Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the chairman for allowing me to be a part of this special hour and be with my colleagues. I am humbled from just listening to the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky who just spoke and others.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great opportunity to visit Iraq on two occasions: in December of 2003, five days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, and then again in February of this year with my colleagues on the Committee on Rules. I want to say what I noticed in Iraq, in the theater of operation, was I met soldiers' soldiers and I met commanders' commanders; and I want to say, too, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, is a chairman's chairman. It was said earlier by other speakers the sacrifice he made himself while serving in Vietnam, and his sons now serving in Iraq.

This is the kind of support that we need to show and let those young soldiers who are over there right now, maybe some of them are having a needed break, an opportunity to get out of harm's way and possibly watching the deliberations that are occurring right here this evening as we praise them and give them our support.

In the previous 5-minute litany that we heard from the other side, I think it was just the opposite. It was a little sad to hear them read names and then condemn the Commander in Chief, to condemn the cause.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to throw out a couple of names of young soldiers that gave their life in Iraq. I could mention Specialist Justin Johnson from Armuchee, Georgia, just 2 years out of high school. His dad, Joe Johnson, actually is in the Reserves now serving, activated, asked to be activated, and yet he gave his son in the ultimate sacrifice.

First Lieutenant Tyler Brown, president of the student body at my alma mater, Georgia Tech, had an opportunity to be in Arlington in the Honor Guard. But, no; instead he chose, he asked, to go to serve in Iraq, and, 2 weeks after he arrived there, was killed by a sniper. President of the student body at Georgia Tech just 4 years ago. I think of his family. I think of his mom and his dad and his brother and his sister.

I think of Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke, who at age 43, after 19 years of service and four combat tours of duty, 1 day after I met him that first time in December of 2003 that I went to Iraq, on Christmas Eve, he gave his life by sitting in that seat in a Humvee so that one of his soldiers could get some needed rest.

That is the kind of men and women that I want to honor and remember here tonight as we talk about these great patriots that are serving us so well.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is all about one thing that we can remember. Those of us who are not veterans, those of us who are veterans, no matter what war we are talking about, and this country has been through a few in the 235 years of our history, the soldiers, particularly those who have given their lives in combat, they do not want us to forget. They do not want us to forget. That is all they ask of us.

And I am often reminded of that poem that was written by a Canadian physician serving with the Allies in World War I in Flanders, Belgium, when his buddy gave his life in combat. He wrote a poem, a tribute to him, and that is the great poem that we all know called ``In Flanders Fields.'' I will try to recite it, Mr. Speaker. I might not do a very good job, but it goes something like this:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

We loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe;

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

For if ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders Fields.

That little poem that Dr. McCrae wrote in World War I, of course, is a very famous poem today, and it just says one thing, Mr. Speaker. It says, do not forget us. We died for our country. No matter what the cause, even if you do not agree with it, as we hear from the other side tonight and other times on this floor, we have got to remember the sacrifice, otherwise these 2,000 soldiers who have given their lives, and four times that many who have been injured, will indeed have died in vain. We will have forgotten them. We will not have taken up that torch that they are passing to us and they are asking us to hold it high.

That is our obligation. We do not necessarily have to be veterans, combat veterans, like the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) or the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) or the many men and women, too. And I think of the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and others who have served in this country. We are all serving. And I do not question the patriotism of the people on the other side until I hear them talking about the Commander in Chief and saying that he lied to the American people and that we did not need to be there, that we struck first. How quickly, Mr. Speaker, how quickly they forget 9/11.

God bless our troops. God bless the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter). We are behind them 100 percent, and we are winning, and we will continue to win and bring these soldiers home safe with a victory in hand.

Mr. Speaker, due to the passing of my good friend, Sam Smith of Cartersville, Georgia, I request a leave of absence from votes this evening so I may attend his wake.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for leading this hour during this week of Children's Health Care Initiative and calling attention to the health of our children. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) has worked extensively in the field of psychology, particularly child psychology. He has actually written a book and has another coming out soon on the subject. I think as we get further into the hour, we probably will discuss a little about bit about how important a child's not only physical health but their mental health is.

But I do appreciate the opportunity that the gentleman has given me, Mr.

Speaker, to share some of this time with him.

My background in a prior life, my professional experience was for 30 years in the practice of medicine, and the specialty that I enjoyed practicing was obstetrics and gynecology; and we have that opportunity in that field of medicine to see a child at the very beginnings of life and know how critically important a good start is. We talk about some of the things that this Republican majority has done, some of the very good programs since President Bush has been in office, certainly not the least of which is No Child Left Behind regarding our K-12 education program. But it is so important from the health care perspective that no child is left behind from the moment of conception.

So I do want to talk a little bit about the importance of prenatal care and actually call my colleagues' attention to this one poster that I have here regarding prenatal care, entitled ``Proper Prenatal Care Leads to Healthy Children.'' No question about it. Some of the bullet points, these may be a little bit difficult to see, Mr. Speaker, but hopefully we can focus the camera in on the bullet points.

First of all, 1 million, 1 million, American women deliver babies annually without receiving prenatal care. Secondly, in the United States, more than 250,000 low birth weight infants are born each year. More than 250,000. Now, for my colleagues' understanding, a low birth weight infant is one that weighs less than 2,500 grams. That is about 5\1/2\ pounds. Those children are not all premature. In some instances they are unhealthy children who are near term, but low birth weight. But most of them, most of these 250,000 low birth weight infants are actually born premature as well.

And the third bullet point, low birth weight infants are more likely to suffer from disabilities, things like heart defects and respiratory illnesses. They are four times more likely to prematurely die than infants with a normal birth weight.

I have had many situations, Mr. Speaker, as an obstetrician having delivered over 5,000 children, where women come into the emergency room having had no prenatal care. And they are clearly the ones who are more likely to deliver these low birth weight babies and deliver them prematurely. That is why I think it is so important, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) would agree with me, that when we emphasize the issue, the immigration issue, of securing our borders and want to make sure that every immigrant that comes into this country comes here legally and has an opportunity to get prenatal care, as, of course, many of those who come in an illegal manner are afraid or do not now how or where to get prenatal care and will just show up in the emergency room having delivered an unhealthy premature low birth weight infant, the cost of taking care of a child in that situation in the very expensive setting of an intensive care nursery, a 2-month stay, and that would not be uncommon for a very small infant, could approach easily $750,000 to $1 million worth of health care. And that, Mr. Speaker, is really just the beginning.

That is just the beginning of the cost, because if there is a disability that is long lasting or maybe even lasting a lifetime, and that is often the case, whether it is a heart defect or a musculoskeletal deformity or a mental defect as a result of lack of oxygen, sometimes even blindness, the cost is just astronomical. So it is so important, it is so important, that we do things in this Congress at the Federal level to encourage that women get prenatal care and that children are born healthy and that, indeed, no infant, not just no child left behind, but no infant is left behind.

So I just wanted to go over with my colleagues some of the things in regard to prenatal care that are so important that I always stress to my patients: of course, encouraging immunizations and vitamin supplements, monitoring of diet, increased physical activity, clearly to avoid smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy and drug use. Certainly any drug use that is nonprescription or not under the jurisdiction and guidance of a physician is to be discouraged. Environmental factors are hugely important. As I say, a healthy diet, a regular weight check, physical activity, all of these things are so important. And then to come see the physician on a regular basis during the pregnancy. This is how we avoid, Mr. Speaker, these 1 million American women delivering babies annually either without receiving prenatal care or ending up with premature deliveries.

I want to, if the gentleman would allow me, to expand on this a bit. It is not just being born healthy and well; but the first 5 years of life, what happens to the child after that is tremendously important as well. I have a grandson, little Grey Collins. He will be a year old soon. And it is so much fun to see him, and I often have that opportunity to see him, watching the little Baby Einstein tapes, that he is hugged many times a day and loved by his parents and grandparents and his aunts and uncles and how important it is to provide that love and affection to a child and let them know that they are loved, and we will get into that. I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) will talk about that later in the hour as he discusses things like childhood obesity and childhood mental health.

But I wanted to speak a little bit about a program that we just reauthorized in the last couple of weeks here in this 109th Congress, and what I am talking about is the Head Start program. Sometimes we get criticized, we, the Republican majority, that we do not care enough about social programs and we do not care enough about the poor and underprivileged and people that do not maybe have the same opportunity that the upper middle class society has.

