development center in the heart of New London, Connecticut. But not only did they want to develop the property for this research center, God knows we need research and I pay tribute to some of our pharmaceutical companies that bring us these wonder drugs, but they did not, in my opinion, the opinion of Suzette Kelo and the other homeowners that had 15 homes in and around that area, they did not have to take that as well. It was absolutely unnecessary.

And that is the whole issue here, this ability to take, the powerful, in conjunction with a local government jurisdiction, for this expanded purpose of public use or economic development and a higher tax base, somebody's God-given right, constitutional-given right to their own property.

We talked a little bit about the courts. I think at this time it is entirely fitting and appropriate to call on my good friend and colleague from the great State of Texas who knows a little bit about the courts. We are talking about municipal, State, superior, Federal, district, circuit and Supreme Court; and I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the judge, for sharing those thoughts with us.

I wanted to assure the judge, as he well knows, that we intend to do something about it this week, and this is what H.R. 4128 does. It protects private property rights, and we will get into that in just a few minutes.

Earlier we heard, Mr. Speaker, from our colleague from Ohio, and the gentlewoman talked about her father in fact who built some of these little German homes, he being of German ancestry. I am not sure that this next poster that I have got is a picture of a home in Ohio, for that matter even in New London, Connecticut, but, boy, it sure has a German look to me.

I have been to Germany a time or two, a lovely country, and I have seen some residences, some houses, free-standing houses, look a little bit like that. But look at that sign in the front yard, for sale, not by owner, but by government, and that is what we are talking about here. That is exactly what the gentlewoman from Ohio was describing in her district, and this is what the people, quite frankly, in New London, Connecticut, were fighting for.

As I said a little earlier, a developer who wants to put up a mega store, a big box, a new luxury five-star hotel or a four-star restaurant, or whatever they want to do, expand that shopping center I think we were hearing about earlier, let them do it and let them buy what property they can buy. If a price is offered that is attractive enough, you will have plenty of willing sellers.

And if you have one or two that are unwilling, for the reasons the gentlewoman was describing, I think she pointed out a gentleman 82 years old, been married 50 years, lost his wife, been in the home their whole married life, let some creative architect figure out a way to build around that home and still have an attractive development. It can be done, no question about that, Mr. Speaker.

This next poster, my colleagues, I think is the most important of the three. Because while I have emphasized that under this new expanded ruling of this activist court, this 5-4 decision, that a person's home, where they have raised their children and maybe even their grandchildren and lost their spouse, can be taken for this expanded so- called public use called economic development, bigger tax base, more bucks, or the small business I described, the little bakery.

But look at this, at this poster, this slide. You recognize it. That is a church. It could just as well be a mosque or a synagogue. A place of worship basically is what it is. Guess how much taxes God pays to the local government? None. None.

So if we allow this decision to stand, there will be plenty of incentive to take a small business or a home where the property taxes are not enough. You know, if it were a bigger home and it had 5,000 square feet instead of 2,000 square feet, you could raise the tax base, and if it were a business. But it is paying some taxes. There is revenue, hopefully a profit. These small business owners are definitely taxed, and that tax goes to support the local community.

So if there is an incentive to take their property when there is a tax base, think about what the incentive is going to be for the local government to take God's property, where there is no tax base. It is tax free. We cannot allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand this. I know it from the fact that I brought a resolution to this House floor shortly after June 23, and we had Members on both sides of the aisle running to the voting machine to punch that green light expressing their outrage over this decision. So it is certainly not a partisan outrage. We are all upset about it.

This week we intend to do something about it. Indeed, to take God's property so we can put in some high-tax-paying business, restaurant, hotel for the purposes of increasing that tax base. Then you say, oh yes, but this is for the public good because we are going to have money to build more parks and recreation facilities. Indeed. Indeed.

My colleagues, I mentioned the facts in the New London case, and I will not go into that in any more detail, but listen to some of the arguments in that case. The residents, the petitioners, argued the condemnation by the City of New London constituted a violation of the fifth amendment's public use provision: Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The judge from Texas talked about that. The gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Tennessee all talked about that.

