Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, there is no question. Another thing that is astounding, and I think that we cannot state this often enough, is the fact that the nursing home reimbursements in this country, probably close to 80 percent of nursing home reimbursement is through the Medicaid program, and most of those dollars are Federal tax dollars. There is a State match, of course. For example, in my State, it is 60/ 40. The States with lower average incomes appropriately pay less. But when we are in a situation where people game the system to get their loved ones into a nursing home and hide their wealth, I mean, it is understandable why they might be inclined to want to do that, but that is taking money directly away from these children, many of whom are disabled. We have something called the waiting list for care, home- bound care for disabled people and pregnant women who are not getting prenatal care, and all of this money needs to be spent wisely and spent appropriately. So I thank my colleague for letting me as a physician Member to weight in on some of these things. I have seen certainly not just since I have been a Member in the 3 years that I have been here in this body, but also over 28 years of practicing and seeing the need for this kind of reform by the Republican Party, reform to government, this good plan of reform that will save money and effect better care in the long run.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I just want to say that what you have brought to the Members tonight regarding what I think you would agree we could call mental health parity is a hugely important issue. I think my colleagues in the medical profession who are still practicing, especially those whom I know so well back home in Marietta, Georgia, expected when I came to Congress that I would have all of the answers and be able to solve all of our problems but the truth is I have learned just about as much as I have contributed and realizing today after being out of the practice of medicine, the bedside care of patients for almost 4 years now, how important this issue of mental health parity is that you bring to our attention tonight. You are right, absolutely. There are so many people who suffer from mild, moderate, severe depression, they are not psychotic, they do not need to be institutionalized, they do not even need to be hospitalized, but their illness, their depression, results in decreased productivity. You mentioned that. Away from their job. It also is detrimental to their physical well-being whether, as you point out, it is heart disease, diabetes, or whatever. You talked about the effect on platelets. There is no question about that. And, of course, the very important point you made about their compliance with medical treatment, again, whether that is heart disease or diabetes. If they are depressed, they are not going to follow the regimen they need to follow and it is going to end up costing this country, particularly when the money is coming from the Federal revenue and John Q. Taxpayer, it is going to cost more. As the gentleman points out, we get more credit for the fact that we are, overall, going to reduce health care costs by paying more attention to something like this. I know a lot of my colleagues will try to treat mental illness and, really, I will use the expression ``on the fly,'' I think Dr. Murphy knows what I am talking about, in a hurry. You do not have time and you do not do a prolonged mental health inventory, a counseling session, with the patient, you just write a prescription for some antidepressant, whether it is Effexor or Zoloft or whatever, in many instances, not all. Certainly some general physicians, internists, family practitioners, even gynecologists take a special interest in mental health care and know a good bit about medications. But I think in many instances, those patients are better served by a mental health professional, a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but I really appreciate the gentleman bringing that point to us. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will allow me to continue, I did want to just shift just for a few minutes to the issue of the Medicare Part D, the prescription drug part that is part of the 2003 Medicare modernization program. We are in tough budget times. My colleagues understand this, and of course we talked earlier in the hour during a colloquy about avian flu and the fact that the President has no choice but to bring to the Congress a request for money, in this instance an additional $7 billion, to help prepare for the possibility of a worldwide pandemic right on the heels of the need to spend $150 billion to $200 billion on the horrific hurricane that struck the gulf coast, Hurricane Katrina. We just had tornadoes in Indiana and Kentucky with the loss of life. Last summer we had four hurricanes strike Florida, and we continue to spend necessary money fighting this global war on terrorism. I mean it is a tough, tough time. And people in my district, the 11th District of Georgia, and I feel sure the gentleman's constituents from Pennsylvania, are very concerned with fiscal responsibility and hopefully look for some offsets. That is what we are about in the Congress this week. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to exercise some fiscal discipline in regard to the growth rate. Not cutting mandatory spending, but just limiting the rate of growth from 5.7 percent to 5.6 percent, looking for $50 billion in savings over the next 5 years. These things are hugely important, and our constituents are demanding it. But this suggestion that we find some savings by delaying or indeed canceling the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare modernization I think would be a huge mistake, Madam Speaker. Because, as Dr. Murphy pointed out, we have heard this estimate of $750 billion additional Medicare costs over 10 years, but that is giving absolutely no credit to the fact that if this program works, and I truly, in the deepest depths of my being, feel that it is the right thing to do and that it will work and will shift some cost away from Part A and Part B, that part that pays for open heart surgery, it pays for an emergency room visit if you had a stroke. Indeed, it pays a little money under Part A and Part B for prolonged skilled nursing home care, possibly for the rest of your life.