But let me tell the Members we do care. We do care. And this reauthorization is proof of the pudding.

Just a little historical perspective on that. Head Start and its cousin, Early Head Start or comprehensive child development programs, serving children from birth to age 5, as I stated, as well as pregnant women and their families, the critical component of the Head Start program is that it is child focused with the overall goal to increase school readiness of young children in low-income families, Mr. Speaker. The Head Start program has a long tradition of delivering comprehensive and high-quality services designed to foster healthy development in children that need our help the most.

The program provides a range of individualized services in areas of education, early childhood development, but not stopping there. It also offers medical, dental, and mental health services to these children and to their families. It even goes a step further by providing nutritional counseling and encouraging parental involvement in their child's development. It is a rich program. I have got a lot of statistics, and as we continue the hour, I will relate some of those specifics, particularly in regard to the reauthorization and how much we are doing in that program.

But I just wanted to point out, as I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) agrees, how important it is that we do everything we can to make sure that our children get a good start in life. And as I have stated at the outset, the prenatal care aspect is hugely important. Programs like the Early Head Start and Head Start program so that the children, all children, when they get to that 5- year-old kindergarten class or get to the first grade, that they have an equal opportunity with their peers and they are not starting school with one hand tied behind their back. So it is hugely important that they are healthy, that they are happy, that they are loved and they have an opportunity, as we all want, in life.

At this point I will continue to be here with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) during this hour.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out, and he is so right, we need to move into the 21st century in regard to our health care system and modeling. Just trying to come up with better drugs and the latest surgery techniques to treat complicated illness is not enough. We really need to focus on preventive care.

You are talking about in the last few minutes, of course, your specialty, in talking about mental illness, and as it relates also to childhood obesity, and I could not help but think as I was listening to your discussion, and as you know, this week we just passed H.R. 554. H.R. 554 is the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005. This is a bill my colleagues are aware of the fact it would not allow someone to sue a fast food manufacturer because they have gorged themselves with a multiple number of Big Macs or any other kind of fast food, or sometimes what we refer to as junk food. It is not the fault of the food industry.

I used a little analogy when I was talking about this on the floor yesterday in discussing the rule of my belt, which is a size 36. That is, I hate to admit, the size of my waist, but if I wanted really out of blind pride to suggest that I had a 24-inch waist and I cinched that belt down a couple of notches, in doing so, I put pressure, compression on something referred to as the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, it would result in a condition of numbness and lack of feeling on the anterior thigh. Then should I go out and sue the belt company because they are at fault because I misused a product?

This is what this bill, of course, is all about, a common-sense type bill.

Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the author of the bill, our good friend and colleague, is actually in the hospital now and recovering hopefully from a fairly minor condition, but we want to pay tribute to him. I know he is proud that we passed this bill this week.

The comment that I wanted to make is this issue of personal responsibility, and parents should have that personal responsibility obviously in the way they conduct themselves in regard to how they eat and a healthy diet and exercise, but even more importantly is the responsibility that they have to give a good example and instruction to their children.

I think it is probably the worst form of child abuse to let these youngsters that at a very early age overeat and become obese. You have talked about the issue of poor mental image, self-image, and of course, I also see you talked about Hollywood and, of course, this issue of there is no such thing as mental illness. I think probably they might predominate in some of those diseases, which we categorize as mental illness.

But quite honestly, when a child goes to school and there is this emphasis on thinness and you see these youngsters wearing these Britney Spears' jeans and that sort of thing, a child even a little bit overweight and certainly one that is significantly obese, of course they are going to have a poor image of themselves. They are going to withdraw, and they are going to become shy. It is very likely they are going to be picked on. How in the world can they grow and develop with a healthy self-image? No wonder they end up needing to be counseled and treated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and other mental health care specialists.

Yes, unfortunately, some even go on to harm themselves and possibly even commit suicide. So I guess the most important thing that I would want to say as a physician Member is that we need to prevent this.

We need to make sure that parents get the message that they have an obligation, not just to take care of themselves, but first and foremost to take care of these precious children that they bring into the world. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are from the very beginning, when they start eating at the table, to make sure that they are healthy and stay healthy so you do not have to have them ending up in your office treating them for not only mental illness but also the many complications of obesity.

You mentioned them. You mentioned diabetes, high blood pressure, so many things. And talk about the cost to this health care system of ours. We always talk about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and the Medicaid programs and wanting to eliminate that, and we are very diligent and will continue to be so. But this is almost a no-brainer. It is like we heard former Speaker Newt Gingrich say to a group of us earlier today, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania was a part of that as we had him come to speak to Members of the House. We are not talking about low-hanging fruit here in regard to saving money and saving lives. We are talking about fruit that is lying on the ground sitting there rotting waiting for us to pick it up. So clearly that is what my message would be in regard to that.

Without question probably the most common condition that we see in smoking moms is something called toxemia of pregnancy. Toxemia, by the very word, it is a poison. We do not know exactly what that poison is, but something occurs in those moms that develop toxemia. It is not always because of smoking, but frequently it is. And also so often that condition will lead also to pre-term labor and delivery and one of these low birth weight infants.

In the extreme, toxemia of pregnancy before birth results in a very, very high blood pressure. It can cause a stroke, a deep coma, one from which sometimes the mother never recovers and the child is lost. So we are talking about one of the worst complications of pregnancy other than just out and out exsanguination from bleeding, which is also a possibility in any pregnancy.

But smoking, we see that condition more often. And then, of course, childhood asthma, which I am sure the gentleman has seen plenty of cases of that, youngsters that come in because there is that secondary smoke situation. Not only do they have to suffer with it during the 9 months of pregnancy of their mom; but once they are born, that smoking continues in the household. So it is a huge complication, no question about that.

The gentleman is so right, and I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.

This issue of scoring, as the gentleman is talking about, it reminds me of course of the debate during the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act that we passed in December of 2003. Of course, that part D will go into effect and the modernization piece is already in effect for Medicare, but part D, the prescription drug part, will start January 1. But all we heard and continue to hear, particularly from the other side and for those nay-sayers who keep wanting to talk negative about really a very good program that is going to be a Godsend for our neediest seniors, I talked about this on the floor, my colleagues I know heard me last night. But the talk, the emphasis is on the cost of part D, and the cost estimate is based on the number of seniors that participate ultimately.

I do not think anybody really knows, Mr. Speaker, what that number will be; but at one point it looked like the CBO said, well, it is going to be $400 billion additional Medicare cost over a 5-year period of time. Then those numbers were revised, and then we were hearing as much maybe as $750 billion. That is the scoring that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is talking about, and my colleagues understand what he means. You get no credit for the fact that many people who sign up and, yes, there will be an additional Medicare cost for them on this part D program, but the fact that they are able to take those medications, they can finally afford to take that statin to lower their cholesterol and that medication, that insulin to lower their blood sugar or whatever antihypertensive to lower their blood pressure, guess what, we get less spending on part A, the hospital part, when you end up in the emergency room with a stroke because you could not take your medicine, or you end up on the operating table for your coronary bypass or maybe even worse an amputation or a kidney transplant, and then you have this huge cost to the physician under part B.

The truth of the matter is, and what the gentleman was emphasizing, is that you get no credit for saving those costs, not to mention the fact that it is so much more compassionate to spend money on prevention rather than treatment, particularly when the treatment sometimes is not very successful and a person could ultimately be in a nursing home for years and disabled for the rest of their lives.

I will take it a step further before turning it back over to my colleague. It is the same thing, this scoring issue, in regard to the tax cuts that this Republican leadership has effected over these past 3 years. The scorers, the CBO, the number crunchers say, well, these tax cuts, the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, increasing the child tax credit from $600 an infant to $1,000 a child, giving small business men and women an opportunity to more rapidly depreciate investment in bricks and mortar and creating new jobs, all of these things, elimination of the death tax, no taxation without respiration I firmly believe in, the scorers said that was going to cost us $1.3 trillion.

My colleague remembers that. And a lot of people said, oh, we cannot afford that. What are we doing cutting taxes? Well, after about a year and a half, when we looked at our revenue stream, what was the result? We had about 225 billion more dollars, which on the scoring side we get no credit for.

So the gentleman is so right. So many of these things that we are talking about tonight in this hour, these innovations, these community health centers that the President has funded, recommended, and feels so strongly about, on the scoring side you get no credit for; but we do save money, as the gentleman points out. And just think, also, it is the compassionate, conservative thing to do for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet and discuss the situation on our borders with the members of the Minute Men Project. These dedicated individuals reaffirmed my concerns that illegal immigrants are crossing our borders in record numbers. They fear that any amnesty or free citizenship bill will only reward and entice more illegal immigration. I agree.