The residents argued that economic development in and of itself does not constitute a public use. But the City of New London, the defendants in this case, argued that, hey, new jobs, increased tax revenue, that is qualification enough for taking as a public use and, therefore, this taking did not constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment. They also argued that they were operating in accordance with Connecticut law.

Well, unfortunately, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority, five of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, agreed with the City of New London, and the majority opinion focused on a broad, very broad interpretation of the term public use in the Fifth Amendment.

The opinion states that there is no way to distinguish between economic development from other types of public use development. The majority did not want to second-guess local government. They did not want the State and local government to say a particular development project is for public use. They are the only final arbiters of what is and what is not public use. I think I can say that it was a ridiculous majority opinion.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor, Justice Renquist, God rest his soul, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas cites the majority opinion for what it is, an abandonment of over two centuries worth of precedent. In the dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor stresses that the term public use is very explicit and that the Founders intended that the term public use needed to be there. Justice O'Connor writes that the majority's opinion nullifies the term public use, and now State and local government can justify any taking of land from one individual to another to give to another private party if it presents any economic benefit to the tax base or any other aspect of the community.

This, Mr. Speaker, cannot, shall not stand. And I want to take this opportunity tonight during the remaining time that we have to pay tribute to the sensible chairman, who has great wisdom and a lot of common sense, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and I am talking about the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). He will bring to this floor, probably on Thursday of this week, H.R. 4128.

I would like to take this time to explain the provisions of that bill, because it is so very important. In this bill, it will say that Congress' power to condition the use of Federal funds will extend to prohibiting States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds for a specified period of time if such entities abuse their power of eminent domain, even if only State and local funds are used in that abuse of power.

H.R. 4128 also includes an express private right of action to make certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the bill will be allowed access to a State or Federal Court to enforce its provisions. It also includes a fee-shifting provision, and listen to this, identical to those in other civil rights laws that allows a prevailing property owner attorney and expert fees as a part of the cost of bringing the litigation to enforce the bill's provision, as it should.

Under H.R. 4128, States and localities will have the clear opportunity, we are going to give them a last chance, to cure any violation before they lose any Federal economic development funds by either returning or replacing the improperly taken property. We are giving them a chance to make amends before the hammer falls.

H.R. 4128 also includes carefully crafted refinements of the definition of

economic development that specifically allows the types of takings that prior to Kelo had achieved a consensus as to their appropriateness. I want to mention some of these.

These exceptions include: Exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership, to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like pipelines. I mentioned that earlier.

The bill also makes reasonable exceptions for the taking of land that is being used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. Of course. That is common sense.

The bill also makes exceptions for the merely incidental use of a public building by a private entity, such as a small privately run gift shop on the ground floor in a public hospital, or the acquisition of abandoned property, and for clearing defective chains of title in which no one can be said to really own the property in the first place.

A good bill, Mr. Speaker. I commend it to my colleagues. H.R. 4128 was introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin on October 25 of this year. The bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 3 on October 27, 2005; and I can assure my colleagues that there are not 27 Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee. We have a majority, yes, but a narrow majority. So, clearly, this bill has strong, strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this time that we have taken to talk tonight about this situation of the abuse of the power of eminent domain is so critical. It is so critical, and this bill is so important. We need balance. Certainly we need economic development. We need to develop blighted areas in our cities across these States, but we can do it in the right way. And we do not need to violate someone's constitutional and God-given rights of life, liberty and property.

I hope that we have in this time, Mr. Speaker, made a strong case for this. I know my colleagues who spoke earlier spoke well, spoke eloquently, and I am deeply appreciative of their spending a little of their evening tonight to discuss such an important issue. We look forward to Thursday. We look forward to the passage of H.R. 4128 to restore the natural and constitutional right to property.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 508 is a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 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 recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 508 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005.

First, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, not just for the underlying bill but for a number of recent bills aimed at strengthening our legal system by protecting people's rights under the law and shielding them from frivolous proceedings. Additionally, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for sponsoring H.R. 420.

Madam Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, this House has taken several important steps to reform our legal system, to relieve our overburdened court dockets and drastically reduce the number of costly frivolous claims against innocent and legitimate businesses.

On October 24, we passed and sent to the President's desk S. 397, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, by a vote of 283 to 144 in the House. I might add that in the spirit of bipartisanship, 59 Democrats and one Independent joined 223 Republicans in passing this landmark legislation that refocuses liability for gun violence on the actual criminal, the person who pulled the trigger.

Additionally in this House, 226 Republicans, along with 80 Democrats, passed H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005. This bill also reaffirms the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect someone else to foot the bill for the adverse health consequences of their own gluttony.

Today, Madam Speaker, we have another prime opportunity to pass meaningful legislation to strengthen our court system even further and to protect the falsely accused.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 will go a long way to curb the actions of individuals who would seek to abuse our courts by gaming the judicial system. Last week, there were probably millions of people across this country who tuned in, ticket in hand, to see if they had won a $340 million Powerball jackpot. Unfortunately, there are also people who look to the courts, legal briefs in hand, as if it were the Powerball lottery.

However, Madam Speaker, it is the American people and small businesses that pay the ultimate price for frivolous lawsuits and this type of jackpot justice. They pay for it through higher prices for goods and services, they pay for it through diminished quality of products, they pay for it through loss of economic freedom, and they pay for it through a clogged court system that has been turned into an ATM for junk lawsuits. In fact, the current tort system is estimated to cost American people well over $200 billion per year.

Clearly, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 is a bill that is sorely overdue, sorely needed and, I might add, was approved by this House in the last Congress by a vote of 229 to 174.

With respect to the underlying bill, it would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by restoring the mandatory sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This bill would require that courts impose an appropriate penalty on attorneys, law firms, or parties who continue to file frivolous lawsuits. Also this bill would eliminate the ``free pass'' provision that allows attorneys to avoid sanctions if they withdraw their frivolous claim after a motion for sanctions has been filed.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 420 also would prevent forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases only be brought in those jurisdictions either where the plaintiff, the defendant or a related business resides, or where the alleged injury or surrounding circumstances occurred.

This act would also institute a three-strikes-and-you're-out sanction that would suspend an attorney from practicing in Federal court if a Federal judge determines the lawyer has violated Rule 11 on three or more occasions.

H.R. 420 clearly emphasizes that personal responsibility is not just some catch phrase that applies only to some people, such as a fast-food connoisseur, a firearms owner, a consumer or, indeed, a doctor. Personal responsibility and professional accountability should be the rule for those in the legal field, too, and that is why this House should pass this bill.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just emphasize that House Resolution 508 is a straightforward rule and H.R. 420 is a straightforward bill. Simply put, it just makes sense to stop and punish the willful abuse of our legal system by the slash-and-burn tactics of frivolous lawsuits.

As always, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments that were made, I just want to hold up this document that lists over 300 groups in support of LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, and I will include them in the Record.

I would like to also point out that the Federal Judicial Center was in opposition to class action reform, which we passed in the previous Congress and in the 108th by a vote in this body of 279 to 149.

Groups Supporting H.R. 420--The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005

Advanced Medical Technology Association.

Air Conditioning Contractors of America.

Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee.

Alabama Restaurant Association.

Alabama Trucking Association, Inc.

Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailers

Association.

Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota.

Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Pennsylvania.

America Chamber of Commerce (NV).

American Apparel and Footwear Association.

American Automotive Leasing Association.

American Bakers Association.

American Boiler Manufacturers Association.

American Business Conference.

American Chemistry Council.

American Council of Engineering Companies.

American Health Care Association.

American Home Furnishing Alliance.

American Insurance Association.

American International Automobile Dealers Association.

American Legislative Exchange Council.

American Machine Tool Distributors Association.

American Petroleum Institute.

