Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments that were made, I just want to hold up this document that lists over 300 groups in support of LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, and I will include them in the Record. I would like to also point out that the Federal Judicial Center was in opposition to class action reform, which we passed in the previous Congress and in the 108th by a vote in this body of 279 to 149. Groups Supporting H.R. 420--The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 Advanced Medical Technology Association. Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee. Alabama Restaurant Association. Alabama Trucking Association, Inc. Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailers Association. Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota. Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Pennsylvania. America Chamber of Commerce (NV). American Apparel and Footwear Association. American Automotive Leasing Association. American Bakers Association. American Boiler Manufacturers Association. American Business Conference. American Chemistry Council. American Council of Engineering Companies. American Health Care Association. American Home Furnishing Alliance. American Insurance Association. American International Automobile Dealers Association. American Legislative Exchange Council. American Machine Tool Distributors Association. American Petroleum Institute. American Rental Association. American Road & Transportation Builders Association. American Supply Association. American Trucking Associations. American Tort Reform Association. American Veterinary Distributors Association. American Wholesale Marketers Association. Antelope Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA). Ardmore Chamber of Commerce (OK). Arkansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Arkansas Hospitality Association. Arizona Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association. Associated Builders & Contractors. Associated General Contractors of America. Associated Equipment Distributors. ASFE--Associated Soil & Foundation Engineers. Associated Wire Rope Fabricators. Association for High Technology Distribution. Association of Equipment Manufacturers. Association of Pool & Spa Professionals. AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology. Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association. Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association. Automotive Parts & Service Association of Illinois. Aviation Distributors & Manufacturers Association. Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Bearing Specialists Association. Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce (GA). Business Council of New York State, Inc. Business Roundtable. California Central Coast Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. California Restaurant Association. California/Nevada Automotive Wholesalers Association. Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Central Illinois, National Electrical Contractors Association. Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County (PA). Chamber of Commerce for Anderson & Madison County (IN). Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley (WV). Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas. Citizens for Civil Justice Reform. City of Chicago, National Electrical Contractors Association. Civil Justice Association of California. Cleaning Equipment Trade Association. Cleveland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Coalition for Uniform Product Liability Law. Colorado Civil Justice League. Colorado Motor Carriers Association. Colorado Restaurant Association. Connecticut Restaurant Association. Construction Industry Round Table. Copper & Brass Service Center Association. Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers. Crawfordsville/Montgomery Chamber of Commerce (IN). Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (OH). Delaware Motor Transport Association. Delaware Restaurant Association. East Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse. The Employers Association. Electrical Manpower Development Trust. Equipment Leasing Association. Florida Chamber of Commerce. Florida Restaurant Association. Food Industry Suppliers Association. Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association. Gases and Welding Distributors Association. General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, Inc. Georgia Industry Association. Georgia Restaurant Association. Great Lakes Petroleum Retailers & Allied Trades Association. Georgia Motor Trucking Association. Hawaii Restaurant Association. Hawaii Transportation Association. Health Industry Distributors Association. Healthcare Distribution Management Association. Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International Association. Hobbs Chamber of Commerce (NM). Hospitality Association of South Carolina. Hospitality Minnesota--Minnesota's Restaurant, Hotel & Lodging and Resort & Campground Associations. Hudson Valley Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association (NY). Humble Area Chamber of Commerce (TX). Idaho Lodging and Restaurant Association. Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Illinois Civil Justice League. Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch. Illinois Quad City Chamber. Illinois Restaurant Association. Independent Electrical Contractors. Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc. Independent Sealing Distributors. Industrial Compressor Distributor Association. Industrial Supply Association. International Association of Plastics Distributors. International Foodservice Distributors Association. International Franchise Association. International Furniture Suppliers Association. International Housewares Association. International Safety Equipment Association. International Sanitary Supply Association. International Sign Association. International Sleep Products Association. International Truck Parts Association. Iowa Hospitality Association. Iowa Motor Truck Association. Jackson Area Manufacturers Association. Kansas Chamber of Commerce. Kansas City Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association. Kentucky Motor Transport Association. Kentucky Restaurant Association. Kern County Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association (CA). Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce (AZ). Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (WA). Latrobe Area Chamber of Commerce (PA). Lawn and Garden Marketing and Distribution Association. Lebanon Valley Chamber of Commerce (PA). Los Angeles Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Los Angeles Fastener Association. Louisiana Motor Transport Association. Louisiana Restaurant Association. Maine Liability Crisis Alliance. Maine Restaurant Association. Manufactured Housing Institute. Manufacturers' Association of Northwest Pennsylvania. Marion Area Chamber of Commerce (IL). Maryland Business for Responsive Government. Maryland Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Massachusetts Restaurant Association. Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association. Mechanical Contractors Association of America. Memphis Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Metals Service Center Institute. Mason Contractors Association of America. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch. Michigan Restaurant Association. Minnesota Trucking Association. Mississippi Hospitality and Restaurant Association. Mississippi Manufacturers Association. Mississippi Trucking Association. Mississippians for Economic Progress. Missouri Motor Carriers Association. Missouri Restaurant Association. Montana Chamber of Commerce/Montana Liability Coalition. Montana Motor Carriers Association. Montana Restaurant Association. Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association. Motorcycle Industry Council. National Association of Chemical Distributors. National Association of Convenience Stores. National Association of Electrical Distributors. National Association of Home Builders. National Association of Manufacturers. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. National Association of Sign Supply Distributors. National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. National Concrete Masonry Association. National Council of Chain Restaurants of the National Retail Federation. National Electrical Contractors Association. National Federation of Independent Business. National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers Association. National Marine Distributors Association. National Paint & Coatings Association. National Pest Management Association. National Propane Gas Association. National Restaurant Association. NRF--The National Retail Federation. National Roofing Contractors Association. National School Supply & Equipment Association. National Shooting Sports Foundation. NAHAD--The Association for Hose & Accessories Distributors NPES--The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and Converting Technologies. National Small Business Association. Nebraska Restaurant Association. Nebraska Trucking Association. Nevada State Medical Association. New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association. New Jersey Automobile Wholesalers Association. New Jersey Business & Industry. New Jersey Motor Truck Association. New Jersey Restaurant Association. New Mexico Alliance for Legal Reform. New Mexico Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. New Mexico Restaurant Association. Nevada Restaurant Association. New York State Automotive Aftermarket Association. New York State Motor Truck Association. New York State Restaurant Association. North American Horticultural Supply Association. North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry. North Carolina Restaurant Association. North Carolina Trucking Association. North Dakota State Hospitality Association. North Florida Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. North Louisiana Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. North Texas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Northeastern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Northern California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Northern Illinois Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Northern New York Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association. Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce. Office Products Wholesalers Association. Ohio Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. Ohio Manufacturers Association. Ohio Restaurant Association. Ohio Trucking Association. Oklahoma Restaurant Association. Orange Chamber of Commerce (CA). Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Oregon Restaurant Association. Outdoor Power Equipment & Engine Service Association. Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association. Pacific Printing & Imaging Association (AK, HI, ID, MT, OR,

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

Mr. GINGREY. 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. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 508 is a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. This resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 508 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005. First, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, not just for the underlying bill but for a number of recent bills aimed at strengthening our legal system by protecting people's rights under the law and shielding them from frivolous proceedings. Additionally, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for sponsoring H.R. 420. Madam Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, this House has taken several important steps to reform our legal system, to relieve our overburdened court dockets and drastically reduce the number of costly frivolous claims against innocent and legitimate businesses. On October 24, we passed and sent to the President's desk S. 397, the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, by a vote of 283 to 144 in the House. I might add that in the spirit of bipartisanship, 59 Democrats and one Independent joined 223 Republicans in passing this landmark legislation that refocuses liability for gun violence on the actual criminal, the person who pulled the trigger. Additionally in this House, 226 Republicans, along with 80 Democrats, passed H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005. This bill also reaffirms the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect someone else to foot the bill for the adverse health consequences of their own gluttony. Today, Madam Speaker, we have another prime opportunity to pass meaningful legislation to strengthen our court system even further and to protect the falsely accused. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 will go a long way to curb the actions of individuals who would seek to abuse our courts by gaming the judicial system. Last week, there were probably millions of people across this country who tuned in, ticket in hand, to see if they had won a $340 million Powerball jackpot. Unfortunately, there are also people who look to the courts, legal briefs in hand, as if it were the Powerball lottery. However, Madam Speaker, it is the American people and small businesses that pay the ultimate price for frivolous lawsuits and this type of jackpot justice. They pay for it through higher prices for goods and services, they pay for it through diminished quality of products, they pay for it through loss of economic freedom, and they pay for it through a clogged court system that has been turned into an ATM for junk lawsuits. In fact, the current tort system is estimated to cost American people well over $200 billion per year. Clearly, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 is a bill that is sorely overdue, sorely needed and, I might add, was approved by this House in the last Congress by a vote of 229 to 174. With respect to the underlying bill, it would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by restoring the mandatory sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. This bill would require that courts impose an appropriate penalty on attorneys, law firms, or parties who continue to file frivolous lawsuits. Also this bill would eliminate the ``free pass'' provision that allows attorneys to avoid sanctions if they withdraw their frivolous claim after a motion for sanctions has been filed. Madam Speaker, H.R. 420 also would prevent forum shopping by requiring that personal injury cases only be brought in those jurisdictions either where the plaintiff, the defendant or a related business resides, or where the alleged injury or surrounding circumstances occurred. This act would also institute a three-strikes-and-you're-out sanction that would suspend an attorney from practicing in Federal court if a Federal judge determines the lawyer has violated Rule 11 on three or more occasions. H.R. 420 clearly emphasizes that personal responsibility is not just some catch phrase that applies only to some people, such as a fast-food connoisseur, a firearms owner, a consumer or, indeed, a doctor. Personal responsibility and professional accountability should be the rule for those in the legal field, too, and that is why this House should pass this bill. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just emphasize that House Resolution 508 is a straightforward rule and H.R. 420 is a straightforward bill. Simply put, it just makes sense to stop and punish the willful abuse of our legal system by the slash-and-burn tactics of frivolous lawsuits. As always, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I might point out that the people that oppose this legislation, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier, are the very ones that support his party. So I think that there is a little balance there, if that be true in either instance. Madam Speaker, I would first like to close this debate by thanking my colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and H.R. 420. The opportunity before this House today is another example of how this Congress has improved our legal system and preventing frivolous lawsuits from closing the doors of justice for those who have truly been harmed. Contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say, the underlying bill, as well as other recent bills, do not demonstrate contempt for our legal system or the esteemed profession of attorneys, but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the constitutional application of the laws. Frivolous lawsuits have not only driven up costs and destroyed economic opportunity for the American people, but they have also damaged the image of the courts. When the American people stop respecting the decisions of the judiciary, the courts begin to lose their effectiveness, and they cease to perform their constitutionally mandated role. For the sake of the courts and for the sake of the American people, we in this House need to push forward with this additional meaningful and genuine reform. Therefore, I would like to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the center aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I had the great opportunity to visit Iraq on two occasions: in December of 2003, five days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, and then again in February of this year with my colleagues on the Committee on Rules. I want to say what I noticed in Iraq, in the theater of operation, was I met soldiers' soldiers and I met commanders' commanders; and I want to say, too, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, is a chairman's chairman. It was said earlier by other speakers the sacrifice he made himself while serving in Vietnam, and his sons now serving in Iraq. This is the kind of support that we need to show and let those young soldiers who are over there right now, maybe some of them are having a needed break, an opportunity to get out of harm's way and possibly watching the deliberations that are occurring right here this evening as we praise them and give them our support. In the previous 5-minute litany that we heard from the other side, I think it was just the opposite. It was a little sad to hear them read names and then condemn the Commander in Chief, to condemn the cause. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to throw out a couple of names of young soldiers that gave their life in Iraq. I could mention Specialist Justin Johnson from Armuchee, Georgia, just 2 years out of high school. His dad, Joe Johnson, actually is in the Reserves now serving, activated, asked to be activated, and yet he gave his son in the ultimate sacrifice. First Lieutenant Tyler Brown, president of the student body at my alma mater, Georgia Tech, had an opportunity to be in Arlington in the Honor Guard. But, no; instead he chose, he asked, to go to serve in Iraq, and, 2 weeks after he arrived there, was killed by a sniper. President of the student body at Georgia Tech just 4 years ago. I think of his family. I think of his mom and his dad and his brother and his sister. I think of Command Sergeant Major Eric Cooke, who at age 43, after 19 years of service and four combat tours of duty, 1 day after I met him that first time in December of 2003 that I went to Iraq, on Christmas Eve, he gave his life by sitting in that seat in a Humvee so that one of his soldiers could get some needed rest. That is the kind of men and women that I want to honor and remember here tonight as we talk about these great patriots that are serving us so well. Mr. Speaker, I think it is all about one thing that we can remember. Those of us who are not veterans, those of us who are veterans, no matter what war we are talking about, and this country has been through a few in the 235 years of our history, the soldiers, particularly those who have given their lives in combat, they do not want us to forget. They do not want us to forget. That is all they ask of us. And I am often reminded of that poem that was written by a Canadian physician serving with the Allies in World War I in Flanders, Belgium, when his buddy gave his life in combat. He wrote a poem, a tribute to him, and that is the great poem that we all know called ``In Flanders Fields.'' I will try to recite it, Mr. Speaker. I might not do a very good job, but it goes something like this: In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, We loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders Fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe; To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. For if ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders Fields. That little poem that Dr. McCrae wrote in World War I, of course, is a very famous poem today, and it just says one thing, Mr. Speaker. It says, do not forget us. We died for our country. No matter what the cause, even if you do not agree with it, as we hear from the other side tonight and other times on this floor, we have got to remember the sacrifice, otherwise these 2,000 soldiers who have given their lives, and four times that many who have been injured, will indeed have died in vain. We will have forgotten them. We will not have taken up that torch that they are passing to us and they are asking us to hold it high. That is our obligation. We do not necessarily have to be veterans, combat veterans, like the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) or the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) or the many men and women, too. And I think of the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and others who have served in this country. We are all serving. And I do not question the patriotism of the people on the other side until I hear them talking about the Commander in Chief and saying that he lied to the American people and that we did not need to be there, that we struck first. How quickly, Mr. Speaker, how quickly they forget 9/11. God bless our troops. God bless the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter). We are behind them 100 percent, and we are winning, and we will continue to win and bring these soldiers home safe with a victory in hand.