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I am very familiar with Washington Hospital, although I did not realize it was in the gentleman's district, the great work that they did. But there is no question about it, this issue. I mentioned the cost-shifting from Part A and Part B, and I think that will be substantial. But this emphasis, and the gentleman is right, it is part of this bill, not just prescription drugs Part D, but also that entry level physical, that focus on disease management and making sure that people, whether they do it through Medicare Advantage, whether an HMO-type program, or even traditional Medicare, in screening for things like colon and rectal cancer, breast cancer with mammograms, prostate cancer screening, cholesterol screening so that we do not wait until the person has a heart attack and has to have that quadruple bypass that is very expensive. So again, I wanted to make sure, and I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania giving me the opportunity to have time to discuss that, because we are hearing it. We are hearing it on the floor of the House, maybe from both sides of the aisle, and folks back home, naturally they want us to spend what we have to spend, but not a dime more, and I agree with that. But I think this will be clearly the wrong message to send to our seniors. I mean, this President and this Congress were not the first elected folks to promise to deliver a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Indeed, Medicare started in 1965, so what are we talking about is about 40 years of the program, and they have been waiting a long time. And to ask them to wait a couple of years or indeed maybe indefinitely so that we can offset some of these costs of responding to the bird flu or responding to Hurricane Katrina, I think would be a huge mistake.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker, and am happy to be with him during this time and conducting this special order. My colleague, Dr. Burgess, of course, just did a 5-minute on this issue of avian flu, and also engaged in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania just moments ago. We are in a situation, Madam Speaker, where you are darned if you do and you are darned if you don't in regard to what is the proper level of response to this avian flu outbreak in the Far East. I was interviewed recently on television, and the very first thing the reporter asked was, Congressman, do you think that what the President is recommending in regard to this potential, in combating this potential pandemic of flu is just a make-up call for his slow inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina? I immediately challenged him in regard to what he was suggesting. But it is important, I think, that the media get it right. I do not think, quite honestly, they got it right in regard to Katrina. There was terrible, terrible loss, and the loss of any lives is tragic, but at one point they were predicting 10,000 lost lives along the gulf coast; and it was closer to 1,000. They missed it pretty badly. It is important they understand their need to get it right, Madam Speaker. Because while we want to be prepared, and I commend the President and Secretary Leavitt for bringing this plan to us, we do not want to create a pandemic of panic. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, was talking about 1976- 77 and the so-called swine flu. Well, at that time, as Dr. Murphy pointed out, the government actually purchased something like $150 million worth of vaccine, subsidized that, and began to administer vaccine for swine flu. Lo and behold, what happened shortly after that was people started getting some side effects, which may or may not have been related to the vaccine, but there were some cases of a neurologic condition called Gillian Barre syndrome where all of a sudden you became paralyzed. Fortunately, it is usually a temporary condition, but the Federal Government, assuming all liability for this vaccination against swine flu, not only had the $150 million cost, but ended up spending about $90 million more settling hundreds of claims of liability. So we really need to be very careful, particularly, I would say, in regard to a mass immunization against avian flu, bird flu, H5N1, as Dr. Burgess described it, that type of flu. Now, we have, and there has been some money suggested and appropriated for the NIH to develop something like 20 million doses of this vaccine to the bird flu, when as yet there have been no, and I repeat no incidents of human-to-human transmission. There have been a total of about 125 cases in the Far East where humans have contracted this so-called bird flu. But in every instance it was people working very closely with poultry, maybe in their back yard slaughtering chickens with unsanitary conditions. But absolutely no incidents of human-to-human transmission. So while I commend the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the plan and do not necessarily say that they are asking for too much money, I think we need to look very closely at how this money is spent. I think it is appropriate, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to spend money to develop a technique where we can go from egg-based vaccine production to a cell culture technique, which is much more efficient. But it is going to cost some money, and I think in the $7.1 billion it calls for about $2 billion to develop that technique. Also, as Dr. Burgess said, it is very important that we are better able to vaccinate against the routine, I think he described it as H3N2- type virus, against the typical garden variety flu and not just vaccinate children under 2 and seniors over age 65 or first responders. We need to be able to do better than that. We are losing 36,000 people every year dying from influenza in this country, and I think we can do better than that. So, again, I think the President does find himself in a Catch 22 situation. This is the worst possible time for us to have to deal with this, but we do have to deal with it. And whether it is $7 billion or something less than that, hopefully not more, I think we, the Congress, are going to have to step up to the plate and realize there is something that has to be done.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, there is no question what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is talking about is very important. He mentioned the potential of saving $160 billion a year. I am not sure if that figure includes the savings that would be affected from cutting down on medical errors and the liability costs, not just for the physician health care provider, but also for the facility provider, for the hospital systems, many of which are essentially what we call going bare. They have a huge deductible. In some instances, a huge hospital system, it would not be unusual to have $20 million for no insurance coverage for some of these claims for medical errors. So that $160 billion may be a very conservative estimate. I think it is absolutely essential that we move in this direction. I know my colleague is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and they are working closely on trying to develop a system. We are working closely in Congress with Secretary Leavitt of Health and Human Services to make sure that we have one system. We have to have this ability to communicate. I think it is important and I want to mention this, there are a lot of private vendors out there. There is a very excellent company in my district, the 11th Congressional District, which is essentially west Georgia. In the heart of my district there is a wonderful company, the Greenway Company. They have been working on this for a number of years. They have this software package, and we refer to it as electronic medical records; and we are not just talking about billing. That is kind of old hat. That has been around for a while, but this is taking it much beyond that so that no matter where you are in this country, indeed in the world, when you have that little radio frequency ID card that he is talking about or