Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and then I will yield to the gentleman again.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I am reclaiming my time, and then I will yield to the gentleman again.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would love to have a dialogue with the gentleman, but let us go back and forth a little here. The gentleman from New Jersey said over time we would clone eggs. Can the gentleman explain how you clone an egg? Is the gentleman suggesting we can take one egg and turn it into multiple eggs?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time once again, I am not sure, with all due respect, that my friend from New Jersey understands this process. You cannot, you cannot, you cannot take one cloned entity and multiply it. You have to go back and get another egg. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) described how extraordinarily difficult it is to get one egg. You have to find a woman who is willing to be superovulated and give up an egg to science. You cannot multiply that egg into more embryos. You can make one. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman again, can the gentleman explain the science by which he claims that we are going to wind up with, as he said, embryo stockpiles, embryo farms? Where do these thousands of eggs that the gentleman describes in this fictitious nightmare come from?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has answered my question, and I will reclaim my time. The gentleman proposes in his response to my question that women of America are going to line up for dollars so they can be superovulated, and it is the most ridiculous and disrespectful attitude towards women I can imagine. To think that the gentleman from New Jersey believes that the women of this country are going to line up for a painful procedure, and one as intimate as the donation of eggs for money, I think, is incredible. The proponents of the Weldon bill would like to paint those of us who think that this research, this transient period of research so important for science, as somehow out of the mainstream. The gentlewoman from California talked about some of the organizations that stand with us. Let me name some others: The Alliance for Aging Research, the Alpha-1 Foundation, the ALS Association, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Foundation of AIDS Research, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Infertility Association, the American Medical Association, the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Society of Hematology, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the Children's Neurobiological Solutions Organization, the Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease Research, the Genetic Alliance, Harvard University, Hope for ALS, Lymphoma Research Foundation, the National Association for Biomedical Research, the National Coalition for Cancer Research, the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, the National Council on Spinal Cord Injury, National Health Council, the Parents of Infants and Children with Kernicterus, Parkinson's Action Network, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, Research America, Tourette's Syndrome Research Foundation, et cetera. This is the mainstream of American medicine. This is the mainstream of American science. This is the intelligentsia of America who actually understand how this science works, who do not walk around thinking you can multiply eggs through science and who do not believe women are going to line up by the tens of thousands for dollars to produce these fictitious embryo farms. My colleagues, there is a time in American history where we are either going to decide to go with the people who understand this stuff and the people who have compassion in their hearts for these people with these diseases, or we are going to fall prey to this Luddite anti- scientific and demagogical approach. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been a good debate. The gentleman from Wisconsin seemed to think that I was impugning the opponents of my substitute. I am not. My point was that contrary to the argument that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) made that the purpose of this research is strictly for the exploitation and destruction of human life is wrong, this is about hope. This is about trying to stop suffering, and we have a choice to make here between fear and hope, and I encourage my colleagues to support hope. Support the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment and vote ``no'' on the Weldon bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that those of us who have the high honor and privilege of serving in this body regularly remind ourselves how dependent we are upon our families, our friends, our supporters, our volunteers and most especially upon our dedicated staffs, to carry out the work of the nation that has been entrusted to our care. It is difficult, at times, for those who do not work in this body to appreciate the incredible demands that are regularly placed upon our intellect, our time, our health and on numerous occasions, our sheer physical endurance, as we labor to conduct the people's business. Yet the opportunities to do good and to seek the answers to the challenges of our times are so great that, however heavy the burden, we heed the call to duty. None of this work, however, is done by Members of Congress alone. In fact, without the strong, constant, and faithful service that is rendered to us and to our country by our professional staff the work would be impossible to perform. Every day, we rely upon their knowledge, their wisdom and their moral strength of character to carry a hundred different missions . . . from developing legislation to solving constituent problems to offering counsel and advice on the complex issues that come before the Congress. Like many of my colleagues, we are most often reminded of the invaluable service our staff members render to us and to our nation when one of our team retires or moves on. This is