Therefore, as Congress moves closer to a substantial debate on immigration reform, it is important that we not consider any guest worker or amnesty proposal until the administration makes a concerted effort to secure our borders and enforce our laws and Congress passes legislation that allows local and State officials to act as immigration deputies.

The situation on our border is not pretty, and it is a problem that Congress must not ignore.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your help to reform and restore accountability to our immigration laws.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 493 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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 493 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, before we open debate on the rule for S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, I would like to say that our Nation's judicial system is out of control. If a group or a person does not like what someone else does or believes, they try to sue them out of existence. This seems to be the case for the firearms industry.

Our Founding Fathers designed our second amendment rights to be absolute rights that shall not be infringed. However, those who find the second amendment offensive have made a concerted effort to sue out of existence those who lawfully and legally facilitate a constitutionally guaranteed right. America's firearm companies are directly connected to and span our national history, but they are currently threatened by a lawsuit-friendly culture.

Addressing the burden of frivolous lawsuits has become a necessity for free enterprise. It seems that for some individuals lawsuits have become the latest get-rich scheme. Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of goods and services, and they put law-abiding companies out of business.

The passage of this legislation is time-sensitive. Every day without this legislation puts more stress on firearm manufacturers, their customers, and their employees. Indeed, some lawsuits are motivated by ideology and a distaste for the firearm industry and guns in general. They will simply keep suing until either the firearm companies are out of business or the guns are too expensive to purchase.

This form of gun control will not only compromise one of our constitutional rights but, Madam Speaker, it threatens the jobs of many Americans.

So it is important to note that S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, does allow the following types of lawsuits to be filed: number 1, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition, knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence, or drug trafficking crime or comparable or identical State felony law; secondly, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment; third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

This exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers who failed to maintain a required inventory list necessary to ensure that they are alerted to any firearm thefts.

Fourth, actions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition; and fifth, actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.

So, under this legislation, manufacturers and sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State law. More than half our States have passed similar legislation, and I encourage passage of this rule and consideration of the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before calling on the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

I want to point out, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, regarding this particular legislation, S. 397, we have in this body, not just in the 109th this year, passed very, very similar, almost identical legislation, and there were some 11 amendments I think offered during the markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. Those were defeated. In fact, at least one member of the committee from the other party, from the minority party, voted against most of those amendments and voted in favor of favorably reporting this bill. This bill also was passed in the 108th Congress, H.R. 1036. I think the vote on that particular bill was 285 to 140.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) I want to point out that this bill prohibits lawsuits against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition or not-for-profit trade association for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition.

But it provides, as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, five exceptions to this liability protection, including, and I will just mention one in response to my good friend from Massachusetts. An exception would be for an action against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se, for example supplying a gun or ammunition to a person when the seller knows or reasonably should know that the buyer possesses an unacceptable risk of physical injury to himself or others.

As an example again, the D.C. snipers were successful in court on these grounds.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would again point out to the gentleman that it also would be an exception if a vendor knowingly did not keep an inventory so that they would have knowledge that dangerous weapons or firearms were actually stolen from their place of business. And that also is one of the exceptions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this bill on the House side, H.R. 800, which was passed, as I mentioned earlier by the House Judiciary Committee, this bill actually had 257 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker. So this is certainly not a Republican bill.

You can do the math. My colleagues certainly can do the math on the other side of the aisle. But clearly, this bill had strong, strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and Commerce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite their best arguments against free enterprise, personal responsibility and the protection of lawful commerce, critics fail to provide an alternative solution to the problem without compromising our liberties and second amendment rights.

Just as a car is a tool for transportation, an ax is a tool for cutting trees and shrubs, prescription drugs are tools for better health, a firearm is a tool for hunting and self-defense and protection of our citizens. Any of these tools used in an irresponsible manner and used contrary to their attending purpose can hurt and, yes, even kill others. But a gun by itself, Mr. Speaker, cannot commit a crime. It takes an individual to use the product illegally and irresponsibly.

The protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a bill to curb our lawsuit-friendly and, yes, sometimes abusive society and to protect law-abiding citizens from individuals who avoid responsibility and undermine the good faith of our legal system.

Frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the survival of the gun industry, the jobs it creates, and our constitutional right to purchase, keep and bear arms. While many cases are dismissed, it only takes one bad ruling to sink a company and to send ripple effects across an entire industry. Although America's first gun manufacturer, Springfield Armory, went out of business in 1968, we still have to protect America's remaining law-abiding companies who conduct business in a responsible and in a lawful manner.

It would be a tragedy for a Nation with such a rich and innovative history in manufacturing to have our police and military carry over foreign-engineered firearms. We need to protect the American firearm industry. We need to restore responsibility and end these frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this rule and passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 494 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 494 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. 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. This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 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 the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 494 and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and additionally I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for authoring the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, a common sense piece of legislation that passed this House in the last Congress by a substantial bipartisan vote of 276 to 139. I might further add that 55 Democrats joined with 221 Republicans supporting this bill in an effort to help rein in this mentality of jackpot justice that has plagued our judicial system and cluttered the dockets to a virtual standstill. This legislation would require courts to dismiss any lawsuits that seek damages for injury resulting from weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with obesity filed against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of any food product, in addition to trade associations that represent them.

Of course, support of this bill is not limited to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker. A recent Gallup poll found that approximately 9 in 10 Americans, a number of whom are themselves in the ranks of overweight or even obese, opposed holding the fast food industry legally responsible for diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem in our society. Having practiced medicine for nearly 30 years, I am well aware of the habit and complications that obesity can wreak on a person's health, especially over a long term. Like most other Americans, I am also well aware that obesity is on the rise in our country, and particularly among our children. However, the root of the problem is not the existence of fast food or the presence of a local fast food restaurant, but rather the root of the problem lies in the choices of consumers. I have never heard of anyone pulling up to the drive-through window with a hamburglar sitting in the passenger seat forcing someone to buy just one more Big Mac.

Mr. Speaker, allowing an individual to sue a restaurant because the consumer chose to eat there often or chose to eat too much is simply ridiculous and, frankly, it is a dangerous waste of the court's time. For every frivolous case that takes up a spot on the docket, a legitimate case where an individual is truly harmed and truly needs expeditious judicial review gets pushed farther and farther down the line. And as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

The title of this bill emphasizes the type of solution needed to address the underlying problem. It is called personal responsibility. It is not just a catch phrase. Individuals have to take control of their own lives. They have to make wise decisions, especially when it comes to their health. And when an individual does make a poor decision, he or she should not be able to abuse the courts so as to shift responsibility to someone else in order to cash in.

Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 544 prohibits certain types of lawsuits, it does make various reasonable exceptions to ensure the protection of a consumer's legitimate claim for legitimate harm. An individual, for example, can still sue in those instances where a contract or a warranty is breached, as long as the basis for the lawsuit is not related to weight gain, obesity or a health condition associated with either. Additionally, a manufacturer or seller is still liable if they knowingly violate a Federal or State statute concerning the marketing, the advertising, or the labeling of a product.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow individuals to bring obesity or weight gain related matters before the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, for consideration and appropriate action. Obviously, individuals can still sue in accordance with applicable State laws protecting against deceptive trade practices and if a person becomes sick from a tainted food product.

In closing, I just want to emphasize that this legislation is common sense and it includes exemptions to ensure legitimate claims still make it to court while abusive lawsuits are stopped at the courthouse door.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, following which I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, H.R. 554, is all about, again, personal responsibility and to point out how ludicrous it would be if we allowed personal injury lawsuits against the food industry or any other company that makes a legitimate product.

We just talked earlier in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in regard to gun manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, let me just give an example, if I might. This is a belt, an alligator belt. In fact, it is my belt. Size 36. I have a size 36 waist. This belt, I am proud to say, is hand-finished, American alligator, produced right here in the good old U.S.A. This alligator skin was obtained from a Louisiana hunt, it says on this belt, 1993, manufactured by the Trafalgar Limited Belt Company, a good company. And the belt has served me very well. Size 36 fits me well.