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a fiscal conservative, and, more importantly, as a Member who believes in making the tough choices and tightening the belt of the Federal budget. Every American family knows that you do not spend money on big purchases unless you have a way to pay for it. Yet our Federal Government does this every day. There are two ways to get our fiscal house back in order: we can raise taxes, as some of our colleagues across the aisle have suggested; or we can rein in government spending. Well, we Republicans believe that American families already pay too high a price in taxes, and we know that there are too many places where our bureaucracy is bloated and our programs are redundant and ineffective. So rather than making the American taxpayers shoulder the burden of excessive Federal spending, I say we put the weight on ourselves, the Congress, and work our hardest to cut the fat out of the Federal budget. I believe that government should tailor its spending to accommodate lower taxes, rather than tailoring its taxes to accommodate higher spending called for by the Democrats. Now is the time to treat our Federal budget as we would our household budget. We need to make the tough decisions.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recall the life of Sam C. Smith, former mayor of Cartersville, Georgia, president of Century Bank, and a lifelong community activist who leaves behind an everlasting legacy of service to his hometown. Sam is survived by his wife, Connie Hill Smith, and his three children, Ginny, Taylor, and Drew. Sam's untimely death this past weekend is deeply felt by the entire Cartersville community, and I would like to share some of his accomplishments here today. Sam lived life with a passion for everything he did, and he worked tirelessly for the betterment of his community. Never a man with small dreams or goals, Sam served as mayor of Cartersville from 1998 to 2002, and his tenure exemplified the kind of work that can be achieved when a city's leader is committed, involved, and enthusiastic about making his city a better place to live. However, Sam's involvement in his community far outdates his rise to mayor. Sam Smith was a true fixture in Cartersville, and his shoes will be hard ones to fill. This is a man who earlier today was laid to rest less than a mile from the place where he was born 58 years ago. After graduating from the University of Tennessee with a degree in finance, Sam quickly became a shining star for the Bartow County community. In 1972, he was named Cartersville's Outstanding Young Man of the Year, and in 1979, he was named one of five Outstanding Young Men in the State of Georgia by the Georgia Jaycees. These early accolades were followed by years of service to the community that honored him. At the age of 26, Sam became president of Bartow County Bank, making him the youngest bank president in the State of Georgia. His distinguished tenure lasted for 20 years. More recently, he cofounded and served as president of Century Bank, the position he held at the time of his death. Sam Smith exemplified that ``personal banker'' we value in a bank. So many people remember Sam as a banker who gave them their first loan, their first job, or that first vote of confidence in their new home or business. Sam was also intimately involved in community organizations. He served as president of the Cartersville-Bartow Chamber of Commerce in the early 1980s and as chairman of the Georgia Bar Association Committee on Fee Arbitration in the 1990s. At the time of his death, Sam was chairman of the Independent Bankers Association's Bank Services Committee. Sam Smith's community involvement went well beyond the financial sector. He helped bring a new Georgia Highlands College campus to Cartersville, and was an active member of Sam Jones United Methodist Church, and was an avid supporter of Cartersville's high school athletics. Just 12 days ago I was honored to be his guest at the Cartersville-Carrollton football game. Sam knew every Purple Hurricane by first name. Last night I attended Sam's wake, and I was reminded of the impact a leader can have on the community he serves. Everyone shared words of praise, joyful memories, and personal stories I know will be told for many years to come. It is fitting that the current mayor of Cartersville, a job Sam held with such honor, eloquently captured the spirit of Sam Smith this week. Cartersville mayor Mike Fields commented, ``I can't think of anybody else who cared more about this city than Sam Smith. Very few people put as much heart and soul into the city than Sam. His accomplishments speak for themselves, but it will take an awful lot of effort from a lot of folks to replace what he did.'' Madam Speaker, the residents of Cartersville, Georgia, were fortunate to have Sam leading their community. He made Bartow County a better place to live, to do business, even cheer on a local baseball team. It was a privilege to know him, and his presence will be deeply missed. Madam Speaker, today Bartow County said goodbye to a favorite son. I offer my condolences to his family, his friends, and his beloved community. I know that while Sam Smith is no longer with us, his legacy will continue for many years to come.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out, and he is so right, we need to move into the 21st century in regard to our health care system and modeling. Just trying to come up with better drugs and the latest surgery techniques to treat complicated illness is not enough. We really need to focus on preventive care. You are talking about in the last few minutes, of course, your specialty, in talking about mental illness, and as it relates also to childhood obesity, and I could not help but think as I was listening to your discussion, and as you know, this week we just passed H.R. 554. H.R. 554 is the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005. This is a bill my colleagues are aware of the fact it would not allow someone to sue a fast food manufacturer because they have gorged themselves with a multiple number of Big Macs or any other kind of fast food, or sometimes what we refer to as junk food. It is not the fault of the food industry. I used a little analogy when I was talking about this on the floor yesterday in discussing the rule of my belt, which is a size 36. That is, I hate to admit, the size of my waist, but if I wanted really out of blind pride to suggest that I had a 24-inch waist and I cinched that belt down a couple of notches, in doing so, I put pressure, compression on something referred to as the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, it would result in a condition of numbness and lack of feeling on the anterior thigh. Then should I go out and sue the belt company because they are at fault because I misused a product? This is what this bill, of course, is all about, a common-sense type bill. Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the author of the bill, our good friend and colleague, is actually in the hospital now and recovering hopefully from a fairly minor condition, but we want to pay tribute to him. I know he is proud that we passed this bill this week. The comment that I wanted to make is this issue of personal responsibility, and parents should have that personal responsibility obviously in the way they conduct themselves in regard to how they eat and a healthy diet and exercise, but even more importantly is the responsibility that they have to give a good example and instruction to their children. I think it is probably the worst form of child abuse to let these youngsters that at a very early age overeat and become obese. You have talked about the issue of poor mental image, self-image, and of course, I also see you talked about Hollywood and, of course, this issue of there is no such thing as mental illness. I think probably they might predominate in some of those diseases, which we categorize as mental illness. But quite honestly, when a child goes to school and there is this emphasis on thinness and you see these youngsters wearing these Britney Spears' jeans and that sort of thing, a child even a little bit overweight and certainly one that is significantly obese, of course they are going to have a poor image of themselves. They are going to withdraw, and they are going to become shy. It is very likely they are going to be picked on. How in the world can they grow and develop with a healthy self-image? No wonder they end up needing to be counseled and treated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and other mental health care specialists. Yes, unfortunately, some even go on to harm themselves and possibly even commit suicide. So I guess the most important thing that I would want to say as a physician Member is that we need to prevent this. We need to make sure that parents get the message that they have an obligation, not just to take care of themselves, but first and foremost to take care of these precious children that they bring into the world. It is their responsibility to make sure that they are from the very beginning, when they start eating at the table, to make sure that they are healthy and stay healthy so you do not have to have them ending up in your office treating them for not only mental illness but also the many complications of obesity. You mentioned them. You mentioned diabetes, high blood pressure, so many things. And talk about the cost to this health care system of ours. We always talk about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and the Medicaid programs and wanting to eliminate that, and we are very diligent and will continue to be so. But this is almost a no-brainer. It is like we heard former Speaker Newt Gingrich say to a group of us earlier today, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania was a part of that as we had him come to speak to Members of the House. We are not talking about low-hanging fruit here in regard to saving money and saving lives. We are talking about fruit that is lying on the ground sitting there rotting waiting for us to pick it up. So clearly that is what my message would be in regard to that.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for leading this hour during this week of Children's Health Care Initiative and calling attention to the health of our children. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) has worked extensively in the field of psychology, particularly child psychology. He has actually written a book and has another coming out soon on the subject. I think as we get further into the hour, we probably will discuss a little about bit about how important a child's not only physical health but their mental health is. But I do appreciate the opportunity that the gentleman has given me, Mr. Speaker, to share some of this time with him. My background in a prior life, my professional experience was for 30 years in the practice of medicine, and the specialty that I enjoyed practicing was obstetrics and gynecology; and we have that opportunity in that field of medicine to see a child at the very beginnings of life and know how critically important a good start is. We talk about some of the things that this Republican majority has done, some of the very good programs since President Bush has been in office, certainly not the least of which is No Child Left Behind regarding our K-12 education program. But it is so important from the health care perspective that no child is left behind from the moment of conception. So I do want to talk a little bit about the importance of prenatal care and actually call my colleagues' attention to this one poster that I have here regarding prenatal care, entitled ``Proper Prenatal Care Leads to Healthy Children.'' No question about it. Some of the bullet points, these may be a little bit difficult to see, Mr. Speaker, but hopefully we can focus the camera in on the bullet points. First of all, 1 million, 1 million, American women deliver babies annually without receiving prenatal care. Secondly, in the United States, more than 250,000 low birth weight infants are born each year. More than 250,000. Now, for my colleagues' understanding, a low birth weight infant is one that weighs less than 2,500 grams. That is about 5\1/2\ pounds. Those children are not all premature. In some instances they are unhealthy children who are near term, but low birth weight. But most of them, most of these 250,000 low birth weight