the case with me today. For ten years, both in Washington and in my District office at Doylestown, Pennsylvania, Ms. Nancy Lonsdale has been a devoted and capable member of my professional staff. And for years before that, she served as a volunteer in a number of my campaigns for state office. During most of that time, she served as my Executive Assistant and Scheduler at home in the district. In that position she was the steward and guardian of life's most precious commodity . . . time. Through all those years she has served as an honest broker, ably accommodating the desire of the thousands of constituents who wished to see me with all the other myriad demands placed on a Member of Congress. Perhaps what I am most appreciative of is her dedication throughout those years, when my children were so young, to carve out a time for me to perform the most important duty in my life . . . to be a father to my children. And not just a loving and caring father, but even more importantly, one who had the time to be truly involved in the life of my growing family. But I am in her debt as well for many other services she rendered. Charged with the task of managing my schedule, she yet found time to take on some of the most difficult casework, including the needs of service men and women on active duty and families in crises. To everything she does and has done, Nancy Lonsdale brings a level of commitment, a sense of purpose, and a degree of compassion unsurpassed by anyone I have ever known. All of us who have had the honor to work with her these past years are better people because of our association with her. For in addition to her work ethic, she brings a high and uncompromising moral standard matched with an inquiring mind imbued with an abiding sense of the value and the dignity of every human being. In her last will and testament, the founder of Nancy's alma mater, Sophia Smith, wrote these words about the woman's college she founded, ``It is my wish that the institution be so conducted, that during all coming time it shall do the most good to the greatest number. I would have it a perennial blessing to the country and the world. `` I can attest that in the case of Nancy Lonsdale, Smith College alumni that wish has been more than fulfilled. Nancy Lonsdale is a blessing, to her family, to her colleagues, to her country and to the world she labors so tirelessly to improve.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the world's population is currently growing at a rate of 77 million people per year. By 2050, the United Nations estimates that the world's population will reach 9.3 billion. While the impact of this population growth will be felt throughout the world, it is the lesser-developed nations that will bear the greatest burden unless poverty alleviation and long-term economic and environmental sustainability become a priority for the international community. Without a higher standard of living in these impoverished areas, one-fifth of the world's population, including children, will continue to suffer malnutrition, disease, and illiteracy. It is without question that young people all over the world are the potential of a country's future, and if their needs and demands of today are not addressed, they are in danger of jeopardizing that future. Risks of dying from complications of pregnancy or childbirth are 25 times higher for girls under the age of 15 and two times higher for women aged 15-19, yet 17 million women between the ages of 15 and 19 give birth every year. It is impossible to tackle the issue of overpopulation without addressing the devastating burden this growth would have on the environment. It is evident that overpopulation can result in water shortages, soil degradation and air and water pollution. As a responsible society, we cannot afford to allow the erosion of our precious natural resources to continue any further. It is therefore important for us to recognize the problems associated with rapid population growth amongst young people. Governor Schweiker has proclaimed the week of October 20-26 of this year as World Population Awareness Week in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I would like to support the Governor in this effort by entering his proclamation into the Congressional Record. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor's Office Proclamation--World Population Awareness Week October 20-26, 2002 Whereas, the 21st century offers enormous environmental and societal challenges for governments at all levels; and Whereas, these challenges call for innovative leadership to ensure resource conservation, protection of open space, waste prevention, sanitation management to provide quality of life. These challenges are inextricably linked to patterns of considerable demographic change; and Whereas, world population is projected to increase by almost 80 million per year with 98 percent of population growth projected to occur in the least developed countries of the world. This growth can lead to disease, hunger and starvation; and Whereas, demographic problems are not limited to the under developed nations. These problems are also a reality in the United States and other industrialized nations. Therefore, I, Mark S. Schweiker, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby proclaim October 20- 26, 2002, as World Population Awareness Week In Pennsylvania. I encourage all citizens to reflect upon these challenges and seek rational, humanitarian and community-based solutions. Given under my hand and the Seal of the Governor, at the City of Harrisburg on this twenty-fourth day of July in the year of our Lord two thousand and two and of the Commonwealth the two hundred and twenty-seventh. Mark S. Schweiker, Governor.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the adoption of H.R. 5601, The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. I am pleased that after the House passed a similar version of this bill in the Spring with overwhelming support, we have the opportunity to make this critical legislation a reality. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, in combination with other federal child welfare statues, assists in our national efforts to protect children from abuse and neglect. The Act requires that the Federal-State child welfare system supports and improves the infrastructure of child protective services, develops statewide networks of community-based family support and child abuse prevention programs, and supports demonstration projects to determine how best to improve the well being of abused or neglected children. The bill continues to provide important Federal resources for identifying child abuse, neglect, and family violence, and for supporting effective methods of prevention and treatment. It also continues local projects with demonstrated value in eliminating barriers to permanent adoption and addressing the circumstances that often lead to child abandonment. I believe this bill strikes a successful balance between providing appropriate treatment services, such as a plan of safe care for infants affected by illegal substance abuse, and accountability, such as the report that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit describing the extent to which States are implementing the policies outlined in the bill. I want to thank Congressmen Pete Hoekstra and Tim Roemer in this effort, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Select Education, as well as Chairman Boehner and ranking member Miller of the full Committee. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5601, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, the first President of the United States addressed the Nation's first Congress with these prophetic words, ``the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the Republican model of government are . . . finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.'' Now we find ourselves in a new century, confronted by new trials. We have withstood attempts at invasion, survived a bloody civil war, endured two world wars and prevailed in the long twilight struggle President Kennedy spoke of more than forty years ago. Ten years ago, confronted by the specter of Kuwait brutally overrun by Iraqi forces, the United Nations and the United States led a coalition of more than 28 nations in a war of liberation. Then President Bush plainly outlined our war aims. ``Our objectives'' he said ``are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate Government of Kuwait will be restored. . . . and Kuwait will once again be free.'' All of this was achieved. He then went on to say that once peace was restored, it was our Nation's hope, ``that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations.'' this hope has gone unfulfilled. And so, in Franklin Roosevelt's words, ``there has come a time, in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock--to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. There is no greater example of what we are than how we responded to the terrible events of September 11. Confronted with a massacre of innocent lives; the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the horror of the instruments of modern technology being used as the means of our destruction, we did not falter. In the weeks and months since, we have buried our dead, cared for our wounded, aided the widows and orphans, improved our defenses and taken the war to our enemy. Now we are asked to do more. Over the past few months, I have agonized, along with many of my neighbors and constituents, on the degree of threat the renegade regime in Iraq represents to our safety and security. It is for these and other reasons that I set the bar so high on what I would require before I would embrace any presidential action that included the use of force to remove Hussein and his henchmen from power. The most compelling reason, as I wrote to my constituents was the realization that, ``any decision to finally remove Hussein and his regime, once begun, could not be permitted to fail. For those reasons, I urged the administration to work to promote a regime change short of the use of the military option. I went on to argue that, should those efforts fail, then it was incumbent upon the administration to make their case to the United Nations, to the American people and to Congress before inaugurating any major military undertaking against Iraq. This they have done. Now it is time for us to decide. I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution. While I still hold out some hope that by its passage the United Nations will be empowered, to force Iraq to comply with the will of the international community, that they eliminate all their weapons of mass destruction, I bear too great a responsibility to allow my actions to be governed by that hope alone. As a Member of Congress, I must act upon information I possess in a way that most clearly protects our people and our way of life. And what I know is this. Should the U.N. fail in its mission, we will have very little choice but to act. I am now persuaded that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will not be content until he has the means to murder his own people and the people of many nations with the most horrible weapons of war. This we cannot permit. Neither can we permit him to cause the kind of world economic blackmail and chaos that could ensue, should he be allowed to continue his arms build-up. As President Eisenhower once observed, ``We are linked to all free peoples not merely by a noble idea but by a simple need. No free people can for long cling to any privilege or enjoy and safety in economic solitude.'' I do not take this step lightly. To knowingly spend the precious blood of our sons and daughters and the wealth of this peaceable people, even in the noblest cause, is a burden no sensible man desires. But, in the end, our place in the world as the pre-eminent champion of human rights and human liberty leaves us very little choice. At the close of his 3rd Inaugural Address, on the eve of our Nation's being drawn into the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt spoke these words, ``In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America. We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of country. . . .''