swipe card, if you can charge something on American Express when you are visiting India, certainly you ought to be able to go to the hospital if an illness overcomes you or you fall victim to some accident out of country, they would be able to clearly identify your entire medical record almost in an instant. Some of these companies, like Greenway and others that have developed these systems, they want to make sure that they can connect and communicate with a hospital as well. So as our committees of jurisdiction, which of course would be Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means, and our appropriators, we want to make sure whatever money we spend, that we give an opportunity for entrepreneurs to connect and be part of this; and it not just be hospital driven. I have heard some discussion about giving some incentives to staff members who practice at a certain hospital so there is some benefit to get them to communicate with a hospital. But again, competitiveness, the free marketplace is usually important, but they have to have a similar system, at least one that speaks to the other. That is usually important. Madam Speaker, the opportunity to communicate with Dr. Murphy on this issue, and let me just say this, we cannot overemphasize the importance of this. The gentleman described the cost of this Medicaid program which is running wildly out of control. In 2010 it is $257 billion. We all know there is a price to pay in the State budget, and in some States, of course, the Federal match can be as high as 75 percent. But that is just a couple of States, and many, many are 50/50. We have got to get this working and save money out of this system. And more importantly, it is not just cutting down on the cost of these entitlement programs. It is also a matter of saving lives and increasing and saving productivity. You mentioned both of those points, and I think those are extremely well taken.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding, and I rise today in support of H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education, or Grace's Resolution, as the acronym goes. I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Deal of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the leadership, for bringing the resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, in America, ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women. It afflicts one out of every 57 women, and more than 22,000 will be diagnosed with the disease in 2005. Out of these 22,000 women, more than 16,000 will die from the disease. While Americans have made much progress toward decreasing the mortality rate for many other women's cancers, such as cervical, uterine and breast cancer, the numbers have remained stubbornly high for ovarian cancer. For example, the 5-year survival for breast cancer is 98 percent; uterine cancer, 96 percent; cervical cancer, 73 percent. Unfortunately, the ovarian cancer 5-year survival rate lags at 44 percent, Mr. Speaker. If it is detected early, the disease is very treatable. In cases where ovarian cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 94 percent of women will survive longer than 5 years; but, unfortunately, only 19 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the United States are diagnosed in the early stages. Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate of all gynecological cancers. As the National Cancer Institute statistics demonstrate, a woman's risk of dying from ovarian cancer is not less today than it was 10 years ago. The resolution on the floor today stresses the need for more ovarian cancer education. Education is the key to detecting this cancer early. Currently, 86 percent of women state that they have little to no knowledge of gynecologic cancers. Forty-five percent of women are unaware of risk factors associated with developing a GYN cancer, and 45 percent are unable to name any symptoms of gynecological cancers. Perhaps most startling, 43 percent of women believe that they are not at risk of developing gynecological cancer. Fortunately, researchers have discovered several common symptoms of the disease; but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, ovarian cancer often first presents with little or no symptoms. Persistent symptoms such as abdominal pressure, bloating, discomfort, nausea, indigestion, constipation, abnormal bleeding, unusual fatigue, unexplained weight loss or gain, and shortness of breath usually occur and they increase over time; but these are all particularly late in the disease process. There are also groups of women who are at higher risk of developing the disease. They include women over the age of 50, women who have a personal or a family history of ovarian, breast, or colon cancer and women who have had children after the age of 30 for the first time. Ovarian cancer, however, is often a missed disease by patients and doctors alike. While a woman can have a mammography to detect breast cancer and they can have a pap smear to detect cervical cancer, there is currently no reliable, reasonably priced and readily accessible screening test for ovarian cancer. There are still large gaps in knowledge on key scientific aspects of the disease. At present, healthy women, their best alternative for screening is to be aware of ovarian cancer symptoms and to have an annual physical and pelvic exam done by their physician. This resolution commends men and women across the country who are working to increase awareness of this disease. President Bush proclaimed September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month; and during that month, 46 States and local groups held hundreds of events across the country to increase public awareness of the disease. It also stresses that ovarian cancer research should be well funded so that a reliable screening test can be developed and a cure can be found. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for bringing the resolution to the floor today.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. GINGREY. That is correct.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of this amendment I have offered to H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. Mr. Chairman, from Matthew 22:17, we know that the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus regarding allegiance to the Roman government; and, of course, Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's but render to God the things that are God's. Mr. Chairman, for over 2,000 years God has owed no taxes to the government, but that all changed on June 23, 2005. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add an additional section to this bill to ensure that our houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are not penalized because they are tax-exempt and, therefore, provide no revenue to the treasuries of State and local governments. Thus, they became low-hanging fruit, ripe for the taking. In the wake of the Kelo decision that gutted the property protections of the fifth amendment, the properties of religious organizations and other nonprofits have indeed become potential prime targets for the government wrecking ball. State and local governments should never target, or even contemplate targeting, our houses of worship or nonprofit organizations simply because another use of the property would almost certainly build up their tax base. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment turns this unique vulnerability into an asset for our houses of worship and nonprofit organizations. Its chilling effect will force State and local governments to think twice before they contemplate buying gasoline for a steamroller to plow down our houses of worship. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment and the overall bill to strengthen private property rights for the sake of all Americans.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a structured rule. It provides 90 minutes of general debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read. It makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of House Resolution 527 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I would like, first, to express my personal pleasure in seeing this important piece of legislation come before the House for consideration. Since the Supreme Court's now infamous Kelo decision, homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball. Madam Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to commend Representative Sensenbrenner, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this legislation; Ranking Member Conyers; Representative Goodlatte, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee; and Ranking Member Peterson not just for the underlying bill, but also for the thorough and expeditious way in which the committees have moved to legislatively address this Kelo decision. With a margin of only one vote, a very divided Supreme Court struck down over two centuries' worth of precedent and constitutional protections for property owners across this great Nation. In response to the deplorable Kelo decision, this body passed House Resolution 340 that I proudly sponsored along with 78 other Members from both sides of the aisle; and on June 30, 2005, we passed this resolution by a wide margin of 365 to 33. Madam Speaker, the very last subparagraph of House Resolution 340 states: ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address, through legislation, any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government in light of the ruling in Kelo, et al v. The City of New London, et al.'' Well, Madam Speaker, the day of reform is at hand, and this Congress has an excellent opportunity to set the record straight and to reaffirm the traditional meaning of the fifth amendment that guarantees no private property shall be taken except for public use and with just compensation. Accordingly, H.R. 4128 will prohibit State and local governments from taking property from one private party and giving it to another private party. If a court determines that a State or a local government violates this prohibition, that State or local government will become ineligible for Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years. Nevertheless, any government found in violation of this provision will have an opportunity to restore fully the private property owner in order to preserve Federal economic development dollars; and by ``fully,'' I mean completely restore to its original state prior to the government taking of this property. Additionally, this bill expressly prohibits the Federal Government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic purposes. So not just the State and local governments, but the Federal Government, as well, is prohibited. Madam Speaker, while the title of this bill, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, fits this legislation to a tee, one could also accurately call it the Private Property Rights Enhancement Act, for this bill will ensure that private property owners can take States and local governments to court in order to enforce the provisions of this act. And this bill also allows a prevailing property owner to recoup legal and expert fees for litigation involving the enforcement of this bill. H.R. 4128 answers the call of almost every American and a diverse, expansive array of interest groups who have railed against the Kelo decision and its judicial encroachment on our rights. Listen to these, Madam Speaker: the National Association For the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP; the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP; the American Farm Bureau; and various religious groups that include the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are just a few of the organizations who stood up in the face of Kelo to fight for the rights of the disadvantaged who might lose their home, business, or yes, even house of worship to some well-connected developer's sweetheart deal. These organizations have stood up for the rights of rural America which grows our food and sustains our country. They have stood up for the rights of our houses of worship that should not have to fear because God does not pay enough in taxes. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that today we in this House stand with them in defense of the private property rights of every American. In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to again express my gratitude that this House has the opportunity to consider such a fundamentally important and fundamentally just piece of legislation. By a one-vote margin, the Kelo decision ripped from the Constitution the private property rights of the fifth amendment, and we are going to put them back. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I will close the debate by again thanking both the Committees on the Judiciary and Agriculture for all the hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today. H.R. 4128 would restore the centuries-old protections guaranteed by the fifth amendment's takings clause. Property rights have been fundamental to the foundation of our society and have been one of the pillars that have supported our form of government and enabled our Constitution to endure the test of time. While it has only been 4 months since the Kelo decision, 4 months without these fifth amendment protections is 4 months too long; and one abuse of the eminent domain power is one abuse too many. Therefore, Madam Speaker, following the passage in the House of Representatives today, I would encourage the other body to take up this legislation quickly and to pass it so that we can get it to the President's desk. I also want to encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill. Let us get this done for the American people because it is simply the right thing to do. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for giving me an opportunity to share this time with her. Mr. Speaker, I have been to Iraq twice, December of 2003, shortly after Saddam's capture, then again in February of this year. On each of those trips, they are bipartisan trips, many of the Members, of course, that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and the theater of operations are members of the Armed Services Committee. But I think many other Members, of course, have been as well. One of the best opportunities, Mr. Speaker, is to meet with troops, soldiers, men and women from your own State, indeed when possible from your own congressional district, and to have an opportunity to talk with them and, more importantly, that they have an opportunity to talk with us. The one thing that I can tell you that I never heard was, Congressman, it is too hot over here. It is too dry over here. It is too dusty. It is too cold. I cannot sleep. I do not like the food. Congressman, can you not use your political influence somehow to get me out of here. Of course, many of those soldiers, as we heard from the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) about the corporal who was serving his third rotation in Iraq, had that premonition in harm's way, knowing that they possibly could be paying the ultimate sacrifice. None of them are asking us to get them home. Last week, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) had an hour, just as we are doing tonight, I had an opportunity then as well to say a few words. I made a feeble attempt to recite that famous poem, In Flanders Fields. I will not try to do that again tonight for my colleagues, because I think all of you know it maybe even better than I do. But in the last stanza, though, it says, take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing falling hands we pass the torch. Be yours to hold it high, for if you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flanders Field. What they are saying, and our colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, have said this repeatedly, we cannot break faith with these men and women, 2,000 plus who have lost their lives, maybe 8,000 or so who have been injured, some, yes, severely. The worst possible thing that we could do would be to pack up and come home, literally bring them home against their wishes. They would have no choice in that matter, if we listened to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. You know, you hear them, Mr. Speaker, talking about how much they support the troops and all of that. I do not doubt that. I am not going to stand up here and suggest that they are not patriots themselves and that they do not care for our troops and they do not want to arm them and make sure that they have the equipment they need. I do not doubt for a minute that they support that. But they are using our soldiers, our brave men and women, these youngsters that we are talking about here tonight, as pawns really to continually criticize and undermine the Commander in Chief, the coach, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, indirectly the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), because they want to undermine this team so that they, in the next election, are in charge. Really, Mr. Speaker, I think we all need to realize that, that there is a lot of politics here; and it is a dirty rotten shame that our soldiers, our brave men and women, are being used as pawns in this political process. God forgive them. We owe more to these troops than that. And I feel very strongly as a member on leave of absence from the Armed Services Committee to come at any opportunity I have got to take a few minutes and to stand up before my colleagues in this body and say, no, we will not forget you, you soldiers, you men and women who maybe in high school were not the football or track stars, cheerleaders, many of you decided to put off going to college and enjoying the football weekends so you could serve your country. Some of you may have been pushed around, kicked around by the schoolyard bully who does not know anything about a fair fight, but you had the courage to go and to serve this country as an all-volunteer military, whether you are active duty, Guard or Reserve; and I have seen them all in the theatre of operations at the tip of the spear. We owe them so much, and I am proud to stand up here as part of this team tonight. I really compliment the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for leading this team and for the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and my other colleagues that we have heard from and others who are going to speak. I am proud to be a part of this.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 27th annual National Hospice and Palliative Care Month. This month health organizations all around the country will be educating individuals on what it means to have an advance directive, or living will. So today I am joining with these organizations to encourage everyone to take a moment and discuss with their loved ones what their wishes would be in a health care situation where they were unable to communicate them. Madam Speaker, the term ``advance directive'' describes two types of legal documents that can enable you to plan for and communicate your end-of-life issues in the event you are unable to convey them yourself. First, Madam Speaker, is a living will. It allows you to document your wishes concerning medical treatments at the end of life. The second is a medical power of attorney, or health care proxy, which allows you to appoint a person you trust as your health care agent. This person would be authorized to make medical decisions on your behalf. Madam Speaker, living wills and medical powers of attorney are valuable tools to help communicate wishes about future medical care. Thoughtfully prepared advance directives can ease the burden on those who must make health care decisions for us. In conclusion, I want to encourage all Americans to set aside time to have what may very well be one of the most important conversations that a family can have.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, and I thank her for bringing this right down on a personal level because this is personal and she described it to perfection. I did not go into the details of what happened in New London, Connecticut. Maybe we will touch on that in just a minute. But the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) is absolutely right. That shopping center mogul had the opportunity to offer a fair price, an attractive price, and ended up buying most of the property without exercising or some government entity on his behalf exercising the power of eminent domain. That gentleman, that 82-year-old gentleman that the gentlewoman described so well, that felt the presence of his wife within the walls of that structure, that German structure, it is okay if he smells popcorn and doughnuts and sees youngsters going to the theater that has been developed all around him. He has the right of property ownership to have that shrine of his, that little shrine right in the middle, and if they want another shot at it after he is gone and they want to deal with his heirs and his children, his grandchildren, then let him offer a price and buy the property. Mr. Speaker, I want to point your attention to this first poster I have. I do not have many, but this is exactly what the gentlewoman was talking about. It shows in the baby carriage homeowners and small businesses in the baby carriage. It shows the wheeler dealer with the lollipop. You cannot see it, but on that lollipop, the attraction of the lollipop, is the enticement or the power of eminent domain. And this little youngster on the other side is that shopping center mogul that the gentlewoman was talking about or maybe it is the pharmaceutical company that wanted to build this new research