Mr. Speaker, let us suppose now that I decided, it is unlikely that I would do this, but let us suppose I decided I wanted to wear a size 42 and I punched a few extra holes in this belt, which is a size 36, so I could wear it and buckle it with a size 42 pair of trousers. These trousers fell right to my knees in a public place. I do not think I should have the right to sue the belt company because I used its product in a manner that it was not designed to use. I could go out and buy myself a size 42 belt.

Let me give another example, and this is more likely. Let us suppose I really felt like my waist was a size 34, and so I cinched this belt up really good so I could proudly say I am not a 36, I have a 34 inch waist at my age. I would feel pretty good about myself.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve at my waist called the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. If someone puts too much pressure around their waist by wearing a belt inappropriately, by cinching it up too tightly, they put compression on that nerve, that lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, and I speak from knowledge on this from 30 years as a practicing physician. That condition, my colleagues can look it up, but I will share it with them, it is called meralgia paresthetica. If Members do not believe me, look it up. It creates tremendous numbness and loss of feeling in the anterior part of the thigh.

Let us suppose someone misused this belt and wore it as a size 34 and decided for that reason to sue this Trafalgar Company, this good, solid American company that makes this belt, for damages. That is totally ridiculous and ludicrous, and that is why this bill is so important. That is why it is called personal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking my colleagues for a productive discussion on the rule and the underlying bill. Today, this House has an

opportunity to again pass meaningful reform to not only promote personal accountability but also to strengthen the opportunities for legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated. Let us take one more step to turn back the tide of so-called ``jackpot justice.''

While runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits might make a few individuals and certain ambulance-chasing lawyers rich, the American people ultimately pay the price both economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, discouraging individuals from taking personal responsibility does not help anyone. In fact, it will only make matters worse. Encouraging healthy lifestyles and wise dietary choices should always trump rewarding poor decisions by shifting the blame to innocent bystanders.

The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 is a good bill, and I look forward to further discussing its merits on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, a strong bipartisan majority passed this bill in the last Congress; and I have no reason to doubt that we should be able to pass it again by a similar, maybe even a stronger, margin; and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the other side, the 30- Something Democrats. I have been listening, as I know my colleagues have, to the 30-Something Democrats for about a year and a half now a couple or three times a week. It is the same old same old. Now they have pledged to come back tomorrow night with some positive information voice, and I look forward to that. In fact, I am going to listen very closely, because all I have heard from my three colleagues on the other side, the 30-Something Democrats, the two from Florida, the one from Ohio, very intelligent, very well spoken, very articulate, and very, very negative.

So before we get into our special hour talking about something positive, a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our needy seniors, I just want to suggest to my colleagues who spent the last hour talking negative we look forward to hearing from them tomorrow night maybe on something positive for a welcomed, welcomed change.

Mr. Speaker, it kind of reminds me of the fall of 2003, my first year in the 108th Congress, when we worked so very hard on trying to bring to our seniors finally, after almost 38 years, a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. What we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle was very similar to what we just listened to in this Chamber over the last hour from the 30-Something Democrats. It was all negative. There was no plan, there was no alternative. It was just: Seniors in my Democratic district, you men and women who have supported me and let me represent you in the Congress, this is what I suggest that you do, you take out your AARP card and you cut it to shreds because that is what I, your Congressman or your Congresswoman on the Democratic side of the aisle, plan to do.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, what we did was an historic benefit. In fact, for 2 years now, and it will continue until January 1 of 2006 when the official Medicare Part D prescription benefit plan is available, we had an almost a 2-year transition plan of a Medicare prescription drug discount card which would allow our neediest seniors actually to have $600, a debit card if you will, not a credit card, but $600 each of those 2 years if they were at or near Federal

poverty level low income, below about $11,000 a year for an individual or below $14,000, $15,000 a year for a couple, basically men and women, our seniors who are on Medicare and essentially living off of their Social Security benefit and very, very little else.

I think it was a tremendously compassionate thing for this Congress, this leadership, this Republican majority and this President, George W. Bush, to finally deliver on a promise that had been made by prior Congresses, prior Presidents. I will not get into naming names or saying who was in charge at what period of time.

The fact is Medicare was first passed in 1965. Medicare was a very good program then, it is a very good program now, but it desperately needed modernization when we have come to realize, especially over these last few years, how important it is to have an opportunity to have that prescription drug benefit to go along with Part A and Part B.

Part A of course, Mr. Speaker, you understand is a hospital part and the nursing home part. There is a pretty high deductible for that as well, today something like $850 out of pocket before there is any coverage for Part A. And Part B, if God forbid a person end up in a nursing home after 100 days, there are no benefits in any period or episode of illness. Everything else is out of pocket, and that is why so many of our seniors who do end up in a nursing home pretty quickly become dependent, wards of the State almost, and Medicaid, which is strapping our States so badly now across this country, pays about 85, 90 percent of all skilled nursing home bills, is paid by Medicaid because people literally are going broke and they cannot afford it.

So here again, as I waited of course to have this opportunity to speak on the Republican side, the aisle where we have dedicated, Mr. Speaker, to explain and talk about something positive. We are a positive party. We want to do things that are for the benefit of the people and not just stand around and criticize like we heard over this last hour.

I do not hear a plan from the other side, yet they voted almost overwhelmingly, thank goodness there were a few in a bipartisan fashion did vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug modernization plan Part D, and it should not have been a partisan issue. It should have been not about the next election, but doing something that is going to help the most treasured part of our society, really, that being our senior citizens, and particularly those who are in greatest need. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be asked by the leadership tonight to lead this hour as a physician Member of the body.

There are actually 10 M.D. physicians in this congressional body of 435 Members. There are other Members who are health care professionals, be they psychologists or pharmacists or registered nurses and physical therapists, veterinarians, people that have worked in health care, and I think we all owe it to our colleagues and to the American people to get behind and to support this legislation which will in fact go into effect January 1, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for each one of us on both sides of the aisle not to discourage our constituents, our seniors from signing up for this prescription drug benefit, but to explain it to them and let them know and to particularly let those know who are at a low income level.

We mentioned just a few seconds ago about that amount, about $11,800 for an individual, a single person, a widow or a widower, or about $15,000, $16,000 for a couple, that they are eligible for supplemental help. We anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that the deductible for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit would be about $250 a year and that the monthly premium would be about $35 a year, $32 to $35 a year. That is what we predicted a year and a half ago. Now that these plans are rolling out and are being offered to our seniors, the marketplace is working. Competition, that competitive entrepreneurial spirit is working without government price controls, and many of these plans are going to be offered or are being offered right now to our seniors at as low as $20 a month premium, not $32, not $35, but $20 a month. So already the predicted cost is coming down, and as a result of that I think the number of seniors who sign up and take advantage, sure, there will be, Mr. Speaker, some seniors who will realize that they already have coverage. Maybe they are a retired State employee, possibly a teacher, maybe they are a retired Federal employee, possibly they work for a company like in the State of Georgia, Lockheed Martin or Coca- Cola or Home Depot, some of these strong companies that seniors have worked for 30 or 40 years, and that was not atypical with the great generation, they stuck with the job and with the company and they have been promised health care benefits and benefits that do include prescription drug coverage.

In this bill, by the way, we have done everything we could to make sure that companies do not drop those plans, that those promises made are promises kept. That is in addition part of this Medicare modernization. So some people, Mr. Speaker, some seniors will decline to sign up for Medicare Part D because they already have a plan and they have a good plan and they stick with it, and that is perfectly understandable. But for those seniors who do not have anything, who get to go to their doctor, maybe their family practitioner, their general internist for that annual physical, and lo and behold they find out that their cholesterol is elevated, their blood sugar is elevated, their blood pressure is elevated and they have that need to be on medication and they go to the drug store with a fistful, literally a fistful of prescriptions, maybe four or five. You talk about sticker shock. Currently our seniors in that situation, they are maybe not part of an HMO and they do not get any discount because of volume, it is just them trying to fill a prescription.

I know that recently I went to the drugstore and happen to be on a statin to lower my cholesterol and ordered a 3-month supply, and only to find out that my part of the prescription, I think 25 percent of the true cost, was going to be $110. When I asked the pharmacist what it really cost, the cost per pill, and I will not mention the pill in fairness to the company, but it was something like $5.25 for each pill, and it is necessary that I take that every day, and my health is pretty good. But you take a lot of our seniors, Mr. Speaker, they do not have one thing wrong, a lot of times it just almost like you might say is multi-system diseases. They may have three things that impact each other. What has happened in the past of course is this: They maybe were too embarrassed to say they could not afford the prescription, and maybe they turned around and walked out and said they would be back but never came back. Or possibly they asked the pharmacist, instead of a month's supply, just give me a 2-week supply, and then they would go home and they start breaking those pills and trying to stretch it just like we oftentimes have to stretch the budget when things are tight.

