Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding me the time.

With all due respect to the distinguished ranking member, let me say that in response to his comments, this is a special interest bill. That is right. It is a special interest bill. It is a special interest bill for the American consumer of health care, for our patients. That is where the special interest is; not, Mr. Speaker, the insurance industry, not drug companies or manufacturers of medical devices.

The insurance industry, of course, offers a broad range of products. It could be health insurance. It could be automobile insurance. It could be homeowners insurance. It could be an umbrella policy for general liability. And, yes, of course there is a product line called medical liability insurance.

But let me tell you what is happening to the insurance industry in regard to that piece of their business. In my home State of Georgia, 3 years ago we had 20 companies that offered that line of business. Today we have one. We have gone from 20 to 1, and that is a mutual company.

If these insurance companies were making out like bandits, as the other side of the aisle and the opposition to this commonsense bill are suggesting, then they would not be quitting the business in droves. They would be continuing to stay in the business and raising those premiums and making these tremendous profits.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the industry of insurance in regard to other product lines. The gentleman may be right on that. But in regard to this line of business, I can tell you they are losing money even when they have good returns on their investments, as did Mag Mutual in Georgia several years ago. In fact, the return on their very conservative investments, they are very restricted by the insurance commissioner in that very conservative portfolio of investments, returned them $7 million; but they still are losing money because of these outrageous claims and the expense of defending so many frivolous lawsuits.

In regard, Mr. Speaker, to the drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices that the distinguished ranking member mentioned, this bill would only relieve them of punitive damages, that is all, punitive damages, if it is shown that they did deliberately market a drug or a device that they knew was harmful to a patient and they deliberately withheld that information from the FDA. It does not relieve them of liability for being named in a lawsuit. It is only the punitive damages.

If they are guilty of something like that, of withholding information deliberately, we went through this with the tobacco industry in regard to lung cancer, the punitive damages can be in the hundreds of millions and, maybe if it is a big Fortune 500 company, billions of dollars.

So this is a distraction from the real problem. And the real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an unlevel playing field. That is all it is. This bill, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, is not going to take away anybody's right to sue if they have been injured and to seek economic damages and payments for medical care for the rest of their lives.

The gentleman from Texas explained to us that many of these cases in California, a State that since 1979 has had a cap on noneconomic so- called ``pain and suffering'' at $250,000, these cases that he just talked about, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million worth of economic awards, people are not being denied access to that care, Mr. Speaker. This is only to balance the playing field so that we do not have this situation in this country where we are supposed to have the greatest health care in the world, and yet our specialists are dropping out. They are not delivering babies. They are not getting involved in high- risk pregnancies. They are not manning emergency rooms. They are not doing newer surgery.

Because of all the defensive practice of medicine, every specialist practices in two areas: his or her specialty and also the specialty of defensive medicine, and it is driving up the cost of health care and people cannot afford to get health insurance. That is all we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, of leveling the playing field. It is not taking away anybody's right to sue. It is not denigrating or bashing the legal profession.

Those attorneys who specialize in personal injury, most of them do a great job representing their clients well. My brother is an attorney. My daughter is an attorney. We are not here to bash the legal profession. But we just want to ask them to give us an opportunity to level this playing field to make it fair for everyone. And so this idea that the other side suggests that we are taking away anybody's rights is absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say some of the things that this bill does do besides limiting noneconomic to $250,000. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is something called ``collateral source disclosure.'' Current law did not allow a jury to know that a plaintiff in a malpractice case has health insurance or has a disability policy. So when they are calculating all of these economic losses and loss of wages, it is not known by the jury that maybe that disability policy gives them 80 percent of their earnings or their income for their whole life or that they have health insurance.

The other thing, and I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, the other things this bill does is it stops this issue of joint and several liability where, when multiple defendants are named, the person, the doctor who has the deepest pockets, who may have had very little to do, if anything to do, maybe just walked down the corridor on a Saturday and said hello to the patient, but they happened to have the most insurance and the deepest pockets so they pay all of the claims.

Mr. Speaker, the last two commentators in opposition to this bill talked about the biggest problem with this bill being the lack of consumer protection.

I am going to tell my colleagues that the biggest consumer protection in this bill is limitation of contingency lawyer fees. When a person is injured severely, they ought to walk out of that courtroom at the end of the day with the preponderance, the largest portion, of that judgment in their pocket and not in the pocket of the lawyers. And that is consumer protection at its very best.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time, I hope sufficient time, to refute some of these statements that have been made in opposition. I want to start with the gentlewoman from Colorado who just spoke. It is absolutely wrong about the issue of Federal law superseding State law in cases where the State has already addressed the issue.

Let us say the issue of caps, my State of Georgia passed a law this year, and the caps there are $350,000. That would be applicable State law would apply. It is only when States have not addressed the issue when the Federal law would speak.

I want to also address something the gentlewoman said in regard to this bill being nothing. I have heard this not just from her, but from number of other speakers on the other side in opposition, talking about that this is nothing but a protection for the insurance industry, and it is another bail-out of protection for the pharmaceutical industry, and they are relieved of all liability, which is absolutely untrue, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, last night when we were talking about the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas, a registered pharmacist, opposed the rule and the bill basically for the same reason. I would like to remind him. I hope the gentleman is listening to the discussion this afternoon. But this would protect a pharmacist who prescribes a drug, a legally FDA- approved drug, that the pharmacist had no idea that there might be a problem or an adverse reaction. This is what this bill does. That would protect the pharmacist from punitive damages in a case like that, where there was no deliberate intent to harm the patient.

So it is very important that all of our colleagues understand the truth

here. The gentleman from Illinois kept talking about the Vioxx case, and the marathon runner. Well, if Vioxx and the company that makes that drug is guilty of withholding pertinent information that they had in clinical trials, and they knew that it was a harmful drug that they put out there on the market and exposed patients to that drug, then they are going to pay one heck of a price for that, yes, in punitive damages.