American Rental Association.

American Road & Transportation Builders Association.

American Supply Association.

American Trucking Associations.

American Tort Reform Association.

American Veterinary Distributors Association.

American Wholesale Marketers Association.

Antelope Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA).

Ardmore Chamber of Commerce (OK).

Arkansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Arkansas Hospitality Association.

Arizona Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association.

Associated Builders & Contractors.

Associated General Contractors of America.

Associated Equipment Distributors.

ASFE--Associated Soil & Foundation Engineers.

Associated Wire Rope Fabricators.

Association for High Technology Distribution.

Association of Equipment Manufacturers.

Association of Pool & Spa Professionals.

AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology.

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association.

Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association.

Automotive Parts & Service Association of Illinois.

Aviation Distributors & Manufacturers Association.

Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Bearing Specialists Association.

Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce (GA).

Business Council of New York State, Inc.

Business Roundtable.

California Central Coast Chapter, National Electrical

Contractors Association.

California Restaurant Association.

California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers Association.

Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Central Illinois, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (PA).

Chamber of Commerce for Anderson & Madison County (IN).

Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley (WV).

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas.

Citizens for Civil Justice Reform.

City of Chicago, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Civil Justice Association of California.

Cleaning Equipment Trade Association.

Cleveland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Coalition for Uniform Product Liability Law.

Colorado Civil Justice League.

Colorado Motor Carriers Association.

Colorado Restaurant Association.

Connecticut Restaurant Association.

Construction Industry Round Table.

Copper & Brass Service Center Association.

Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.

Crawfordsville/Montgomery Chamber of Commerce (IN).

Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (OH).

Delaware Motor Transport Association.

Delaware Restaurant Association.

East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse.

The Employers Association.

Electrical Manpower Development Trust.

Equipment Leasing Association.

Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Florida Restaurant Association.

Food Industry Suppliers Association.

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.

Gases and Welding Distributors Association.

General Aviation Manufacturers Association.

Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, Inc.

Georgia Industry Association.

Georgia Restaurant Association.

Great Lakes Petroleum Retailers & Allied Trades

Association.

Georgia Motor Trucking Association.

Hawaii Restaurant Association.

Hawaii Transportation Association.

Health Industry Distributors Association.

Healthcare Distribution Management Association.

Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors

International Association.

Hobbs Chamber of Commerce (NM).

Hospitality Association of South Carolina.

Hospitality Minnesota--Minnesota's Restaurant, Hotel &

Lodging and Resort & Campground Associations.

Hudson Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association (NY).

Humble Area Chamber of Commerce (TX).

Idaho Lodging and Restaurant Association.

Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Illinois Civil Justice League.

Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch.

Illinois Quad City Chamber.

Illinois Restaurant Association.

Independent Electrical Contractors.

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc.

Independent Sealing Distributors.

Industrial Compressor Distributor Association.

Industrial Supply Association.

International Association of Plastics Distributors.

International Foodservice Distributors Association.

International Franchise Association.

International Furniture Suppliers Association.

International Housewares Association.

International Safety Equipment Association.

International Sanitary Supply Association.

International Sign Association.

International Sleep Products Association.

International Truck Parts Association.

Iowa Hospitality Association.

Iowa Motor Truck Association.

Jackson Area Manufacturers Association.

Kansas Chamber of Commerce.

Kansas City Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association.

Kentucky Motor Transport Association.

Kentucky Restaurant Association.

Kern County Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association (CA).

Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ).

Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (WA).

Latrobe Area Chamber of Commerce (PA).

Lawn and Garden Marketing and Distribution Association.

Lebanon Valley Chamber of Commerce (PA).

Los Angeles Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Los Angeles Fastener Association.

Louisiana Motor Transport Association.

Louisiana Restaurant Association.

Maine Liability Crisis Alliance.

Maine Restaurant Association.

Manufactured Housing Institute.

Manufacturers' Association of Northwest Pennsylvania.

Marion Area Chamber of Commerce (IL).

Maryland Business for Responsive Government.