infants are actually born premature as well. And the third bullet point, low birth weight infants are more likely to suffer from disabilities, things like heart defects and respiratory illnesses. They are four times more likely to prematurely die than infants with a normal birth weight. I have had many situations, Mr. Speaker, as an obstetrician having delivered over 5,000 children, where women come into the emergency room having had no prenatal care. And they are clearly the ones who are more likely to deliver these low birth weight babies and deliver them prematurely. That is why I think it is so important, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) would agree with me, that when we emphasize the issue, the immigration issue, of securing our borders and want to make sure that every immigrant that comes into this country comes here legally and has an opportunity to get prenatal care, as, of course, many of those who come in an illegal manner are afraid or do not now how or where to get prenatal care and will just show up in the emergency room having delivered an unhealthy premature low birth weight infant, the cost of taking care of a child in that situation in the very expensive setting of an intensive care nursery, a 2-month stay, and that would not be uncommon for a very small infant, could approach easily $750,000 to $1 million worth of health care. And that, Mr. Speaker, is really just the beginning. That is just the beginning of the cost, because if there is a disability that is long lasting or maybe even lasting a lifetime, and that is often the case, whether it is a heart defect or a musculoskeletal deformity or a mental defect as a result of lack of oxygen, sometimes even blindness, the cost is just astronomical. So it is so important, it is so important, that we do things in this Congress at the Federal level to encourage that women get prenatal care and that children are born healthy and that, indeed, no infant, not just no child left behind, but no infant is left behind. So I just wanted to go over with my colleagues some of the things in regard to prenatal care that are so important that I always stress to my patients: of course, encouraging immunizations and vitamin supplements, monitoring of diet, increased physical activity, clearly to avoid smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy and drug use. Certainly any drug use that is nonprescription or not under the jurisdiction and guidance of a physician is to be discouraged. Environmental factors are hugely important. As I say, a healthy diet, a regular weight check, physical activity, all of these things are so important. And then to come see the physician on a regular basis during the pregnancy. This is how we avoid, Mr. Speaker, these 1 million American women delivering babies annually either without receiving prenatal care or ending up with premature deliveries. I want to, if the gentleman would allow me, to expand on this a bit. It is not just being born healthy and well; but the first 5 years of life, what happens to the child after that is tremendously important as well. I have a grandson, little Grey Collins. He will be a year old soon. And it is so much fun to see him, and I often have that opportunity to see him, watching the little Baby Einstein tapes, that he is hugged many times a day and loved by his parents and grandparents and his aunts and uncles and how important it is to provide that love and affection to a child and let them know that they are loved, and we will get into that. I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) will talk about that later in the hour as he discusses things like childhood obesity and childhood mental health. But I wanted to speak a little bit about a program that we just reauthorized in the last couple of weeks here in this 109th Congress, and what I am talking about is the Head Start program. Sometimes we get criticized, we, the Republican majority, that we do not care enough about social programs and we do not care enough about the poor and underprivileged and people that do not maybe have the same opportunity that the upper middle class society has. But let me tell the Members we do care. We do care. And this reauthorization is proof of the pudding. Just a little historical perspective on that. Head Start and its cousin, Early Head Start or comprehensive child development programs, serving children from birth to age 5, as I stated, as well as pregnant women and their families, the critical component of the Head Start program is that it is child focused with the overall goal to increase school readiness of young children in low-income families, Mr. Speaker. The Head Start program has a long tradition of delivering comprehensive and high-quality services designed to foster healthy development in children that need our help the most. The program provides a range of individualized services in areas of education, early childhood development, but not stopping there. It also offers medical, dental, and mental health services to these children and to their families. It even goes a step further by providing nutritional counseling and encouraging parental involvement in their child's development. It is a rich program. I have got a lot of statistics, and as we continue the hour, I will relate some of those specifics, particularly in regard to the reauthorization and how much we are doing in that program. But I just wanted to point out, as I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) agrees, how important it is that we do everything we can to make sure that our children get a good start in life. And as I have stated at the outset, the prenatal care aspect is hugely important. Programs like the Early Head Start and Head Start program so that the children, all children, when they get to that 5- year-old kindergarten class or get to the first grade, that they have an equal opportunity with their peers and they are not starting school with one hand tied behind their back. So it is hugely important that they are healthy, that they are happy, that they are loved and they have an opportunity, as we all want, in life. At this point I will continue to be here with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) during this hour.