So they are not relieved from that under this bill. It is only when they did everything right and they were approved by the FDA that they would have any relief from punitive damages.

There are plenty of great athletes, Mr. Speaker. I remember an All- American basketball player from St. Joseph's University 10 or 15 years ago that dropped dead on the basketball court. He was not taking Vioxx. But we will see how that case turns out.

The issue was brought up, Mr. Speaker, about young children who are injured, and they do not have a job or profession, so they need this pain and suffering compensation that can be infinity, hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than a cap at 250-, when the truth is the triers of fact, Mr. Speaker, the jury, can determine the life span, the expected life span of that child and what their earnings would be over the course of that lifetime. The same thing in regard to a stay-at-home mom who was a professional maybe, an attorney possibly, before she decided to become a mother and a homemaker. Those earnings would be calculated as well.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a little while earlier a speaker in opposition, the gentleman from New York, he made this statement: It comes down to the issue of who we are fighting for. I am really not sure who the gentleman in the opposition is fighting for. I suspect that I know who they are fighting for. Does ATLA sound familiar to you, my colleagues?

But I am going to tell you who we are fighting for. We are fighting for the patient. We are fighting for their right to have the ability to access needed specialists in health care, and they are not going to be there if we do not level this playing field.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we make sure that all our colleagues are clear on some of the issues that have been discussed here today. I know there has been some hyperbole maybe on both sides of the issue, and I want to be very clear.

This bill protects our patients, first and foremost, and gives them an opportunity to have access to affordable health care and to the specialist that they need and when they need them. It also helps our physicians, our doctors be able to stay in practice when they have an opportunity to have a stable medical malpractice insurance premium that they have to pay.

Yes, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that section 7 in regard to punitive damages, that is applicable to our doctors as well as to companies that make medical equipment. It also is applicable to drug companies that provide us with life-saving drugs if they have done so in a fashion that is not negligent and not deliberately intended to harm a patient.

Here is an example, Mr. Speaker: things like time released infusion, chemotherapy, treating cancer patients, insulin pumps for diabetics, titanium hip replacements, artificial heart valves. If the makers of these life-saving devices were subject to punitive damages every time something through no fault of their own went wrong, we would be in the situation that we were in a year and a half ago in regard to the flu vaccine. Nobody wants to get involved in that business for the fear of a lawsuit. And with the government setting prices on flu vaccines, the profit margin to begin with was very limited.

So this section 7 is a very important provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. So again, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand that this is not a bad provision. This is a good provision.

Mr. Speaker, also one of the speakers in opposition, well, actually several of the speakers in opposition, said that this bill has been brought to us, we have had no hearings, we have had no opportunity, we have had no voice. It is not true, Mr. Speaker.

This is the fourth time in 3 years that this exact same bill, H.R. 5, has been dealt with on the floor of this House. It is the exact same bill.

I joined this body in 2003. We dealt with it in 2003. We dealt with it in 2004, and here we are with the exact same bill. Section 7 was in the bill, the section in regard to punitive damages. Nothing has changed. In fact, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce this February, a hearing was held on medical liability and some 15 witnesses were at that hearing, Mr. Speaker. So it is untrue to suggest that we have not had hearings and they have not had an opportunity. They know this bill.

It is a good bill. We have passed it three times. We are going to, in a few minutes, pass it for a fourth time; and, hopefully, the other body will do the same thing so we can get this to the President for his signature and level this playing field once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Health Care Week.

Access to affordable health care is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. I applaud our leadership for bringing important legislation to the floor this week that will strengthen access to care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for America's health care needs. Instead, we must give our citizens the access and ability to choose from a range of health care options.

This week we are voting on legislation to help small businesses provide their workers with affordable health insurance. We are voting on legislation that limits the frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that are driving doctors out of practice and making it harder for Americans to find care. We are voting on legislation to improve patient safety and a resolution pledging our support for the community health centers that so many rely on for their care.

Mr. Speaker, all of these initiatives speak volumes to the importance congressional Republicans have placed on health care. For us, every week is Health Care Week, and I am proud of our accomplishments on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), for introducing H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Enforcement Act. I believe this legislation is a positive step in addressing our trade discrepancies with the People's Republic of China; and, yes, it does serve as a great precursor for the debate on the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The district I represent in western Georgia has a rich history of manufacturing textiles from the Swift Denim Company in Columbus, Georgia, to Mt. Vernon Mills in Trion, Georgia, which has been in business since the 1840s and currently employs 1,800 associates. The textile industry, Madam Speaker, continues to provide quality jobs for the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District. I make this point because many of these employees have established a culture and a community around textile manufacturing.

Although the administration is working diligently to enforce our trade policies, I remain concerned that our country has not taken the most aggressive position needed to prevent the People's Republic of China or any other nation from ignoring their trade responsibilities and agreements. If we continue to allow abuses such as currency manipulation and violations of intellectual property rights, an entire way of life in these textile communities will be endangered. When ratifying trade agreements, it is important to encourage both free and fair trade. We cannot afford to lose any more textile jobs, especially those lost due to the unfair practices of the Communist Government on Mainland China.

Madam Speaker, I encourage the passage of H.R. 3283 mandating stronger enforcement of our trade policies.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 385 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 385 is a closed rule that provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker, and it provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care Act of 2005, or the Health Act, and to speak on behalf of both the rule and the underlying bill.

First, I would like to thank both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for their work on this issue, as this is not the first time the House of Representatives has considered this measure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is a good bill that has passed this House in the 108th Congress with bipartisan support. Therefore this bill and its substance have been thoroughly debated both on this floor and in committee in the previous two Congresses.

As the sponsor of H.R. 5, I am very excited about the opportunity that we have today to strengthen our health care system for the sake of every household's health and every household's pocketbook.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is without question one of the best opportunities this Congress has to address the health care crisis we face today. There is no doubt among the American people, and there should be no doubt among Members of this Congress, that we need fundamental reforms to strengthen access to health care and to control the burgeoning cost of health care.