Maryland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Massachusetts Restaurant Association.

Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association.

Mechanical Contractors Association of America.

Memphis Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Metals Service Center Institute.

Mason Contractors Association of America.

Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch.

Michigan Restaurant Association.

Minnesota Trucking Association.

Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association.

Mississippi Manufacturers Association.

Mississippi Trucking Association.

Mississippians for Economic Progress.

Missouri Motor Carriers Association.

Missouri Restaurant Association.

Montana Chamber of Commerce/Montana Liability Coalition.

Montana Motor Carriers Association.

Montana Restaurant Association.

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.

Motorcycle Industry Council.

National Association of Chemical Distributors.

National Association of Convenience Stores.

National Association of Electrical Distributors.

National Association of Home Builders.

National Association of Manufacturers.

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

National Association of Sign Supply Distributors.

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.

National Concrete Masonry Association.

National Council of Chain Restaurants of the National

Retail Federation.

National Electrical Contractors Association.

National Federation of Independent Business.

National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers Association.

National Marine Distributors Association.

National Paint & Coatings Association.

National Pest Management Association.

National Propane Gas Association.

National Restaurant Association.

NRF--The National Retail Federation.

National Roofing Contractors Association.

National School Supply & Equipment Association.

National Shooting Sports Foundation.

NAHAD--The Association for Hose & Accessories Distributors

NPES--The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing

and Converting Technologies.

National Small Business Association.

Nebraska Restaurant Association.

Nebraska Trucking Association.

Nevada State Medical Association.

New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association.

New Jersey Automobile Wholesalers Association.

New Jersey Business & Industry.

New Jersey Motor Truck Association.

New Jersey Restaurant Association.

New Mexico Alliance for Legal Reform.

New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

New Mexico Restaurant Association.

Nevada Restaurant Association.

New York State Automotive Aftermarket Association.

New York State Motor Truck Association.

New York State Restaurant Association.

North American Horticultural Supply Association.

North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry.

North Carolina Restaurant Association.

North Carolina Trucking Association.

North Dakota State Hospitality Association.

North Florida Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

North Louisiana Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

North Texas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Northeastern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical

Contractors Association.

Northern California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Northern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Northern New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors

Association.

Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce.

Office Products Wholesalers Association.

Ohio Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.

Ohio Manufacturers Association.

Ohio Restaurant Association.

Ohio Trucking Association.

Oklahoma Restaurant Association.

Orange Chamber of Commerce (CA).

Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Oregon Restaurant Association.

Outdoor Power Equipment & Engine Service Association.

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association.

Pacific Printing & Imaging Association (AK, HI, ID, MT, OR,

To the gentleman from Massachusetts, we do not actually have any additional speakers at this time, so right now I am reserving the balance of my time for the purpose of closing, unless another speaker comes.

Madam Speaker, I might point out that the people that oppose this legislation, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier, are the very ones that support his party. So I think that there is a little balance there, if that be true in either instance.

Madam Speaker, I would first like to close this debate by thanking my colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and H.R. 420. The opportunity before this House today is another example of how this Congress has improved our legal system and preventing frivolous lawsuits from closing the doors of justice for those who have truly been harmed.

Contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say, the underlying bill, as well as other recent bills, do not demonstrate contempt for our legal system or the esteemed profession of attorneys, but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the constitutional application of the laws. Frivolous lawsuits have not only driven up costs and destroyed economic opportunity for the American people, but they have also damaged the image of the courts. When the American people stop respecting the decisions of the judiciary, the courts begin to lose their effectiveness, and they cease to perform their constitutionally mandated role.

For the sake of the courts and for the sake of the American people, we in this House need to push forward with this additional meaningful and genuine reform. Therefore, I would like to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the center aisle to support this rule and 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a fiscal conservative, and, more importantly, as a Member who believes in making the tough choices and tightening the belt of the Federal budget. Every American family knows that you do not spend money on big purchases unless you have a way to pay for it. Yet our Federal Government does this every day.