development center in the heart of New London, Connecticut. But not only did they want to develop the property for this research center, God knows we need research and I pay tribute to some of our pharmaceutical companies that bring us these wonder drugs, but they did not, in my opinion, the opinion of Suzette Kelo and the other homeowners that had 15 homes in and around that area, they did not have to take that as well. It was absolutely unnecessary. And that is the whole issue here, this ability to take, the powerful, in conjunction with a local government jurisdiction, for this expanded purpose of public use or economic development and a higher tax base, somebody's God-given right, constitutional-given right to their own property. We talked a little bit about the courts. I think at this time it is entirely fitting and appropriate to call on my good friend and colleague from the great State of Texas who knows a little bit about the courts. We are talking about municipal, State, superior, Federal, district, circuit and Supreme Court; and I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and our constituents who may be listening to this hour this evening, we are going to talk about something that is well known to the general public, and that is the subject of eminent domain. It is well known, maybe not particularly liked by the general public, but certainly it is well known that, under the power, the government has the power under the Constitution and the fifth amendment to take private property for public use. This is something that has been recognized for 200 years. An example, the obvious example, of course, of public use would be for a school in a community that is growing rapidly, and youngsters need a place to get that public education. That is a public use of the power of eminent domain, that ability for a government entity, the Federal Government, the State government, a county government or municipal city government to literally take a person's private property for public use purposes and, of course, with just, fair market value compensation. That is something that we all recognize. As I said, when it is the individual who may have that little tract of land that they have owned for their lifetime and it was willed to them by their parents and willed to their parents by their grandparents, and maybe it is 50 acres, maybe it started out as farmland and ended up as just a homestead and a paid-for residence and a front porch with rocking chairs and a great view and clean air and clean environment and a place for the children and the grandchildren to come and play on the weekends. It is pretty painful indeed when John Q. Public comes knocking on the door. It may be the local school board, good, dedicated men and women who are trying to provide education for the children in the community; and that 30 acres is the last remaining plot of land in the whole county where a new high school is desperately needed because of development, economic development, new subdivisions, new roads. And people, of course, are powerless in the face of that authority of eminent domain. The only recourse they have, of course, is a plea and an appeal for fair market value of the land that they do not want to sell, they are forced to sell under this constitutional right of eminent domain. Maybe there is some negotiation. Maybe they are not happy with what is the public entity that is doing the taking, has set the price; and the homeowner, the property owner, small business owner, feels that that is not fair. Then certainly they have the right to appeal in our court system and our judicial system to the superior court of the judicial area in which they happen to lie. My colleagues, I think you all know that the Supreme Court on June 23 of this year, 2005, made a decision, a narrowly split decision, as this court has done in so many other cases, particularly regarding our traditional values. That is not the purpose of this debate and this discussion, Mr. Speaker, tonight on the floor of this House. But this 5 to 4 decision all of a sudden expanded this power of eminent domain to include the taking of a person's home, small business for economic development, that is now being interpreted by this split decision of the Supreme Court to qualify under the fifth amendment, under the Constitution, the right to take someone's property by eminent domain for economic purposes, redefining, completely and totally redefining this definition of public use that probably a sixth grader would answer correctly if you asked them: Well, give us an example of public use. They would say a road or a bridge or possibly a public library, certainly a school, maybe even a sewer line easement, a natural gas line easement. But to suggest to them that, oh, no, now we are talking about taking somebody's property for the purpose of increasing the tax revenue. Let me just kind of set the scenario for my colleagues just as a perfect example. Under this ruling, June 23, 2005, this atrocious, we think, and of course on the floor of this body of this House with overwhelming bipartisan support, not unanimous but overwhelming bipartisan support, we expressed our outrage over this, the sense of the House, a concurrent resolution expressing our absolute outrage over this decision. What it basically says and what prompted and predicated this Supreme Court decision was a case in the State of Connecticut, the City of New London, and New London in this case being the defendant, the plaintiff was the property owner, Kelo. Their property was being taken for the purpose of nothing other than increasing the tax base, the tax revenue of that particular section of town where their property happened to be. The justification for it from the standpoint of the City of New London, that local jurisdiction, was, well, if we are able to take this property, which in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, I think everybody knows I am not a lawyer nor am I a real estate expert, I am just a little old meat and potatoes OB/GYN physician. But what they were going to do was take this property so they could redevelop it. And, again, maybe it could have been a bakery, a small business that some immigrant family two generations came to this country, could not even speak English, but started on a street corner selling bagels and finally developed this little business and had that loyalty and that customer base and that value which we call blue sky on that business; and yet the tax revenue from that little business could be a house, could be your home, was not sufficient. So the local government entity, in this case the City of New London, decides, well, you know, if we can take that property, that business, indeed maybe even that church or synagogue or mosque, and we can take it by the power of eminent domain and get this broad definition of public use, and we could say, gosh, you know, the increased revenue will allow us to build more soccer fields in the county, more bike trails in the county. Well, maybe, just maybe, and I think without a shadow of a doubt Kelo felt that they did not want another soccer field and they did not want another bike trail, they wanted their property which had been willed to them and their family. They had obtained