Having practiced for almost 30 years as an OB/GYN physician, I have not forgotten the experiences and the lessons that I learned on the front lines of medicine. I came to this Congress not only with a background in health care, but also with an important charge to do all that I could to make our health care system better.

And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, we have a problem. We are losing too many good doctors because of the skyrocketing costs of medical liability insurance and the threat of frivolous lawsuits.

These costs have been driven up by frivolous lawsuits and runaway awards that are more about someone's ship coming in, and I do not mean the injured plaintiffs, than the provision of justice for those who are injured.

In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services reports: ``The litigation system is threatening health care quality for all Americans as well as raising the cost of health care for all Americans.''

While I am no economist, it does not take a financial expert to know that with fewer and fewer practicing doctors and an ever-growing number of patients, the price of health care will inevitably go up and skyrocket out of the reach of the average consumer.

These increasing costs not only create a significant burden on the American people, but also increasingly aggravate the current strain on the Federal budget resulting in bigger and bigger deficits.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), introduced H.R. 5 as a simple, straightforward solution to reform and strengthen our civil justice system as it pertains to medical liability.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the other 55 Members who have joined with us to cosponsor this bill. Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act will not, let me repeat, it will not limit economic awards such as medical bills and lost wages.

So if, as an example, a plaintiff has $10 million in economic damages, they can still collect $10 million for their economic damages. Again, there is no limit to the economic awards. H.R. 5 would, however, limit noneconomic awards to $250,000.

Additionally, punitive damages, if assessed, would be limited to $250,000 or twice the amount of economic loss suffered, whichever of the two is greater.

And, again, Mr. Speaker, as an example, if the economic damages were $5 million, and there were cause to impose punitive damages because of someone's deliberate action, deliberately harmed a patient, then the punitive damages could be $10 million in addition to the $5 million in economic, while the noneconomic would still be limited to $250,000.

The HEALTH Act will also make liability more equitable. If one or more parties is a defendant and ordered to pay damages, then each party pays damages proportional to their fault in the case as determined by the trier of fact, the jury.

Mr. Speaker, no one should have to take the blame and pay damages for the negligence of another defendant, as under current law. That is not justice and this bill will make sure that this inequity is eliminated.

Now, I realize that there are some who have tried to cloud the issue here, and they will certainly oppose this bill. And while I am not questioning anybody's motives, I have to insist that each and everyone of us ask ourselves, Where do my loyalties lie? Do they lie with the American people and their best interests, or do they lie with those special interest trial lawyers?

Some, some, seek to game our judicial system for big bucks, of which their clients, the actual victims, see very little.

For this reason, H.R. 5 includes a provision that will limit the contingency fees of lawyers and health care lawsuits on a sliding-scale basis. This provision will ensure that victims actually receive fair compensation for their damages and they are not bilked and taken advantage by certain greedy trial lawyers.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Too many of our States are now in a condition of medical liability crisis. My home State of Georgia is one of those States in crisis. And while our legislature, along with Governor Sonny Perdue, has passed meaningful medical liability reform in this past session, there is still much work to be done to undo the damage inflicted on Georgia's health care system. Specifically, according to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, over the past 3 years, 15 of Georgia's 20 active insurance companies have stopped issuing medical malpractice policies for doctors. This fact flies in the face of the argument from the other side that suggests that greedy insurers are just overcharging doctors for their insurance coverage.

And without this insurance coverage, doctors from emergency medical specialists, neurosurgeons, OB-GYN physicians, they are being chased out of their profession and leaving ordinary people without their specialty doctor and without efficient and timely health care.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is not the silver bullet to America's health care problems. However, in conjunction with things like associated health plans, which we just passed again, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit which will go into effect January 1 of 2006, and other important initiatives developed by the majority in this Congress, this bill is the right prescription for the American people at the right time and will put us well on the road toward recovery.

I would like to encourage my colleagues to give their full consideration to H.R. 5. This Congress has an important opportunity to pass this meaningful health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve no less from us. Again, I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 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.

Mr. Speaker, this mention of greedy, gouging insurance companies, I just want to point out to my colleague that the only insurance company that still is offering medical malpractice insurance in the State of Georgia is Mag Mutual. And in 2004 they made $7 million on their rather conservative investment portfolio and still lost money because of the claims paid and defending all of these frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), an internal medicine specialist.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), my physician colleague, an orthopedic surgeon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, eight States have specifically focused on pharmaceuticals and punitive damages and statutorily provide an FDA regulatory compliance defense against such damages. Those States are: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, listen to these numbers: 19, the number of States in a full-blown medical liability crisis; 72 percent, the number of Americans who favor a law that guarantees full payment for lost wages and medical expenses, but limits noneconomic damages; $70- to 127 billion a year, the cost of the defense of medicine, which could be significantly reduced by medical liability reforms; $10.2 billion, the amount of money paid out by licensed commercial insurers in 2002 for medical liability claims; 100 percent or more, the increase in liability insurance premiums that one-third of the Nation's hospitals saw in 2002; 48 percent, the proportion of America's medical students in their third or fourth year of medical school who indicated that the liability crisis was a factor in their choice of specialty, threatening patients' future access to critical services; 3.9 million, the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance if Congress were to pass common-sense reforms.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about anybody's right to a redress of grievances when they have been injured because of a physician or provider of care or a facility or hospital practicing below the standard of care in that local community. There are no limits on economic awards. As I said earlier, that could be $5 million. And as I said earlier, when you get into a courtroom and you listen to the plaintiff's attorney calculating the cost, the economic cost, a new home because of a disability access need costing $450,000, an au pair, a companion to go to the movies with the person that was injured, and on and on and on, these economic costs sometimes are astronomical.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

A couple of minutes ago I was given some statistics. I want to continue in that vein. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) just mentioned the situation in California. Of course, this bill, H.R. 5, is patterned after that very successful MICRA legislation, Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, passed in 1979 in California. Here we are some 26 years later, and medical malpractice insurance premium rates have stabilized, growing only at about 6 percent per year.