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, the first President of the United States addressed the Nation's first Congress with these prophetic words: ``The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the Republican model of government are, finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.'' Today, we find ourselves in a new century confronted by new trials. We have withstood attempts at invasion, survived a bloody Civil War, endured two world wars, and prevailed in the long twilight struggle President Kennedy spoke of more than 40 years ago. Ten years ago, confronted by the specter of Kuwait brutally overrun by Iraqi forces, the United Nations and the United States led a coalition of more than 28 nations in a war of liberation. Then President Bush plainly outlined our war aims. He said, ``Our objectives are clear. Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored, and Kuwait will once again be free.'' All of this was achieved. He then went on to say that, once peace was restored, it was our Nation's hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations. This hope has been unfulfilled. So in Franklin Roosevelt's words, ``There has come a time in the midst of swift happenings to pause for a moment and take stock, to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be.'' There is no greater example of what we are than how we responded to the terrible events of September 11. Confronted with the massacre of innocent lives, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the horror of the instruments of modern technology being used as a means of our destruction, we did not falter. In the weeks and months since, we have buried our dead, cared for our wounded, aided the widows and orphans, improved our defenses, and taken the war to our enemy. Now, we are asked to do more. Over the past few months, I have agonized, along with my neighbors and constituents, on the degree of threat the renegade regime in Iraq represents to our safety and security. It is for these and other reasons that I set the bar so high on what I would require before I would embrace any presidential action that included the use of force to remove Hussein and his henchmen from power. The most compelling reason, as I have written to my constituents, was the realization that any decision to finally remove Hussein and his regime, once begun, could not be permitted to fail. For those reasons, I urged the administration to work to promote a regime change short of the use of the military option. I went on to argue that, should these efforts fail, then it was incumbent upon the administration to make its case to the United Nations, to the American people, and to Congress before inaugurating any major military undertaking against Iraq. This our President has done. Now it is time for us to decide. I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution. While I still hold out hope that by its passage the United Nations will be empowered to force Iraq to comply with the will of the international community, that it will eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction, I bear too great a responsibility to allow my actions to be governed by that hope alone. As a Member of Congress, I must act upon information I possess in a way that most clearly protects our people and our way of life, and what I know is this: Should the U.N. fail in its mission, we will have very little choice but to act. I am now persuaded that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will not be content until he has the means to murder his own people and the people of many nations with the most horrible weapons of war. This we cannot permit. Mr. Speaker, I ask for an affirmative vote on the resolution.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today, we consider in the House under suspension H.R. 3580, a bill that I originally introduced with congresswoman Anna Eshoo, but has become so much more. Thanks to a cooperative and bi-partisan approach, this bill has now become a vehicle for an array of reforms that are perhaps the most sweeping for medical device reviews since the medical device amendments of 1976. First, let me thank chairman Tauzin, chairman Bilirakis, and ranking members Dingell and Brown, as well as Mr. Waxman and each of your staffs. This has been an outstanding example of teamwork and bipartisanship. In particular, I want to recognize the following staff for their outstanding work on this bill: Brent Delmonte; Patrick Morrisey; David Nelson; Anne Wilson; Karen Nelson; John Ford; Ann Witt; Steven Tilton; Jenny Hansen; Ellie DeHoney; and Alan Eisenberg. Also I want to thank the legislative counsel, Pete Goodloe. Mr. Speaker, last year many of us became much better versed in some of the extraordinary new technologies developed by medical device companies as we learned about the pacemaker and defibrilator that Vice President Cheney had implanted. Smaller than a deck of cards, implantable under the collarbone, and able to be implanted in a one-day outpatient procedure, this is a truly remarkable device. This is the type of technology that Congress needs to make sure is being reviewed quickly and thoroughly by FDA--because these devices hold out the promise of making a difference in people's lives. Nearly five years ago, we made changes to the FDA when we passed FDAMA, to improve the speed and responsiveness of the agency. The response to those reforms by the FDA has been, for the most part, positive. But that is not to say we can't do better. The needs of patients demand nothing less. Given that clinical practices are moving more and more toward minimally invasive and increasingly complex devices, performances improvement by the FDA is vital to our public health. H.R. 3580 accomplishes this. It is comprehensive. It will permanently alter the landscape for device reviews while maintaining and I believe increasing the safeguards of devices as ``Safe and Effective.'' Let me just briefly mention a few of these