that property in a legal way. It was theirs. They are good public citizens, pay their taxes on time, contribute to the community, send their children to the public schools, volunteer for the booster's club, doing everything they can to make that community a better place to live. But can they help it that their business base was such that they only had a certain amount of revenue in any one year? There were just so many doughnuts and bagels to be sold. So they did not have an opportunity to have a high value on their business so that the local community could tax them, and so now they are going to come along and they are going to take that business so somebody else could come in. Mr. Speaker, in no way am I disparaging any good companies, but I mean, a Ritz-Carlton, even a Starbucks in this area that needs redeveloping pays a lot more taxes; and, yes, maybe some of that money could be put to the public use. But it is not at all what we understand and know and have known for 200 years the definition of a public use. So that is what we are talking about here, my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle. That is why we are here tonight. I am very fortunate that I have several of my colleagues who have joined me during this hour. They know how important this issue is. It is an important issue of the right to property, second only maybe to life and pursuit of happiness. But the right to property, Mr. Speaker, is one that cannot, should not be abridged. We are going to have legislation, we are going to have legislation this week, so this is a timely hour so we can explain to our colleagues a little bit about what this bill coming through the House, hopefully the Senate will have a companion bill, this bill coming through the House Judiciary Committee. This majority, this Republican majority is not going to let this Kelo v. New London decision stand, and my colleagues are here with me tonight to talk about that. The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is here, and I want at this time to call on her for her remarks, because I know she cares so much about this issue and cares about the folks back in Tennessee.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the judge, for sharing those thoughts with us. I wanted to assure the judge, as he well knows, that we intend to do something about it this week, and this is what H.R. 4128 does. It protects private property rights, and we will get into that in just a few minutes. Earlier we heard, Mr. Speaker, from our colleague from Ohio, and the gentlewoman talked about her father in fact who built some of these little German homes, he being of German ancestry. I am not sure that this next poster that I have got is a picture of a home in Ohio, for that matter even in New London, Connecticut, but, boy, it sure has a German look to me. I have been to Germany a time or two, a lovely country, and I have seen some residences, some houses, free-standing houses, look a little bit like that. But look at that sign in the front yard, for sale, not by owner, but by government, and that is what we are talking about here. That is exactly what the gentlewoman from Ohio was describing in her district, and this is what the people, quite frankly, in New London, Connecticut, were fighting for. As I said a little earlier, a developer who wants to put up a mega store, a big box, a new luxury five-star hotel or a four-star restaurant, or whatever they want to do, expand that shopping center I think we were hearing about earlier, let them do it and let them buy what property they can buy. If a price is offered that is attractive enough, you will have plenty of willing sellers. And if you have one or two that are unwilling, for the reasons the gentlewoman was describing, I think she pointed out a gentleman 82 years old, been married 50 years, lost his wife, been in the home their whole married life, let some creative architect figure out a way to build around that home and still have an attractive development. It can be done, no question about that, Mr. Speaker. This next poster, my colleagues, I think is the most important of the three. Because while I have emphasized that under this new expanded ruling of this activist court, this 5-4 decision, that a person's home, where they have raised their children and maybe even their grandchildren and lost their spouse, can be taken for this expanded so- called public use called economic development, bigger tax base, more bucks, or the small business I described, the little bakery. But look at this, at this poster, this slide. You recognize it. That is a church. It could just as well be a mosque or a synagogue. A place of worship basically is what it is. Guess how much taxes God pays to the local government? None. None. So if we allow this decision to stand, there will be plenty of incentive to take a small business or a home where the property taxes are not enough. You know, if it were a bigger home and it had 5,000 square feet instead of 2,000 square feet, you could raise the tax base, and if it were a business. But it is paying some taxes. There is revenue, hopefully a profit. These small business owners are definitely taxed, and that tax goes to support the local community. So if there is an incentive to take their property when there is a tax base, think about what the incentive is going to be for the local government to take God's property, where there is no tax base. It is tax free. We cannot allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand this. I know it from the fact that I brought a resolution to this House floor shortly after June 23, and we had Members on both sides of the aisle running to the voting machine to punch that green light expressing their outrage over this decision. So it is certainly not a partisan outrage. We are all upset about it. This week we intend to do something about it. Indeed, to take God's property so we can put in some high-tax-paying business, restaurant, hotel for the purposes of increasing that tax base. Then you say, oh yes, but this is for the public good because we are going to have money to build more parks and recreation facilities. Indeed. Indeed. My colleagues, I mentioned the facts in the New London case, and I will not go into that in any more detail, but listen to some of the arguments in that case. The residents, the petitioners, argued the condemnation by the City of New London constituted a violation of the fifth amendment's public use provision: Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The judge from Texas talked about that. The gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Tennessee all talked about that. The residents argued that economic development in and of itself does not constitute a public use. But the City of New London, the defendants in this case, argued that, hey, new jobs, increased tax revenue, that is qualification enough for taking as a public use and, therefore, this taking did not constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment. They also argued that they were operating in accordance with Connecticut law. Well, unfortunately, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority, five of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, agreed with the City of