But listen to these numbers in regard to whether people continue to get just compensation for their injuries when you do have a cap on so- called noneconomic or pain and suffering.

September 2003, 9-year-old boy, San Francisco jury awarded $70.9 million in compensatory damages after finding a hospital and a medical clinic negligent for failing to diagnose his metabolic disease.

December 2002, $84.250 million total award, Alameda County, a 5-year- old boy with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia because of delayed treatment of jaundice after birth.

January 1999, $21.789 million award, Los Angeles County, newborn girl with cerebral palsy and mental retardation because of a birth-related injury.

October 1997, $25 million total award, San Diego County, boy with severe brain damage, spastic quadriplegia, mental retardation because of too much anesthesia administered during a procedure.

November of 2000, $27.573 million, San Bernardino, California, 25- year-old woman with quadriplegia because of failure to diagnose a spinal injury.

July 2002, $12.5 million, Los Angeles County, 30-year-old homemaker with brain damage because of lack of oxygen during recovery from surgery.

Mr. Speaker, people are not being denied access to an opportunity to redress their grievances when they have been injured when someone has practiced below the standard of care. No physician member of this body, no physician in this United States would want anything like that. We want people to recover when one of our colleagues have indeed caused that harm.

Mr. Speaker, we know of cases in our own hospitals where lawsuits are brought against one of our colleagues where we know they practiced below the standard of care, and we are the biggest cheerleaders for the plaintiffs in those situations. H.R. 5 has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker, we are just limiting this noneconomic so-called pain and suffering. It has worked in California, and it will work in the rest of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I am sure the gentleman from Oregon was not questioning anyone's motives in his remarks. I think maybe the section of H.R. 5 that says no punitive damages to a pharmaceutical company, a drug maker or a medical products manufacturer that makes something, a drug or a medical product, that has been ruled safe, it has gone through all FDA testing, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the drug or product is defective based on phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 trials, and then something turns up. It only relieves that manufacturer of punitive damages. As I say, Mr. Speaker, maybe we ought to call that section the Oregon model, because that is the exact same thing that exists under Oregon law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to about 75 percent of the American public that are in favor of placing caps on noneconomic damages, let me just list a few other organizations that are in favor of that as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Association of Home and Services For the Aging, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Surgeons, the American Health Care Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association; the absence, of course, of the American Trial Lawyers Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

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

Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate on House Resolution 385, I would like to encourage my colleagues to not only support this rule but also the underlying bill. I want to thank all of those who spoke on behalf of the rule and applaud them for their willingness to address this problem in an honest and an open fashion.

Unfortunately, some opponents of this legislation seem content to demagogue the issue and pander to those special interests who are determined to keep the playing field tilted in their favor.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters of the many organizations that have been submitted to me in support of this bill.

Letters of Support

A. PIAA (Physician Insurers Association of America)

B. American Osteopathic Association

C. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

D. American Academy of Ophthalmology

E. American College of Surgeons

F. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

G. The Doctor's Company

H. Californians Allied for Patient Protection

I. Physicians Insurance

J. JPMSLIC Insurance Company

K. American College of Physicians

L. American Society of Anesthesiologists

M. Premier Advocacy

N. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists

O. American Medical Directors Association

P. American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Q. American Medical Association--Michael Maves, Executive

Vice President

R. Chamber of Commerce

S. American Benefits Council

T. American College of Cardiology

U. American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck

Surgery

V. American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians

Mr. Speaker, some might not want to see reform, but I have list upon list and a binder full of organizations and individuals who recognize that we have a problem, and they see H.R. 5 as the solution. Over 200 medical organizations from the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, to the American Dental Association to the United States Chamber of Commerce have urged this Congress to act now, not later.

A recent survey by the Health Coalition on Liability and Access found that 72 percent of Americans favor a law that would guarantee full payment for economic losses like lost pay and medical costs, but would limit noneconomic costs. With an overwhelming majority of the American people and most health care organizations in support of the language of this legislation, we in the House of Representatives cannot stand idly by with a good commonsense solution at our fingertips.

Again, this bill in no way, shape, or form limits the amount an individual can receive in economic damages. If someone's hospital bill or lost wages costs $50,000, $500,000, or even $5 million, they can still be awarded the full amount in damages less attorneys' costs and fees. If there are punitive damages that are applicable because a physician or health care provider deliberately, deliberately, causes injury to a patient, then punitive damages can be awarded double the economic damages. So if it were $5 million worth of economic damages, then there could be $10 million worth of punitive damages.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, is applicable to medical product manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry that produces these drugs. The other side would make us believe that they were granted complete immunity. Absolutely not, if they knowingly withheld information. Only economic damages are limited; and punitive damages, as I say, would be calculated by a responsible formula.

Finally, H.R. 5 ensures that victims benefit from a fairer system and they receive a greater portion of their damages. Ultimately, the biggest winner in H.R. 5 is the American consumer-patient who will have better access to health care and lower health care costs. I think that alone testifies to the importance of this bill and the need to put partisanship aside for the sake of the people who sent us here to represent them. They deserve no less.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their timely consideration of this bill, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and floor manager of H.R. 5.

I again would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 385 and H.R. 5.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 379 and the underlying bill, H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. My good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, just spoke about some mandates regarding OB care and, of course, there are mandates that have been passed in the several States, all 50, in fact, that are very compassionate sounding. The gentleman from New Jersey is right. Many of us have, as former members of State legislatures, voted for mandates.