But the problem is, of course, that is when these diseases get out of control. That is when the elevated cholesterol results in plaque formation in the coronary arteries, or the blood sugar gets elevated and all of a sudden there is a problem with blindness and loss of limb or a patient ending up on renal dialysis.

I hope my colleagues would listen carefully to this. We heard at the outset a lot of Members, and very legitimately and honestly and sincerely, oppose this bill and the vote was a very close vote, and indeed it was. I am very proud that I voted yes, and I think most if not all of the physician Members as a body also voted yes on both sides of the aisle. But there were men and women of good faith who voted no. In some instances they were voting no because they did not think that we were doing enough. You even hear that today, the hole in the doughnut is too big and the plan is not good enough. It might be okay for some people, but for the typical average senior who is a Medicare beneficiary or someone who is on Medicare because of a disability, it is just not good enough. We want to do more, we want to close down, shrink down that hole in the doughnut, so they voted no. And I can understand that line of reasoning.

There were Members mostly on this side of the aisle who felt that we cannot do this because we cannot afford to do it. We have got a deficit, we have got a debt that is far too big by everybody's admission. Although we

would like to do this, we cannot do it because we cannot afford really to do anything. We are in a war in the Middle East trying to bring democracy. I think we are succeeding there. I think the light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to shine brighter and brighter with the success and the 60 percent plus turnout here recently in the new constitution and then hopefully parliamentary elections a month from now.

The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the cost, the cost was calculated based on the fact that you would continue to spend in the Medicare program in this country the same amount, maybe increasing depending on, as the population of seniors increased for part A, you would have the same situation for part B; it would increase because of an increase in population of seniors.

And then you would have this added expense. We were told initially that that was about $400 billion over 10 years, and then there was a recalculation and maybe it was going to be as much as $600 billion. The fact, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is this. We get no credit for the fact that taking prescription medications, when our seniors can go to the drug store and get those prescriptions filled, and they can in a very timely fashion lower that blood pressure, lower that blood sugar, lower that cholesterol, and guess what, we do not end up spending money on them for part A or part B, do we except maybe for an annual check-up on an outpatient basis by one of our wonderful primary care physicians who work so hard and such long hours? No. We keep them out of the hospital.

Before the Medicare modernization, before December of 2003, you could not even go to your doctor and get a routine thorough physical and have it paid for under Medicare. You could not get a blood test for cholesterol, you could not get a mammogram, you could not get a PSA blood test screening for prostate cancer, you could not get a colonoscopy.

In this bill, in addition to the prescription drug benefit, all of those things are now available and paid for. This is what we call, Mr. Speaker, preventative medicine. Not waiting until somebody is eligible for coverage under part B because they show up in the emergency room having had a stroke because their blood pressure could not be treated, or they ended up on the operating table getting the coronary bypass or even worse, having a leg amputated because they never had the money to treat their diabetes.

We save money, Mr. Speaker, on part B because of part B. And even if we did not, it is the compassionate thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. Who wants to end up spending the rest of their life in a nursing home after a stroke no matter who is paying for it?

But as I said earlier, those days are limited to 100, and then after that, mom or dad or grandmom or granddad exhausts every bit of their savings, everything that they have worked their whole lives for, maybe they wanted to send a grandchild to college, an opportunity that they never had when times were tougher, and all of a sudden they lose it all simply because we did not, Congress did not, give them this coverage, this Medicare prescription drug benefit.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, to anybody who will listen, that this was the right thing to do. This is not something that we can afford to put off. You cannot. I have heard people say, well, gee, you know, the seniors have waited 3 years, surely because now we are in a bind, and we are trying to figure out a way to pay for the restoration of the gulf coast and rebuild that infrastructure, certainly we need to do that and we need to look for so-called offsets. And they are there.

We talk about maybe taking a little haircut and cutting 1 to 2 percent of the growth in every Department. I think we can find those cuts, and I think we can do that. But to ask the seniors to wait another year or two or three, that would be the cruelest of ironies on our part.

And I, Mr. Speaker, am not willing to do that. And I would beg my colleagues, let us not go down that road. We are about to do something that is really good for our seniors. It may be not unlike what we have done in the Middle East. We hear, whether it is from the 30-something Democrats or in the editorial pages from our liberal newspapers in this country, the constant, constant negative criticism and naysayers, and this talk about what is your exit strategy.

I have been hearing that, Mr. Speaker, for 2 years. What is your exit strategy? I mean, you know, you are in the early part of the fourth quarter of a football game, and you are winning, but the going is getting a little tough. If you pull your team off the field, you do not win; you forfeit.

And all of those lives, 2,000 dead, and four times that many injured, are for naught. What a disgraceful thing that would be if we did not follow through. So the analogy then is the light is at the end of the tunnel, it is shining brightly, I think, as I stand here tonight, Mr. Speaker, in the Middle East.

And I think that is absolutely true in regard to health care for our seniors as we go forward. And to all of a sudden snuff out that light because we have this natural disaster, this catastrophe which nobody could prevent or predict, and we have to respond to it, but as Thomas Payne once said, when he was serving at Valley Forge with George Washington, these are the times that try men's souls.

But we, thank God, Mr. Speaker, can walk and chew gum at the same time. This Republican leadership can deal with both of these issues, and it would be a terrible mistake to turn our backs on our seniors at this critical time where we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel and providing for them a benefit that they well, well deserve and have needed for so long.

The thing about this bill that excites me, Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the things that I am the most excited about, is the fact that the benefit is the greatest for those with the greatest need. Yes, there is a hole in the donut, and it is true that for some people the benefit would not be great if they were not spending anything on prescription drugs.

And there are those in our society who are very fortunate. Sometimes in medical parlance we refer to this as having the Methuselah gene: they enjoy long life and good health, and other members of their family the same. And, you know, maybe they will go see the doctor every year or two; but everything is always fine, and so they are not spending any money on prescription drugs.

So they may look at it and say, gee, $250 deductible if I have to spend anything, that is out of my pocket. And if I am spending $30 a month, you know, that is another almost $400, and I am not currently spending that. So, you know, I look at that and I have spent $700 the first year of the prescription drug benefit that I have got, and last year I did not spend anything on prescription drugs, so I have lost $700. Well, that is true. That is true.

But what that individual needs to realize, and I hope that my colleagues in the Congress on both sides of the aisle will make sure that they in a very fair way explain this to their constituents, you beware that next year or next month or next week or even tomorrow, do not all of a sudden have a little chest pain and end up being that person that needs to be on four or five prescription drugs, and then your bill could be 3 or $4,000 or $6,000 or $8,000 dollars a year.

And it does not take long for that to put one in the poor house, if they can afford it at all. So for everybody, for every senior there is something that we call catastrophic coverage. So if they spend, an individual on Medicare, spends in any year up to $3,600 on prescription drugs out of their own pocket, that of course would include the deductible and the copay and then, yes, the gap or the hole in the doughnut; but beyond that, if there are still costs for prescription drugs, the Medicare part D insurance program pays 95 percent of everything above that.

That is a wonderful benefit, what we call catastrophic coverage. I hope most people will not get into that situation. But clearly they could. They could get into that situation. So what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is this is a good benefit for everybody; and everybody is eligible, from the lowest income to the highest income. If they do not have coverage in some other way for prescription drugs, then they are eligible for this benefit.

Of course, those who are living off of Social Security and they have very little assets, not much stuff, we all, I think, Mr. Speaker, have too much of a desire for stuff, stuff that really in some instances is not very important. Certainly more stuff does not necessarily make you happier.

But a person can own their home, they can own it free and clear. They can own up to 50 acres of land that may have been in the family for some time and they do not want to sell. They can certainly own an automobile. But they cannot have much stuff beyond that. Much assets.

But if they meet that means test, then the deductible is covered. The monthly premium is covered. There is no copay up to the first $2,250 or 25 percent as it is to everybody else, and there are no holes in the donut, there is no gap in the coverage. Everything is catastrophic coverage almost from day one, maybe a dollar copay for a generic prescription, and up to a maximum of $5 for the most expensive.