New London, and the majority opinion focused on a broad, very broad interpretation of the term public use in the Fifth Amendment. The opinion states that there is no way to distinguish between economic development from other types of public use development. The majority did not want to second-guess local government. They did not want the State and local government to say a particular development project is for public use. They are the only final arbiters of what is and what is not public use. I think I can say that it was a ridiculous majority opinion. In the dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor, Justice Renquist, God rest his soul, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas cites the majority opinion for what it is, an abandonment of over two centuries worth of precedent. In the dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor stresses that the term public use is very explicit and that the Founders intended that the term public use needed to be there. Justice O'Connor writes that the majority's opinion nullifies the term public use, and now State and local government can justify any taking of land from one individual to another to give to another private party if it presents any economic benefit to the tax base or any other aspect of the community. This, Mr. Speaker, cannot, shall not stand. And I want to take this opportunity tonight during the remaining time that we have to pay tribute to the sensible chairman, who has great wisdom and a lot of common sense, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and I am talking about the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). He will bring to this floor, probably on Thursday of this week, H.R. 4128. I would like to take this time to explain the provisions of that bill, because it is so very important. In this bill, it will say that Congress' power to condition the use of Federal funds will extend to prohibiting States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds for a specified period of time if such entities abuse their power of eminent domain, even if only State and local funds are used in that abuse of power. H.R. 4128 also includes an express private right of action to make certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the bill will be allowed access to a State or Federal Court to enforce its provisions. It also includes a fee-shifting provision, and listen to this, identical to those in other civil rights laws that allows a prevailing property owner attorney and expert fees as a part of the cost of bringing the litigation to enforce the bill's provision, as it should. Under H.R. 4128, States and localities will have the clear opportunity, we are going to give them a last chance, to cure any violation before they lose any Federal economic development funds by either returning or replacing the improperly taken property. We are giving them a chance to make amends before the hammer falls. H.R. 4128 also includes carefully crafted refinements of the definition of economic development that specifically allows the types of takings that prior to Kelo had achieved a consensus as to their appropriateness. I want to mention some of these. These exceptions include: Exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership, to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like pipelines. I mentioned that earlier. The bill also makes reasonable exceptions for the taking of land that is being used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. Of course. That is common sense. The bill also makes exceptions for the merely incidental use of a public building by a private entity, such as a small privately run gift shop on the ground floor in a public hospital, or the acquisition of abandoned property, and for clearing defective chains of title in which no one can be said to really own the property in the first place. A good bill, Mr. Speaker. I commend it to my colleagues. H.R. 4128 was introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin on October 25 of this year. The bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 3 on October 27, 2005; and I can assure my colleagues that there are not 27 Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee. We have a majority, yes, but a narrow majority. So, clearly, this bill has strong, strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this time that we have taken to talk tonight about this situation of the abuse of the power of eminent domain is so critical. It is so critical, and this bill is so important. We need balance. Certainly we need economic development. We need to develop blighted areas in our cities across these States, but we can do it in the right way. And we do not need to violate someone's constitutional and God-given rights of life, liberty and property. I hope that we have in this time, Mr. Speaker, made a strong case for this. I know my colleagues who spoke earlier spoke well, spoke eloquently, and I am deeply appreciative of their spending a little of their evening tonight to discuss such an important issue. We look forward to Thursday. We look forward to the passage of H.R. 4128 to restore the natural and constitutional right to property.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). It gives me a little bit of a segue as she used the term ``activist judges'' and I think that that absolutely, Mr. Speaker, is what is going on here. We are in the process, of course, we have just confirmed our new Supreme Court Chief Justice, and now there will be hearing soon in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for the confirmation, hopefully, of a judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And all the talk, of course, is about the litmus test of abortion. Has the judge, the candidate judge in this instance, a judge, a circuit court judge of some 19 years of experience, what is his record on abortion? Is he pro-life? Is he pro-choice? Although our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the members especially of that Committee on the Judiciary, say there is no litmus test; it is not, and that is a huge concern, I think, that issue for the American public. And they are watching very, very closely these proceedings that are going to occur, the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But this is an example of other things of judicial activism, of legislating literally from the bench. They may not rise quite to the level of the issue of what happened in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, but this is an important issue as is taking God's name, the name of God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. This is hugely important, and I think we are going to go a little deeper in the hour. I am very pleased that one of our former judicial members probably will be talking to these same issues. At this point, I would first like to call on the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), one of our newest Members elected to this body recently in a special election. The gentlewoman and I have had conversations about this issue since June 23, 2005, shortly after she got here, as well as the outrage that she has expressed and the concerns that her constituents have over this back in Ohio.