I am one of them. In fact, in the State of Georgia, there was a mandate, because of managed care intrusion and the requirement that everybody go through a gatekeeper and not to a specialist, that women in the State of Georgia, if any health insurance policy was written, they would have direct access to their OB-GYN. Certainly, as an OB-GYN specialist, I liked that mandate. In fact, I think I voted for that one. But shortly after that along came the dermatologists and they wanted direct access to everybody who had an itch, to have to be able to go, demand to be seen by a specialist, a dermatologist, rather than their family practitioner.

I want to tell you about a couple of other mandates in the State of Georgia. There was one to require that every woman would have the right to

have a blood test to be screened for ovarian cancer. It is called CEA- 125. Any cancer specialist would tell you that that screening test for ovarian cancer is absolutely worthless. A better mandate would have been to say that anybody over age 30, any woman, could have an ultrasound done every 6 months to look at the ovaries, but that would be astronomically expensive. Another mandate in the State of Georgia says that every baby born in a hospital in the State of Georgia has to be screened for sickle cell anemia, even when they are a part of an ethnic group where the percentage of sickle cell anemia is zero. Nada. These mandates just go and on, and you have got them in all 50 States.

Clearly, we need to do something about that because they are driving up the cost of health care. We need to give people the opportunity to join their other employees in trade associations.

This is a good bill. It will reduce the rolls of the uninsured by 8 million people. I commend it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I urge you to support this rule and pass the Sam Johnson legislation. It is a good bill. It will get people the protection they need and provide health care for so many who do not have it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3268, the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005. I introduced this bill to ensure tax fairness for all who lose any type of property through eminent domain. No longer will victims of eminent domain suffer the added insult of an IRS bill while their home or business is taken by the government.

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court eminent domain decision, there is a rumbling across this great land. The American people know what this rumbling is. It is the sound of government bulldozers driven by IRS agents heading toward a condemned property near you. However, the United States House of Representatives has committed itself to stopping eminent domain abuse and restoring over two centuries' worth of property protections.

I believe that H.R. 3268 will go a long way in that fight. It is time to get the tax man and the government steamrollers off the backs of America's private property owners.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in this fight and to cosponsor the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 370 is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Further, this resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be 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, shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of H. Res. 370 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005.

I would like to first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee. As a former member of the Science Committee, I have a deep respect for the chairman, and I know how hard he works for the committee.

Also, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the Space Subcommittee chairman and the author of H.R. 3070, as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking members.

H.R. 3070 represents this House's commitment to maintaining the United States' dominance in the field of space exploration and technology. This legislation embraces and builds upon the goals laid out by President Bush in his vision for space exploration.

Overall, H.R. 3070 instructs the President, in conjunction with the administrator of NASA, to develop a national aeronautics policy through the year 2020. This act directs the NASA administrator to develop a goal and implement a strategy of running American astronauts to the Moon by 2020. Also the legislation calls for a Crew Exploration Vehicle to be launched as close to 2010 as possible.

These goals and the related studies should be key to preparing the National Aeronautics Space Administration for the eventual deployment of astronaut crews to land on and return from Mars and other destinations. America has a history of innovation and technological development, and the American people demand that NASA do all within its resources and power to see that we keep that record intact.

In this legislation, Congress also expresses its support for the Hubble space telescope and its valued use as a tool to answer important questions of space and science. Therefore, H.R. 3070 directs NASA to create and implement a plan to repair the Hubble telescope after completion of the current Space Shuttle mission.

With respect to the international space station, H.R. 3070 provides instructions and strongly encourages NASA to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle that will enable our crews to stay at the space station for longer durations of time.

Additionally, this legislation promotes a number of additional initiatives, including the development of a supersonic aircraft capable of carrying civilian passengers.

H.R. 3070 also calls for the development of a hydrogen fuel cell- powered aircraft and an unmanned aircraft capable of operating for long periods on Mars. One study would be commissioned to assess the potential threats of near-Earth objects that are at least 100 meters in diameter, while another study would examine ways to reduce fuel consumption and noise levels of commercial aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, in a time of deficits and budget reform, this legislation responsibly requires that the President's annual budget request for NASA include a breakdown of budgets on the basis of specific programs. This practice would allow the Congress and the President to better assess the cost-benefit analysis of each individual program and make determinations about future spending. The American people want to see technological development and advancement in the field of space exploration, but they demand and deserve that such provisions are made in a fiscally responsible and sound way.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to again commend the work of the Science Committee and to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking members.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that from the Apollo Moon landing to the first Space Shuttle to the International Space Station, NASA has been pushing the envelope of American science.

NASA is not just about inventing TANG. It is about American achievement, American pride. As we move to consideration of the underlying bill, I would ask my colleagues to remember their first thoughts of space as a child and the wonderment they felt.

As a child I remember looking at the stars and Moon at night and the sheer awe I experienced. NASA has taken that wonderment and awe and turned it into tangible results with legal real-life applications.

My good friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) talked about breakthroughs in the field of medicine where, of course, I practiced as a physician for almost 30 years, and NASA has been a part of numerous breakthroughs that do help doctors treat their patients and save lives.

For instance, NASA has been directly or indirectly involved in digital imaging breast biopsy systems; breast cancer detection; laser angioplasty for blocked arteries; ultrasound skin damage assessment; human tissue stimulator which helps control chronic pain; cool suits that lower a patient's body temperature, producing a dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and others; programmable pacemakers, eye screening to detect eye problems in very young children; automated urinalysis, medical gas analyzer systems used to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients; voice-controlled wheelchairs.

Just to list off a few more: Arteriosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray devices, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery. I could go on and on.

Mr. Speaker, of course the field of medicine is only one area of course that NASA has helped all of us. In reality that are so many, many more that we do not have time to mention here today. Suffice it to say, we are making tremendous breakthroughs in the field of science because of what NASA has done and how we have funded this program.

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, I rise today in strong support of Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug benefit Congress passed as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, if our seniors cannot afford their medications their health is going to suffer. That is why it is hugely important to provide our seniors with affordable drug coverage under Medicare, and CMS has projected savings of up to 75 percent off many drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees.