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is so right, and I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. This issue of scoring, as the gentleman is talking about, it reminds me of course of the debate during the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act that we passed in December of 2003. Of course, that part D will go into effect and the modernization piece is already in effect for Medicare, but part D, the prescription drug part, will start January 1. But all we heard and continue to hear, particularly from the other side and for those nay-sayers who keep wanting to talk negative about really a very good program that is going to be a Godsend for our neediest seniors, I talked about this on the floor, my colleagues I know heard me last night. But the talk, the emphasis is on the cost of part D, and the cost estimate is based on the number of seniors that participate ultimately. I do not think anybody really knows, Mr. Speaker, what that number will be; but at one point it looked like the CBO said, well, it is going to be $400 billion additional Medicare cost over a 5-year period of time. Then those numbers were revised, and then we were hearing as much maybe as $750 billion. That is the scoring that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is talking about, and my colleagues understand what he means. You get no credit for the fact that many people who sign up and, yes, there will be an additional Medicare cost for them on this part D program, but the fact that they are able to take those medications, they can finally afford to take that statin to lower their cholesterol and that medication, that insulin to lower their blood sugar or whatever antihypertensive to lower their blood pressure, guess what, we get less spending on part A, the hospital part, when you end up in the emergency room with a stroke because you could not take your medicine, or you end up on the operating table for your coronary bypass or maybe even worse an amputation or a kidney transplant, and then you have this huge cost to the physician under part B. The truth of the matter is, and what the gentleman was emphasizing, is that you get no credit for saving those costs, not to mention the fact that it is so much more compassionate to spend money on prevention rather than treatment, particularly when the treatment sometimes is not very successful and a person could ultimately be in a nursing home for years and disabled for the rest of their lives. I will take it a step further before turning it back over to my colleague. It is the same thing, this scoring issue, in regard to the tax cuts that this Republican leadership has effected over these past 3 years. The scorers, the CBO, the number crunchers say, well, these tax cuts, the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, increasing the child tax credit from $600 an infant to $1,000 a child, giving small business men and women an opportunity to more rapidly depreciate investment in bricks and mortar and creating new jobs, all of these things, elimination of the death tax, no taxation without respiration I firmly believe in, the scorers said that was going to cost us $1.3 trillion. My colleague remembers that. And a lot of people said, oh, we cannot afford that. What are we doing cutting taxes? Well, after about a year and a half, when we looked at our revenue stream, what was the result? We had about 225 billion more dollars, which on the scoring side we get no credit for. So the gentleman is so right. So many of these things that we are talking about tonight in this hour, these innovations, these community health centers that the President has funded, recommended, and feels so strongly about, on the scoring side you get no credit for; but we do save money, as the gentleman points out. And just think, also, it is the compassionate, conservative thing to do for the American people.

Mr. GINGREY. Without question probably the most common condition that we see in smoking moms is something called toxemia of pregnancy. Toxemia, by the very word, it is a poison. We do not know exactly what that poison is, but something occurs in those moms that develop toxemia. It is not always because of smoking, but frequently it is. And also so often that condition will lead also to pre-term labor and delivery and one of these low birth weight infants. In the extreme, toxemia of pregnancy before birth results in a very, very high blood pressure. It can cause a stroke, a deep coma, one from which sometimes the mother never recovers and the child is lost. So we are talking about one of the worst complications of pregnancy other than just out and out exsanguination from bleeding, which is also a possibility in any pregnancy. But smoking, we see that condition more often. And then, of course, childhood asthma, which I am sure the gentleman has seen plenty of cases of that, youngsters that come in because there is that secondary smoke situation. Not only do they have to suffer with it during the 9 months of pregnancy of their mom; but once they are born, that smoking continues in the household. So it is a huge complication, no question about that.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. I appreciate his being with us in talking about this issue. The gentleman and I are not only colleagues of course here in the Congress, but we are, as I said earlier, fellow physicians; but I think most of our Members realize we are both OB-GYN specialists so we share so much in common. And I would guess that the situation in Texas is very, very similar to the situation in Georgia. Maybe there are some figures that you would want to mention in regard to Texas; but, Mr. Speaker, in Georgia we have got a State maybe a little smaller than the State of Texas population-wise and certainly geography-wise, but we are a State of almost 9 million people now. There are approximately 85,500 Medicare beneficiaries; 16,700 of those live below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level. These are the folks that are going to benefit the most, and that is why I felt so strongly and passionately about this compassionate program. It is those 16,710 who are at or below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level, Mr. Speaker. There are another 7,000 in Georgia, that brings it up to about 25,000 people in Georgia who are at or below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level. All