Remember I talked, Mr. Speaker, earlier about that statin that I was taking that cost $5 a pill. For our needy seniors, a 3-month supply, 100 pills, you do the math, that is over $500. They might have a $5 copay for a prescription like that.

Mr. Speaker, I see that one of my physician colleagues has joined us, and I thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to be with us during this leadership hour to talk about this Medicare part D prescription drug benefit that we talked about.

He was very much a part of that, Mr. Speaker, and he was in the 108th, my classmate, my friend. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and I thank him so much for being with us tonight. I would welcome, if time would permit, for him to stick around with us and possibly get into a little bit of a colloquy regarding some other salient points of this bill. Certainly, I appreciate him being here and giving us this time this evening.

I was earlier, Mr. Speaker, talking about that statin that I bought a 3-month supply of just last week and that the cost was going to be, the true cost, I paid 25 percent according to my plan, the prescription drug plan that I have, but the true cost was over $500. Well, a senior who maybe has no prescription drug coverage under any plan, they are not part of an HMO, they are not retired from a company or they are but the company is not providing prescription drug coverage as part of the health care benefit, if you multiplied 3 months times four which would give you 12, if my Georgia Tech math serves me well, then that cost would be $2,000 for that one prescription.

Well, that is getting pretty darn close, Mr. Speaker, to the $2,250 that we were talking about, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was talking about. And the savings on that you would not have to have too many more prescriptions, maybe an antihistamine or two or an antibiotic here or there during the course of a year to get up to at least $250, if you have got one very expensive drug like that statin I mentioned. The senior who was enrolled in that scenario, they would actually save about $1,100 a year. That is how much the coverage would give them.

Of course, if they had prescriptions above that and they got into the gap or the hole in the doughnut, certainly there would be more out-of- pocket expenses. But I think it is very important for people to understand when they hear these naysayers, some of whom we heard from earlier tonight during their leadership hour, that this is a waste of time and effort, and it is not any good. And now that you have torn up your AARP card, and by the way, the reason they made that recommendation when we came out with the transitional prescription drug discount card when we first passed this bill, knowing it would take almost 2 years to get the prescription drug part B insurance program part up and running, AARP had the audacity to support a Republican proposal, Mr. Speaker.

I think the other side must have felt that that organization was always their best friend or, as the saying goes, in their hip pocket. And they could not stand the fact that AARP, and I am a member, have been since age 50. I will not tell you how many years I have been a member. It is a wonderful organization of 37 million seniors in this country. AARP serves them very well. And AARP as far as partisan politics, we are blind to whether it was an R or a D proposal. When they saw a good

thing they supported it, and that is what they should have done, and that is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle should do.

When you see a good thing, do not constantly say no, no, no, just because you are afraid that the majority party or this President is going to get credit for a job well done and a promise made and a promise delivered. Get on board. Join the team for the benefit of our seniors and to support a good program when you see one.

It is a time now for all of us to work with our seniors to make sure that they understand the program, that they know how to contact Medicare, www.Medicare.gov or dial 1-800-Medicare. There are organizations in every State, the CMS, Committee on Medicare-Medicaid Services, has contracted with Medicare to explain this benefit.

I know in my own office, Mr. Speaker, we are going to put computer terminals in the main office and have someone there that can be online with seniors who just drop in and say, I have gotten the brochures; I have seen the public service spots on television, but I am still a little bit confused and would you help us out. I know that I am going to do that. I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is going to do that.

I know that my physician colleagues and my health care provider colleagues in this body and hopefully all 435 of us will take that opportunity, because there is a wonderful program and as the gentleman said, and I am so glad that he reassured our colleagues and anybody who might be listening to us this evening during this leadership hour, that we are not going to delay this program. We cannot afford to do that to our seniors. They have waited too long. And as I said earlier, this is a compassionate program, and it would be cruel to pull that rug out from under them when they have waited so long for this opportunity.

With that, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess), if he would like to make a few more comments and possibly we can have a little bit of dialogue back and forth with the remaining time that we have this evening. And I will turn it back over to the gentleman from Texas at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. I appreciate his being with us in talking about this issue.

The gentleman and I are not only colleagues of course here in the Congress, but we are, as I said earlier, fellow physicians; but I think most of our Members realize we are both OB-GYN specialists so we share so much in common. And I would guess that the situation in Texas is very, very similar to the situation in Georgia. Maybe there are some figures that you would want to mention in regard to Texas; but, Mr. Speaker, in Georgia we have got a State maybe a little smaller than the State of Texas population-wise and certainly geography-wise, but we are a State of almost 9 million people now.

There are approximately 85,500 Medicare beneficiaries; 16,700 of those live below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level. These are the folks that are going to benefit the most, and that is why I felt so strongly and passionately about this compassionate program. It is those 16,710 who are at or below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level, Mr. Speaker. There are another 7,000 in Georgia, that brings it up to about 25,000 people in Georgia who are at or below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. All of these individuals, all of these individuals will be eligible to receive supplemental benefit.

Earlier in the discussion in the hour we talked about the numbers, and I need to correct it a little bit. I think I may have given numbers that were a little bit on the low side. But you may qualify, listen to this, seniors may qualify if you are single and have income below $14,355 and resources are less than $11,500. That does not include your possibly paid-for home and homestead and your automobile. And married couples who have income below $19,200 and resources less than $23,000. Again, excluding their homestead their home and their automobiles.

These individuals and those at or about the Federal poverty level, again, no deductible, no co-pay, no monthly premium; and you get that prescription filled for $1 on generic or maybe as much as $3 or possibly $5 for one of those very expensive drugs that I talked about earlier.

And, Mr. Speaker, here again my colleague may want to talk about the situation in Texas, because I suspect it is very similar.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership not only on the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act, but also on medical liability. He has been a stalwart supporter of the Health Act that we have passed in this body so many times over the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time that we have I wanted to make a couple of additional comments. We got some good news here recently in regard to the COLA, the Social Security COLA, which is about a 4.6 percent increase next year because of the Consumer Price Index. That is good news for our seniors. That is about a $40 per month, typically, increase in that Social Security paycheck.

Now, it is true that the premium for Medicare part B, even though that premium only covers 25 percent of the true cost, will also have an increase next year of about $10. That $10 from $40 leaves $30 still remaining in that COLA. And even for the seniors who get no supplemental help, that $30 will pretty much cover the premiums for Medicare part B. In fact, it may more than cover them, because, as I said earlier, because of the marketplace, because of competitiveness, pharmacy benefit managers and companies that are going to offer the Medicare prescription drug discount program, we are hearing premiums as low as $20 a month.

And another thing, Mr. Speaker, that we need to say before we conclude the hour, because we have heard so much negative rhetoric about this tremendous gap in coverage, the hole in the donut and the program not being nearly good enough, is that we will have an opportunity to reduce those costs by some companies now with a slightly increased premium, maybe as much as $40, possibly $50 a month, so that there will be no gap in coverage. It will close that hole in the donut completely. So people will have the option of paying a little bit more and having coverage without any gap.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to again remind our seniors and ask our colleagues to remind their constituents that beginning November 15 through May 15, 2006, a 6-month window of opportunity will be the time to sign up for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. Look at the program and compare. If you have something else, make a comparison, and then make a decision. And make that decision early. Because if you do, then that coverage starts January 1. If you wait until after the program starts there may be a month gap before that coverage kicks in. And if you wait beyond May 15, then there will be a surcharge. So it is very important to do it in a timely fashion.

I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I thank the leadership for giving me this opportunity to discuss something as vitally important as this Medicare prescription drug benefit for our needy seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coosa Middle School in Rome, Georgia, for being named a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This award recognizes schools that dramatically improve student performance on State tests and whose students excel at the educational standards set by our States. I am extremely proud Coosa Middle School has attained these goals. Coosa Middle School was one of only 12 middle schools across the Nation to win this prestigious award and the only middle school in the State of Georgia to do so.

Floyd County Superintendent Kelly Henson, Coosa Principal Lisa Landrum, the Floyd County Board of Education and all the teachers at Coosa Middle School deserve our praise and admiration for the fine work they do educating Rome's schoolchildren.

Their efforts show how much our students can achieve when we give them a solid educational foundation based on high expectations and the resources needed to help students meet these expectations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Coosa Middle School.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club, an exemplary community organization in the 11th District of Georgia.