Seniors can begin signing up for the Part D program on November 15. We hope to enroll 28 million seniors by May of 2006, making it the largest sign-up for a new program since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid.

That is why we are going to need the help of our whole community local senior centers, commissions on aging, friends, families, pastors, volunteers and community leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage anyone who wants to learn more about Medicare Part D, the prescription drug option, to call 1-800-MEDICARE or visit the Web site, www.medicare.gov. Our seniors deserve affordable prescription drugs and Part D will be a great benefit to their well- being.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 369 is a structured rule that provides 2 hours of general debate; 1 hour and 30 minutes is equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Further, it provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report which may be offered 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 in the Committee of the Whole.

It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this somber day in support of both House Resolution 369 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to extend my condolences and prayers to the people of Britain who once again have fallen prey to terrorist bombs. I remain confident in not only the resolve of the British Government led by Tony Blair, but also the resolve of the British people to stand firm against these cowards.

As we consider our own measures against terrorism today, let us not forget our commitment to not only the protection of our homeland but also the protection of our allies. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the author of H.R. 3199, and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I would also like to thank the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), for their leadership on such an important piece of legislation.

After 4 years of thorough hearings and extensive oversight, H.R. 3199 represents a collaborative effort to fine-tune our law enforcement needs and to ensure the continuation of necessary protections created by the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. Additionally, through its important oversight role, this Congress has also demonstrated a clear commitment to achieving the essential and proper balance between necessary protective measures and our cherished civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, like most legislation considered before this House, H.R. 3199 is not perfect; and in an ideal world, it would not be necessary. However, today's world is sadly far from ideal and America faces a grave threat from a cowardly enemy that operates under the cover of shadows biding its time with the intent to kill innocent people in the name of an ideology of hate. These murdering terrorists lack any sense of decency. They have absolutely no respect for either human life or the rule of law.

Therefore, it is imperative that this Congress act decisively and deliberately to update and extend those statutes guaranteeing law enforcement has every tool it needs to combat these terrorists and bring them to justice.

When Congress first enacted the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it did so of course in response to the attacks of 9/11. Congress included in this legislation many sunset provisions to ensure an opportunity to review and address the effectiveness of these additional law enforcement capabilities after their enactment. Having performed these necessary reviews with substantial bipartisan involvement and testimony, both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have produced a bill today that will strengthen our ability to fight the war on terrorism here at home.

Since the events of 9/11, our American law enforcement and intelligence operations, along with our international partners, have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells with the help of the tools provided by the USA PATRIOT Act. Additionally, H.R. 3199 reflects a continued need of law enforcement to respond to an ever-changing technological landscape.

Mr. Speaker, terrorists are not relying on courier pigeons and rotary telephones to coordinate their acts of destruction. While cellular telephones and the Internet make our everyday lives simpler, they also provide terrorists with new opportunities to move quickly among the shadows while still communicating with their counterparts. Therefore, H.R. 3199 will make sure law enforcement and intelligence authorities still have the ability to track terrorists through the use of multipoint or roving wire taps that follow the terrorists rather than the telephone.

Additionally, H.R. 3199 will allow the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense community to communicate and coordinate among each other to protect the American people and our national security. Unnecessary barriers should never be allowed to compromise American safety. For the most part, the USA PATRIOT Act did not create any new law enforcement capabilities, but rather extended techniques that we were using against mobsters and drug dealers to terrorists. If law enforcement can use these tools to catch some street-corner dope pusher, then it should be allowed to use these tools against suspected terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I must also say that I have heard from many people back home in the 11th District of Georgia who express some concerns about this legislation. While they want our law enforcement to have the tools they need, they remain cautious, even dubious of additional government power.

To that point I recently received a letter from David Nahmias. Mr. Nahmias is a United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. With respect to the USA PATRIOT Act he wrote: ``From my perspective as a prosecutor on the front lines of the fight against terrorism, it is difficult to overstate how important the USA PATRIOT Act has been to the government's ability to preserve and protect our Nation's liberty in the face of continuing terrorist threats.''

His Deputy U.S. Attorney is my good friend, Jim Martin. With over 25 years' experience as a Federal prosecutor, he also assured me in a private conversation of the success of and the need to preserve the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Nahmias goes on to write how the provisions from this act aided in recovering a 13-year-old girl who had been lured and held captive by a man she met online.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, including the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am also concerned and in all honesty extremely hesitant to grant additional powers to the government. However, I believe that we in this Congress will continue to remain vigilant, continue to execute necessary and thorough oversight so that our constitutionally protected civil liberties will never be jeopardized or diminished in the fight to stop terrorism and to protect the American people.

That said, I would like to emphasize that since its enactment, there have been zero, and let me repeat zero,

verified instances of civil liberty abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act found by the Inspector General of the Justice Department. And I firmly hope as we move forward with H.R. 3199 and we continue to operate under the PATRIOT Act that that statistic will remain intact.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member; the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra); and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), all for their dedicated work and commitment to both the liberties of the American people and the needs of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Their efforts on this crucial issue are laudable, indeed, heroic, and they are to be commended.

I remain confident that this Congress will continue to stay on top of our security needs and continue to work for a stronger, freer America.

I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill for the sake of a secure Nation and the safety of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

In reference to a comment made a little bit earlier, not by the previous speaker but by the distinguished minority whip concerning his concern over the fact that the Sanders amendment was not made in order, I want to point out the bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), that is amendment No. 59 that was made in order and that will be debated later on this afternoon, stating that the director of the FBI must personally approve any library or bookstore request for records by the FBI under section 215.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who will speak about one of the bipartisan amendments made in order under this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that since his amendment passed on June 15, Great Britain has been attacked twice, so circumstances have changed.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

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

I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill.

This debate has clearly demonstrated exactly what is at stake. This House has an opportunity to ensure that law enforcement has the ordinary, but necessary, tools to fight terrorism.