There are two ways to get our fiscal house back in order: we can raise taxes, as some of our colleagues across the aisle have suggested; or we can rein in government spending. Well, we Republicans believe that American families already pay too high a price in taxes, and we know that there are too many places where our bureaucracy is bloated and our programs are redundant and ineffective.

So rather than making the American taxpayers shoulder the burden of excessive Federal spending, I say we put the weight on ourselves, the Congress, and work our hardest to cut the fat out of the Federal budget.

I believe that government should tailor its spending to accommodate lower taxes, rather than tailoring its taxes to accommodate higher spending called for by the Democrats. Now is the time to treat our Federal budget as we would our household budget. We need to make the tough decisions.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recall the life of Sam C. Smith, former mayor of Cartersville, Georgia, president of Century Bank, and a lifelong community activist who leaves behind an everlasting legacy of service to his hometown. Sam is survived by his wife, Connie Hill Smith, and his three children, Ginny, Taylor, and Drew.

Sam's untimely death this past weekend is deeply felt by the entire Cartersville community, and I would like to share some of his accomplishments here today.

Sam lived life with a passion for everything he did, and he worked tirelessly for the betterment of his community. Never a man with small dreams or goals, Sam served as mayor of Cartersville from 1998 to 2002, and his tenure exemplified the kind of work that can be achieved when a city's leader is committed, involved, and enthusiastic about making his city a better place to live.

However, Sam's involvement in his community far outdates his rise to mayor. Sam Smith was a true fixture in Cartersville, and his shoes will be hard ones to fill. This is a man who earlier today was laid to rest less than a mile from the place where he was born 58 years ago.

After graduating from the University of Tennessee with a degree in finance, Sam quickly became a shining star for the Bartow County community. In 1972, he was named Cartersville's Outstanding Young Man of the Year, and in 1979, he was named one of five Outstanding Young Men in the State of Georgia by the Georgia Jaycees. These early accolades were followed by years of service to the community that honored him.

At the age of 26, Sam became president of Bartow County Bank, making him the youngest bank president in the State of Georgia. His distinguished tenure lasted for 20 years. More recently, he cofounded and served as president of Century Bank, the position he held at the time of his death.

Sam Smith exemplified that ``personal banker'' we value in a bank. So many people remember Sam as a banker who gave them their first loan, their first job, or that first vote of confidence in their new home or business.

Sam was also intimately involved in community organizations. He served as president of the Cartersville-Bartow Chamber of Commerce in the early 1980s and as chairman of the Georgia Bar Association Committee on Fee Arbitration in the 1990s. At the time of his death, Sam was chairman of the Independent Bankers Association's Bank Services Committee.

Sam Smith's community involvement went well beyond the financial sector. He helped bring a new Georgia Highlands College campus to Cartersville, and was an active member of Sam Jones United Methodist Church, and was an avid supporter of Cartersville's high school athletics. Just 12 days ago I was honored to be his guest at the Cartersville-Carrollton football game. Sam knew every Purple Hurricane by first name.

Last night I attended Sam's wake, and I was reminded of the impact a leader can have on the community he serves. Everyone shared words of praise, joyful memories, and personal stories I know will be told for many years to come.

It is fitting that the current mayor of Cartersville, a job Sam held with such honor, eloquently captured the spirit of Sam Smith this week. Cartersville mayor Mike Fields commented, ``I can't think of anybody else who cared more about this city than Sam Smith. Very few people put as much heart and soul into the city than Sam. His accomplishments speak for themselves, but it will take an awful lot of effort from a lot of folks to replace what he did.''

Madam Speaker, the residents of Cartersville, Georgia, were fortunate to have Sam leading their community. He made Bartow County a better place to live, to do business, even cheer on a local baseball team. It was a privilege to know him, and his presence will be deeply missed.

Madam Speaker, today Bartow County said goodbye to a favorite son. I offer my condolences to his family, his friends, and his beloved community. I know that while Sam Smith is no longer with us, his legacy will continue for many years to come.