The West Georgia Club serves the youth of Troup and Meriwether counties, and it does so with distinction. The four facilities operated by the Boys and Girls Club are always buzzing with students, volunteers, friends and events.

On an average day, you will find a host of activities that contribute to the Boys and Girls Club's goal of providing every child with the essential tools needed for success and a bright future.

After-school tutoring gives students the skills they need to achieve. Friday night movies and social events give teens an alternative to street life. Service projects, leadership and skill development, even National Kids Day are all part of what makes the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club a true leader in community involvement and service.

And do not just take my word for it. The West Georgia Club has been recognized and honored on a national level for their amazing work with the youth of Georgia. At the 2005 Boys and Girls Club National Conference in California this year, the West Georgia club won seven national awards. That is right, seven awards.

These included awards for public service announcements, special events, web page, newsletter and even their annual telethon, which I was proud to participate in this year. Most impressively, the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club was selected as the best overall program for clubs with a budget under $400,000.

Madam Speaker, an organization is only as successful as the men and women who commit their time to making it great. And the West Georgia Club has a first rate team. Chris Patton and Wally West oversee the club, and its board members, Judy Wilkerson, Linda Griffies, Emmitt Clark, Mel Jackson-Kendrick, Frank Walls, Rev. Dalton Hammock, Charlie Martin and the many other volunteers from Troup and Meriwether counties give their time to ensure this club is one of the best in the Nation.

It is the commitment and creativity of community organizations like the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club that make our neighborhoods more than simply a collection of homes and buildings. The American spirit is alive and well at the West Georgia Club, and the beneficiaries in our community have a brighter future because of the club's dedication.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in thanking the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club for their creativity, their commitment and, above all, their willingness to help those in need.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter), my good friend, for yielding. This is a hugely important issue in this Lawsuit Abuse Prevention Week when we are focusing on not just medical malpractice suits but a number of other things like frivolous lawsuits, class action abuse. This Republican majority has dealt with these issues time and time again. This House of Representatives actually, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say, has passed this particular bill, H.R. 5, about four times since myself and my colleagues. And we are all in the same class of the 108th Congress; I think we passed it twice. It was passed in the 107th and now once again in the 109th. I think that totals five times, this issue of tort reform.

As a physician Member, Madam Speaker, I am often I guess considered someone who is anti-attorney, who has a bias against attorneys. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in my immediate family, I have two attorneys; my daughter, who is a prosecutor in State court in Cobb County; and my brother, who spent his lifetime as a practicing attorney doing real estate law; and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter) who was a good lawyer and an even better judge as a superior court judge in Texas. I have great respect for the legal profession. Rather, Madam Speaker, this is about leveling the playing field and making sure that every voice on each side of the issue is fair and balanced. That is all it is, pure and simple. I think my colleagues would agree with me on that.

I am joined by some of my doctor friends here tonight along with the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter), and we have all experienced situations where maybe one of our colleagues in the health care profession is being sued for practicing below the standard of care, and in those situations where we know that they practiced below the standard of care or the hospital, through negligence, has resulted in an injury to a patient, we are right in there pulling for the plaintiffs. There is no question about that. I think it is very important, as we discuss this during this hour, for our colleagues, Madam Speaker, to understand that. We are trying to bring balance to a situation that right now is way out of kilter, totally unbalanced, and it is to the detriment, not so much to the health care providers, but to the patients who need, who desperately need the access, as Judge Carter was talking about at the outset. And physicians who are involved in high-risk specialties, emergency room doctors, orthopedic surgeons like my colleague, the gentleman from Cobb County, Georgia, (Dr. Price) who we will hear from in just a few minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Murphy) who deals with mental health, which is such a vital issue, so important to the health care of individuals, you are in a situation where if you do not have these doctors available, particularly in emergency situations, people suffer, people get injured and people die. So that is really what it is all about.

I appreciate so much being with my colleagues. At this point, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter) and hope to participate later in the hour as we discuss this critically important issue during this time this evening.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield before he starts that next story, the point the gentleman is making, and I think it is a good one, is that in this current climate, it is easier to sue your doctor than to see your doctor. Clearly, there is something wrong with that picture.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, the same bill I said earlier in the evening that the 107th, the 108th twice, and now the 109th have passed in this body, and by the way, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the orthopedic surgeon, was talking earlier in his presentation and showed a poster with the pretty alarming statistic that 78 percent of the American public want us to do something about this crisis because they want to be able rather than sue their doctor to see their doctor.

So those Members either in this body or the other body, on both sides of the aisle, I say to my colleagues, if you are poll driven, this is a no-brainer. This is a slam dunk winner of an issue, but even if the statistics were not there, it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

I would say to our colleagues in the other body, and I know that we are not supposed to stand over here and criticize the other body, and I will not do that, but I am awfully frustrated. I am terribly frustrated that we have addressed this issue, this same bill, every provision identical, for the last three Congresses, and yet, the other body, for some reason, I will let my colleagues figure out why, but for some reason, they are not addressing this issue. I would literally beg them on behalf of my patients, our patients, to address this issue because the statistics are clearly there, but it is the right thing to do.

Well, yes, and of course, the good judge certainly knows this. I am sure he has seen it in his courtroom many times.

But the issue that is brought up a lot of times is, well, gosh, you are about to take away an injured person's right to a redress of their grievances; you are going to take away their day in court. That is absolutely not true, and I am

so glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) brought that to our attention.

We are talking about in the major provision of this bill, which is patterned, modeled after the California bill on tort reform in the late 1970s that stabilized the market and health care delivery system in that State, is a cap on so-called pain and suffering awards or what we call noneconomic, at some figure. In our bill, it is $250,000. Some States have addressed that, and maybe it is $350,000.

In some instances, if there are more than one defendant in a case, and I can tell my colleagues and I know my two colleagues here with me this evening know this, but in almost every case there are multiple defendants. So let us say the cap on noneconomic was $350,000, and you had two or three defendants, then that award in itself, not counting any economic damages, is over $1 million dollar.

Madam Speaker, in fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) may want to address that as to how a calculation is made in a court of law in regard to making a patient whole, the so-called economic awards based on income and loss of income.

If the gentleman will yield on that point. Clearly, as the gentleman from Texas points out, there are those of us that you have met here this evening who are health care professionals in our former life but now are Members of Congress. And while we know of individual anecdotal cases, maybe friends of ours who have got a problem in regard to a frivolous lawsuit or something, what is more important now is for us to have a view from 30,000 feet, as the expression would go. Because as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) points out, we have an obligation and a duty to every patient-citizen, 285 million in this country, and not just the 630,000 or so in our congressional districts or the doctors who we practiced with when we were in that profession.

So my colleague is absolutely right. We have to look at that big picture.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is absolutely right. A perfect example: Dr. Jones asks Dr. Smith to look in on her patient on Sunday morning because she was going to be at church for a couple of hours. Dr. Smith goes by the room, waves to the patient and says, how are you doing? Is everything okay? Dr. Jones wanted me to look in on you. The patient is fine, but in a subsequent time, a day or two, all of a sudden the patient's health deteriorates.

Now, it has nothing to do with this doctor that was covering for 2 hours so his colleague could attend services at her church, yet that doctor gets named along with the primary defendant, who may or may not have had some significant responsibility or liability. But they are judged just as culpable, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points out, and maybe more culpable, particularly if they happen to have the most insurance or the deepest pockets. That is what he is referring to when he says this joint and several liability.

This bill, as my colleague alleges, eliminates that provision and it changes it to several liability, so that a person who maybe has some minor participation in a case that goes south, where the patient does not do well and is injured, and maybe there is some practice below the standard of care, they are only culpable for a pro rata percentage of that. And that is the way it should be, and not liable based on the amount of malpractice coverage they have. And I really appreciate the gentleman for bringing that up.

The other thing that I think is important to mention, is that a major

provision of this bill is something called collateral source disclosure. The gentleman from Texas, just a few minutes ago, was talking about economic awards, and if a person needs some additional surgery or they need additional testing to make them whole because of some injury, then there is compensation for that. As an example, lost income, lost wages because an individual cannot work. But suppose that plaintiff has a disability income policy that covers 90 percent of their income for the rest of their life if they remain disabled. Suppose that person has the best first dollar health insurance policy that money can buy that covers any additional medical expense and rehabilitation expense, such as durable medical equipment, power wheelchairs, or whatever. Then that needs to be disclosed to the jury so that we do not have this situation, Madam Speaker, of what I consider double dipping.