We cannot, Mr. Speaker, and will not return to a situation that binds the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement communities. We cannot and we will not allow an ever-adapting and determined enemy to gain the advantage because our law enforcement did not have the necessary tools.

The USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act will allow us to continue to make inroads into terrorist cells and operations. The goal has been and will continue to be to prevent another attack.

In 2001, the House joined together in a bipartisan way to pass the USA PATRIOT Act with 357 for, 66 against. This House must come together again to pass H.R. 3199 and continue to fight against those who would seek to destroy us.

The legislative process for this bill has been both thorough and fair. Republicans, Democrats, Department of Justice, the ACLU, and various other organizations have been able to speak freely and openly during the development of this bill.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the final product is solid and it will serve as an important framework to fight terrorism, protect civil liberties, and, ultimately, strengthen America.

I want to encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and it is indeed a pleasure to be spending a little of the time with him this evening.

Of course, the gentlemen that are on the Committee on the Judiciary and those who have been in the justice system and the judiciary, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), my good friend who just spoke, they understand this PATRIOT Act I think far better, Mr. Speaker, than most of the Members of this body, certainly than this Member, this physician Member. But as the gentleman from Iowa pointed out, I did have the opportunity today as a member of the Committee on Rules to carry the rule on this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.

In the hearing before the Committee on Rules Members had an opportunity to come before the committee, just as they did in the markup during the Committee on the Judiciary hearings, that were so fairly conducted by Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the same thing basically, Mr. Speaker, occurred under the leadership of my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). It was a fair and balanced hearing. There were some 47 amendments that were requested. About half of them were granted with an opportunity to be discussed on this floor. Five were Democrat amendments and six amendments were cosponsored by Republican and Democrat. So it was a very bipartisan rule, and I think the essence of fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I would just mention one in particular, and that amendment this evening was approved before we finally had our final vote and approved the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in an overwhelming fashion, and that was the Flake-Schiff amendment, No. 59, that basically states that the director of the FBI must personally approve any library or book store request for records by the FBI under section 215.

Section 215 is exactly what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) was just talking about, this ability to look at business records. I do not know how this became known as the library provision, but in fact no United States citizen since the PATRIOT Act was enacted has had their library records looked at. My colleague from Texas pointed out the importance, however, of being able to do that when you are dealing with a potential terrorist. And the Flake-Schiff amendment makes that even tighter, such that the director of the FBI must personally approve any library or book store request for records by the FBI under section 215.

Earlier this evening, before we started this special order hour, during the 5-minute special orders, Mr. Speaker, we heard the gentleman from Washington say that in the PATRIOT Act we have replaced the rule of law with the rule of fear. I have heard other Members on the other side of the aisle say in one of the amendments, in fact, Mr. Speaker, on the motion to recommit with instructions it was said, well, let us go back and let us have a sunset on all of these provisions so that in 4 years we can go back to the norm.

Well, my colleagues, I want to tell you right now, from the standpoint of this Member, I like the new norm. I do not want to go back to the old norm. I do not think we can afford to ever do that in this country. We are in a different world and we have got to deal with these terrorists.

We have heard the other side talk about, well, let us put more money behind homeland security, and we need to make sure that we check every train and every bus and every bit of cargo at every port in this country. I am all for that, whatever we can afford to do, but the point is, as we know from what just happened again today in London, you cannot stop these people at that point. You have to get to them before they get to that point. That is what the PATRIOT Act is all about. And it is not, Mr. Speaker, giving up our personal civil liberties to protect our citizens.

I think that we have struck a fair balance, and I commend the Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on the Judiciary that worked through the chairman and ranking member. The same thing with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that worked through this bill. They are heroes. And I think today we came together in a bipartisan fashion and we reauthorized an act that has taken us almost 4 years to finalize.

And the proof is in the pudding. They have not struck us in this country yet. I feel very good about this bill, and I do not think we have sacrificed anybody's freedoms. Maybe inconvenienced people, yes. I am willing to put up with some inconveniences for the safety of my children and my grandchildren, and I think everybody in this chamber should feel that way. And most of us today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank again the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this special order tonight in such a timely fashion, on the day we did reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, as amended, and it will, hopefully, take us many more years before we have anything like what happened to us on 9/11. And so with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I have introduced to protect ordinary American citizens from tax abuse at the hands of our government. I was shocked when the United States Supreme Court ruled last month that governments could take private homes, businesses and churches and turn them over to land developers in the name of tax revenue.

My bill, the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act, would prevent the government from adding insult to this injury. It would eliminate the capital gains tax that an individual has to pay on the money he receives for his condemned property. Eminent domain abuse on its own is intolerable. But taxing those who lose their property is even more deplorable. There is no excuse for making a person pay capital gains tax on something she did not want to sell in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, my legislation says this: No taxation on government condemnation. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky for not only recognizing me for a few minutes, but for putting together this special hour to discuss something that is so important.

As I went across my district, and I know my colleagues did the same thing, talking about Social Security when the President first rolled out his suggestion of having an individual personal account, it was not just his idea, but I think a very good idea, to carve out up to 4 percent of the 12.4 percent payroll tax in an optional way for those workers under 55, and to let that part of their Social Security account be an account that they actually own, they actually have ownership of, and it could enjoy the miracle of compound interest. Einstein said that was the greatest power in the world, even more powerful than atomic fission. But clearly that was a good idea. I think it is still a good idea.

But as I talked about that in my town hall meetings across the Eleventh District of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, the one recurring theme that I heard from folks, mostly seniors in the audience, but a lot of times they were younger workers, they said, Congressman, we are not sure about this individual personal account thing.