provisions. User Fee Program. The user fee program on which this committee has labored so thoroughly, will provide $40 million to the FDA in 2003, ramping up to $50 million in 2007 in new resources for speeding up the approval of the medical devices. The user fee program at FDA has worked wonders for the approval of drugs and biolgics--we just reauthorized a third round of PDUFA earlier this year. This will finally give the center for devices and radiological health (CDRH) access to similar resources so that they can provide thorough, effective reviews, in less time. And it will give CDRH the ability to make a commitment to meet a complete set of performance goals. This bill also incorporates many of the provisions that I introduced earlier this year along with Congresswoman Eshoo: Streamlined Approval of Combination Products: Combination products, such as drug-coated stents, are one of the most exciting areas for this industry and present challenges to the FDA's standard review mechanisms, resulting in inefficiency and delay. To alleviate these problems, this legislation creates a new office of combination products and product jurisdiction. This new office will help avoid regulatory logjams and ensure that combination products are promptly and correctly assigned to centers with the FDA. Third Party Inspection. H.R. 3580 also expands the role of third parties and outside experts to augment the FDS resources to help FDA meet its Bienniel Manufacturing Inspection Requirements. This will be done in a carefully prescribed manner, to ensure the FDA's standards for inspection are met and that the FDA receives sound information from these outside experts. Third Party Review. This legislation also extends the use of third party review program for one year so that it expires in conjunction with other device provisions. Reuse Provisions. This bill responds to concerns that many ``Single- Use'' devices are reprocessed and resold to hospitals, while regulated as single-use devices, rather than as multiple-use devices. Concerns have also been raised that there are not adequate safeguards to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these devices. This legislation responds to these concerns with several new provisions that will require the FDA to examine reprocessed devices that are presently exempt from review and requires labeling of reprocessed devices by the reprocessors. Furthermore, under this language a new category of devices is created, as well as a new type of application, to ensure that complex reprocessed devices are safe and effective for use. Medical devices are some of our health care systems' most remarkable innovations. The provisions in this bill will allow the FDA to reduce review times, increase efficiency of operations and allow these technologies to be delivered to patients more quickly. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. I am elated to report that after more than 6 years of working on legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, we finally have a real opportunity for reauthorization of the act to become a reality. This conference report includes the language embodied in H.R. 1900, my legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the House 1 year ago on September 20 of last year. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was created by Congress in 1974 to help communities and States prevent and control delinquency and to improve their juvenile justice systems. This office has not been reauthorized since 1994, although a similar bill has passed the Congress by overwhelming margins twice since then. The nature and extent of juvenile delinquency has changed considerably since the office was created, and this reauthorization has taken that into account. It is an extraordinarily difficult task to create a juvenile justice system in each of the States and each of the counties that can respond to the very, very different young people in our society who get caught up in the law. But I believe that this bipartisan bill represents good policy. The bill successfully strikes a balance in dealing with children who grow up and come before the juvenile justice system who are already very vicious and dangerous criminals, and other children who come before the juvenile justice system who are harmless and scared and running away from abuse at home. The legislation is designed to assist States and local communities to develop strategies to combat juvenile crime through a wide range of prevention and intervention programs. We acknowledge that most successful solutions to juvenile crime are developed at the State and local level of government by those individuals who understand the unique characteristics of youth in their area. By combining the current discretionary programs into prevention block grants to the States and allowing States and local communities discretion in how such funds are used, we allow the local officials to use their own good judgment based on the realities of each situation. We have found a way to provide the additional flexibility that our local officials need, still protect society from dangerous teenagers, while protecting scared kids from overly harsh treatment in our juvenile justice system. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for joining me in this effort. This is virtually the same legislation that the gentleman and I successfully negotiated on a bipartisan basis last Congress. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for their valued assistance in guiding the legislation through committee. Finally, a special thank you to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for their willingness to work with us to include this bill in the H.R. 2215 conference report. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my legislative director, Judy Borger, who has lived this thing for many, many years and who has done yeoman's work for both committees. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, as usually happens at this time in the debate, the rhetoric gets hotter and we tend to find ourselves at our most cynical attitudes. But let us see if we can do a little better than that in the next 20 minutes. The fact of the matter is that we do not accuse the Democratic Party of being the lackeys of the trial lawyers, and they should not accuse us of being the lackeys of the health care industry. But what we all should care about is our constituents. We should care about the pregnant woman, we should care about an individual harmed in an automobile accident, we should care about their access to health care. Also, we should care about them if they cannot find a doctor. We should care about them if the trauma center is closed and cannot save their lives. We should care about them if they are injured by a doctor. It is not either/or. We have a crisis in this country right now. It is nearly countrywide. The crisis is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where obstetricians cannot deliver babies anymore, where neurosurgeons are leaving trauma centers, where trauma centers are closing their doors. We are very close, if we are not there already, to Americans dying because they cannot get emergency care and the quality of our health care system deteriorating across-the-board. There is a solution. There is a solution here that enables us to care about our constituents when they are struggling to find care or emergency care, and care about them when they are hurt by a physician and they have a legitimate claim. That has been modeled in California. I have heard my constituents argue erroneously that capping noneconomic damages will not affect premium rates. That is dead wrong. Let us settle that. There is the chart. The source here is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. This chart tells the whole story. While California's rates have stayed flat for the last 25 years, the rest of the country's rates have soared. This is the solution. We all ought to work on it together, get it over to the Senate, and save America's health care system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker and most of the opponents of this bill have acknowledged that we have a crisis, a crisis that has to be resolved, and unfortunately, they have not articulated an alternative to our proposal, only their criticisms of it. The fact of the matter is that this bill tips the scales back so that they are in balance. This bill allows 100 percent of economic damages, millions and millions of dollars of damages available to plaintiffs for their health care and their lost wages and many, many other economic damages. It puts a cap as a floor of $250,000 for noneconomic, noncalculable economic damages and allows every State in the union that wants to raise that to wherever they see fit. This is the opportunity now to decide whether this House will stand up to the crisis and solve it or turn its head and let it fester for another 20 years.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is, I fear, a wolf in sheep's clothing. The fact of the matter is while it purports to be a small carve-out for the Patient Bill of Rights as they apply to HMOs, the fact of the matter is it would insulate and take away the protections for all of the physicians who work for HMOs, and I believe for the hospitals that contract with HMOs. It is very much a gutting amendment. The fact of the matter is that we in this House have to decide which side we are on here. We are either on the side of providing adequate care to our patients, to our constituents, making sure that our physicians can stay in practice, stop retiring early, keeping the trauma centers open; or we are on the side of doing nothing, which is about what this bill would do with a motion to recommit with instructions. The Congressional Budget Office has said that this bill will reduce premiums by 25-30 percent. Despite all of the railings against it, the fact of the matter is when we limit liability, as California has seen and the statistics are crystal clear there, when we limit noneconomic damages, the rates go down. The rates go down because there is competition in the system, and the insurance companies will have to lower their premiums in order to compete with others in the same market. The fact of the matter is, until we do that, we will remain on this head-long path towards crisis, in which case the traumas centers will close, the obstetrician offices will close, and patients, our constituents, will have third world health care if we do not pass this bill today.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to commemorate the golden anniversary of a community in my district that revolutionized suburban living in America: Levittown, Pennsylvania. In honor of this anniversary, I would like to submit the following proclamation for the record: Whereas Levittown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was created fifty years ago, beginning with twenty families who moved into their homes on June 23, 1952; Whereas this benchmark in American housing resulted from the collaboration of attorney Abraham Levitt and his sons, architect Alfred S. Levitt and businessman William J. Levitt; Whereas William Levitt's innovative mass-production technique resulted in 17,000 affordable homes that were constructed at a record pace; Whereas these new and vibrant neighborhoods were spread among the Bucks County municipalities of Falls, Middletown, and Bristol Townships, and Tullytown Borough; Whereas Levitt created not only the prototypical suburban home with its spacious interiors and fully landscaped exteriors, but he also designed entire neighborhoods that grew into coherent communities; Whereas Levittown became the realization of the American Dream for thousands of families, many of who served their country during the Second World War; Whereas Levittown has evolved into the quintessential example of America's melting pot middle class, as it houses a diverse population of ethnicities and religious traditions; Be it resolved, therefore, that the U.S. House of Representatives recognize the fiftieth anniversary of Levittown, an anniversary that marks an epochal achievement in American housing.