It is a fairness issue. And as we said at the outset, that is all we are talking about. We want to make sure that those that are injured get justly compensated, but we do not want, as my colleague from Texas said, this civil justice system to become a lottery in the minds of individuals. Because that is where we get to the situation where indeed it is easier to sue your doctor than to see your doctor. And I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we need comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, we need reform to support those who enforce our laws, instead of rewarding those who break them. The United States may need a temporary worker program, but definitely not an amnesty program. Our immediate need is more border patrol agents and diligent cooperation from local and State law enforcement agencies.

The repercussions of poor immigration enforcement have a ripple effect across our entire Nation; and, indeed, an estimated 376,000 illegal immigrants are putting a tremendous financial strain on my State of Georgia. Every day we put off debating and passing comprehensive reform allows more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our laws and cross our borders.

Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and I request my colleagues' support for real immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of a new Medicare part D prescription drug benefit that is available to all seniors beginning January 1, 2006.

This week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid released information on organizations offering prescription drug plans in each of our 50 States, and the opportunity for sign-up begins November 15.

This announcement holds great news for seniors across America. In every State, seniors will have a choice among plan providers. In my home State of Georgia, for example, seniors will be able to choose from 18 different plans, ensuring they can find one that best suits their individual needs.

Mr. Speaker, there is more good news for our seniors. Not only will they be eligible for prescription drug coverage from a range of organizations, but they will receive this benefit for less money than previously expected, in some cases, for a premium as low as $20 a month. This is the power of competition, and our seniors will benefit from it. We do not need government price controls. The free market works.

Mr. Speaker, for years, our seniors have struggled with the rising cost of prescription drugs, in some cases going without medicine they need to stay healthy. With Medicare part D, seniors will be able to reap the benefits of preventive care and live longer, healthier lives.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 462 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 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.

This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a 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 a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 462 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2009.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Additionally, I want to commend the full committee for all their hard work and time involved in the completion of this important authorizing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect, and they demand, that Congress uphold its obligation to ensure that their money is spent both wisely and effectively, and some of the most important expenditures made on behalf of the American people are included in this legislation we are considering today. Without question, the Department of Justice is charged with the responsibility to enforce and to uphold the Constitution and statutes of this great country. All Americans benefit from an effective and a fully funded law enforcement apparatus at the Federal level, at the State level, and especially at the local level.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 would authorize appropriations to fund the agencies under the Department of Justice, including the FBI; the DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration; the United States Attorneys; and the Bureau of Prisons. This bill authorizes $59 billion for these four agencies through 2010. Additionally, this legislation will reauthorize, strengthen, and implement new programs in the Violence Against Women Act, many of which are slated to expire September 30 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 also would build upon many of the reforms instituted by the administration to improve the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, OJP, and Community-Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program. This bill would merge the current Byrne grant program with the local law enforcement block grant programs into one new Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. By merging these two programs, States and local law enforcement will be able to more easily apply for and access vital funding.

Mr. Speaker, this streamlined process will improve flexibility for our State and our local governments. A one-size-fits-all mentality is not an acceptable solution for funding individual communities and law enforcement entities that have specialized and diverse needs. A certain degree of deference must be given to State and local law enforcement as they work to combat individual threats to and problems in their own communities.

However, H.R. 3402 also ratifies our need for continuing oversight of Federal dollars by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management that will ensure that the Office of Justice program runs efficiently and applies the money responsibly and effectively. This oversight office will be focused on results, and it will follow the trail of these funds so they can reach their intended target and achieve their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, this authorization would also permanently authorize an Office of Weed and Seed Strategies. This office would replace the current Executive Office of Weed and Seed created by the first Bush administration in 1991 as a community-based, multiagency approach to blend law enforcement, crime prevention, and neighborhood restoration strategies to strengthen our communities.

With respect to the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 will reauthorize and strengthen various court programs, including the STOP grant program which brings police and prosecutors into a collaborative process with victim services that aims to prevent and punish violence committed against women.

As the proud parent of three daughters and the proud grandparent of two granddaughters, I fully recognize the need to give law enforcement every tool available to prevent domestic violence and to protect America's wives, mothers, daughters and granddaughters.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 makes significant improvements to these programs. For instance, this legislation assures gender equality by requiring gender neutrality in any grant or activities that assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault or human trafficking. Additionally, H.R. 3402 includes provisions to strengthen the privacy rights of victims, to allow for a more vigorous prosecution of cyberstalking and to double, let me repeat, double the penalty for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders.

The bill not only strengthens the ability of law enforcement but it also provides victims with additional tools in the fight against domestic violence, including access to trained attorneys and to lay advocacy services.

H.R. 3402 would also create two new programs focused on children and youth who are victims of or witnesses to domestic violence. Clearly our children do not have to be physically abused to become victims of domestic violence. Exposure to these types of heinous acts can be enough to scar the life of a child forever, and this reality must be, and it is, addressed by this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, today as this House considers the rule and the underlying legislation and a number of amendments, I would like to encourage my colleagues to keep this thoughtful debate focused on the topic at hand. Funding the Department of Justice and protecting victims of domestic violence are commonsense priorities on both sides of the aisle.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. I ask my colleagues to support it and, of course, the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the amendments that were made in order, in fact, there are 12. Many of the amendments that were authored were non- germane; but in any regard, 12 amendments under this structured rule were made in order. And certainly in the interest of being fair and balanced, six Democratic amendments and six Republican amendments are those we will consider later on this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

In regard to the amendment the gentlewoman from New York is referencing, in the jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary, it was ruled nongermane to this bill. There are other committees certainly that would have jurisdiction over that and need an opportunity to look at that very closely.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Regarding the gentlewoman from California, I want to point out to her that this very issue was addressed in the gang bill that was passed earlier this year. In fact, H.R. 1279, the comprehensive gang violence prevention bill, authorized $20 million to provide assistance to State and local prosecutors to fund technology and other equipment to track gang members and maintain information about their crimes. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the gentlewoman from California's amendment on the floor on that very bill that was accepted and included in H.R. 1279.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, I had an opportunity to speak with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) regarding her concerns and her amendment, and what we have committed to her and the Committee on the Judiciary has made a commitment that they will work with her in regard to the language of her amendment as the gang bill goes to conference which really is a more appropriate vehicle to modify that language, and we do make that commitment to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues for a productive discussion on this rule.

H. Res. 462 is a good rule. It balances very well the laborious work of the Committee on the Judiciary with the amendment process on the floor. Multiple Members will have an opportunity to discuss their amendments and receive a vote, and I look forward to the further consideration of this legislation.

From the FBI to the DEA, to the United States attorneys to the Bureau of Prisons, H.R. 3402 authorizes critical funding for the Department of Justice, allowing it to continue its fight to uphold the laws of our land and to keep our citizens safe.

Additionally, this bill will strengthen many of the programs already available under the office of justice programs that aid State and local law enforcement on the ground as they work to protect their individual communities.

This Act streamlines many of the request processes and, thereby, facilitates local officials and law enforcement in accessing the funds made available by these programs.

Mr. Speaker, through the reauthorization of the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 creates stiffer penalty for abusers, and it gives more rights to the victims of domestic violence.

For the sake of law enforcement and victims across this great country, I urge my colleagues 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 takes an important step toward recognizing the need to research not only the cause of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis but also viable therapies and, we hope one day, a cure.

It has recently been cited that IPF may be five to 10 times more prevalent than previously documented, and this may be due to increased awareness or an increased prevalence of the disease state. Regardless of what the reason, we need to act.

That is why I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my friend and colleague, for bringing this resolution to the floor. It is important to elevate the education and awareness of this disease in our country because 83,000 Americans, including the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), are currently living with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

In that spirit, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for his courage and resilient spirit. He has fought this disease every step of the way, always maintaining his hard work and commitment to this great body, the House of Representatives; and I want him to know his dedication is deeply appreciated.

Unfortunately, there is a lot we do not know and do not yet understand about this debilitating disease. We do not know what causes IPF, and in many cases the disease is misdiagnosed.

Additionally, we are relying on treatment therapies that are more than 30 years old. These IPF patients need the help of cutting-edge technology. Unfortunately, researchers are being held back by the lack of appropriate funding. Currently, IPF research receives only a fraction of the funding of what other diseases get that are less prevalent in our country.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to bring national attention to this horrible and devastating disease.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 10 a.m.