I think people are afraid of change, and they would express a little bit of hesitation and doubt about it. But one thing that seemed consistent almost every time I did a town hall meeting, and I think I probably have done at least 15 on this subject, was whatever you do, Congressman, please, go back to Washington and tell your colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this business of robbing, of raiding that trust fund has got to stop. If you do not do anything else, just solve that problem, because nothing else really matters if you continue to take this excess money that has been coming in since 1935 when we had 15 workers for every beneficiary and people died before they reached the age at which they could earn a benefit at age 65. Life expectancy was 64 on average, and we did not have any problem.

But we have time over these coming years. I say ``we,'' and my colleague pointed out just a little earlier, we were not around, not many of us, I think I was 3 years old when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died. But Congresses have been spending that excess money in the so- called trust fund to the point that $1.7 trillion is missing.

But I think it is important for us, my colleagues, to let the American people know that that money was not squandered, it was not wasted. We are not talking about fraud and abuse; we are talking about spending money on things like K through 12 education, Head Start programs, benefits for our veterans, which they so richly deserve, in times like we are now when we are in a shooting war and we have to equip our troops to make sure that we give them every opportunity to win. That is where the money has gone.

I think Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are, by their very nature, compassionate. And when these folks come to us and say, we need just a little bit more, Mr. Congressman and Mrs. Congresswoman, we need just a little bit more, we have little children that have needs, we have disabled people that have needs, that is where the trust fund has gone.

So I think it is understandable. We can play this blame game and finger point and say, well, the Democrats did this, or President Clinton, or the Republicans have spent the money, or President Bush is spending the money to wage a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what we are talking about now with this idea of the GROW account is to answer the complaint of the people in the 11th district of Georgia, and I am sure my colleagues' districts as well, let us do finally put a lockbox on the Social Security Trust Fund.

So I really commend the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and my colleagues here tonight, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and, before that, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) was with us. I think the Committee on Ways and Means has really come up with a novel idea. I hope we will not abandon the thought of individual personal accounts coming out of the payroll tax, and I think at some point we will do that, and we need to continue to work on the solvency of Social Security.

But this is a great way, these GROW accounts, to say that we are going to take the excess, and there will be, Mr. Speaker, an excess of revenue coming in over benefits being paid out from now until 2017. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. I think one of my colleagues tonight said that we are talking about maybe as much as $700 billion over that period of time before we reach that cross-over where the amount coming in is the same as the amount going out. But we have got that window of opportunity, we are talking about 12 years, where we can allocate that money, that excess money to individuals younger than age 55, unless they opt out, and then in 2009, as I understand the GROW accounts, we will actually not only have the opportunity to invest that into government bonds, but put it in a well-managed Thrift Savings Plan so that our beneficiaries can then enjoy the miracle of compound.

So I am really glad to be here tonight to lend my thoughts to it. I think it is

a great idea. I commend the committee. I look forward to having the opportunity to go back home during the August recess and tell my colleagues that yes, we are finally going to respond to the best suggestion that I have heard, and it was from the folks back home; let us finally put a lockbox on the excess dollars coming in.

With that, I will yield back to the gentlewoman from Kentucky and thank her for letting me participate this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a courageous police officer from my home town of Marietta, Georgia. Last week, Officer Andrew Phillips was invited to the White House, where President Bush awarded him the National Public Safety Medal of Valor.

This award is given out to honor public safety workers who show exceptional courage in the line of duty. In fact, it is the Nation's highest award for police bravery. Officer Phillips is a model example of this bravery. When two of his fellow officers came under rifle fire during a house raid, Officer Phillips pursued the still-armed assailant, chasing him down and taking him into custody.

Mr. Speaker, Officer Phillips exemplifies the dedication and true bravery we rely on to keep our communities safe. I ask Members to join me in thanking Officer Phillips for his tremendous courage on behalf of the citizens of Marietta.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the matter of stem cell research, in light of the emergence of viable alternatives that would continue scientific discovery while respecting human life in all forms and in all stages.

I also rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3144, the Respect For Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005. I further would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for not only his steadfast commitment to scientific advancement, but also his steadfast commitment to defending the sanctity of human life.

In a debate that has been dominated by an it-is-the-only-way approach, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has introduced a solution that could achieve the same objective as the Castle-DeGette bill, while preserving human life at its most vulnerable stage.

Madam Speaker, I recognize that people of goodwill can disagree on the matter of when human life begins. However, no one can dispute that an embryo is at least potential life; and many people, my physician self included, believe an embryo to be a living human being, fully vested with the rights that we all enjoy. Therefore, even if someone only believes an embryo to be a potential life, they should support the Bartlett bill because it accomplishes, Madam Speaker, the same ends as the Castle-DeGette bill, while giving the benefit of doubt and erring on the side of human life.

Having practiced for nearly 30 years as a pro-life OB-GYN, I cosponsored the Bartlett bill, because it represents the most moral and judicious solution to the stem cell research debate.

Madam Speaker, the Bartlett bill would provide funding to the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, $15 million for the creation of a research program focused on perfecting the necessary techniques to extract stem cells from an embryo without, let me repeat, without harming the embryo in any way, shape, or form. This bill further acts in a responsible manner by mandating that no human embryos be harmed or destroyed, even in the initial perfection of the technique, for the research will be done on nonhuman primates.

The Bartlett bill represents an acceptable compromise to most Americans, because they would like to see scientific advancement to cure diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, while making sure human life is never exploited or harmed in the process.

Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to see that Majority Leader Frist has decided to shepherd a similar bill in the Senate. This marks an important step in advancing morally sound and acceptable stem cell research. This Congress truly has an incredible opportunity to send to the President's desk a stem cell research bill that respects human life and supports scientific advancement.

I would again like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for taking the lead on this issue and for finding an acceptable and moral solution. I also extend my gratitude to Senator Frist for his efforts to advance this bill in the Senate. I encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, both pro-life and pro-choice, to take a good hard look at the Bartlett bill. I think they will see that it is the best option to fight disease and find cures in a responsible manner.

This marks an opportunity for this Congress to put partisanship aside and just do the right thing. Madam Speaker, the American people expect no less of us.