of these individuals, all of these individuals will be eligible to receive supplemental benefit. Earlier in the discussion in the hour we talked about the numbers, and I need to correct it a little bit. I think I may have given numbers that were a little bit on the low side. But you may qualify, listen to this, seniors may qualify if you are single and have income below $14,355 and resources are less than $11,500. That does not include your possibly paid-for home and homestead and your automobile. And married couples who have income below $19,200 and resources less than $23,000. Again, excluding their homestead their home and their automobiles. These individuals and those at or about the Federal poverty level, again, no deductible, no co-pay, no monthly premium; and you get that prescription filled for $1 on generic or maybe as much as $3 or possibly $5 for one of those very expensive drugs that I talked about earlier. And, Mr. Speaker, here again my colleague may want to talk about the situation in Texas, because I suspect it is very similar.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership not only on the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act, but also on medical liability. He has been a stalwart supporter of the Health Act that we have passed in this body so many times over the last few years. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time that we have I wanted to make a couple of additional comments. We got some good news here recently in regard to the COLA, the Social Security COLA, which is about a 4.6 percent increase next year because of the Consumer Price Index. That is good news for our seniors. That is about a $40 per month, typically, increase in that Social Security paycheck. Now, it is true that the premium for Medicare part B, even though that premium only covers 25 percent of the true cost, will also have an increase next year of about $10. That $10 from $40 leaves $30 still remaining in that COLA. And even for the seniors who get no supplemental help, that $30 will pretty much cover the premiums for Medicare part B. In fact, it may more than cover them, because, as I said earlier, because of the marketplace, because of competitiveness, pharmacy benefit managers and companies that are going to offer the Medicare prescription drug discount program, we are hearing premiums as low as $20 a month. And another thing, Mr. Speaker, that we need to say before we conclude the hour, because we have heard so much negative rhetoric about this tremendous gap in coverage, the hole in the donut and the program not being nearly good enough, is that we will have an opportunity to reduce those costs by some companies now with a slightly increased premium, maybe as much as $40, possibly $50 a month, so that there will be no gap in coverage. It will close that hole in the donut completely. So people will have the option of paying a little bit more and having coverage without any gap. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to again remind our seniors and ask our colleagues to remind their constituents that beginning November 15 through May 15, 2006, a 6-month window of opportunity will be the time to sign up for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. Look at the program and compare. If you have something else, make a comparison, and then make a decision. And make that decision early. Because if you do, then that coverage starts January 1. If you wait until after the program starts there may be a month gap before that coverage kicks in. And if you wait beyond May 15, then there will be a surcharge. So it is very important to do it in a timely fashion. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I thank the leadership for giving me this opportunity to discuss something as vitally important as this Medicare prescription drug benefit for our needy seniors.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the other side, the 30- Something Democrats. I have been listening, as I know my colleagues have, to the 30-Something Democrats for about a year and a half now a couple or three times a week. It is the same old same old. Now they have pledged to come back tomorrow night with some positive information voice, and I look forward to that. In fact, I am going to listen very closely, because all I have heard from my three colleagues on the other side, the 30-Something Democrats, the two from Florida, the one from Ohio, very intelligent, very well spoken, very articulate, and very, very negative. So before we get into our special hour talking about something positive, a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our needy seniors, I just want to suggest to my colleagues who spent the last hour talking negative we look forward to hearing from them tomorrow night maybe on something positive for a welcomed, welcomed change. Mr. Speaker, it kind of reminds me of the fall of 2003, my first year in the 108th Congress, when we worked so very hard on trying to bring to our seniors finally, after almost 38 years, a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. What we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle was very similar to what we just listened to in this Chamber over the last hour from the 30-Something Democrats. It was all negative. There was no plan, there was no alternative. It was just: Seniors in my Democratic district, you men and women who have supported me and let me represent you in the Congress, this is what I suggest that you do, you take out your AARP card and you cut it to shreds because that is what I, your Congressman or your Congresswoman on the Democratic side of the aisle, plan to do. Yet, Mr. Speaker, what we did was an historic benefit. In fact, for 2 years now, and it will continue until January 1 of 2006 when the official Medicare Part D prescription benefit plan is available, we had an almost a 2-year transition plan of a Medicare prescription drug discount card which would allow our neediest seniors actually to have $600, a debit card if you will, not a credit card, but $600 each of those 2 years if they were at or near Federal poverty level low income, below about $11,000 a year for an individual or below $14,000, $15,000 a year for a couple, basically men and women, our seniors who are on Medicare and essentially living off of their Social Security benefit and very, very little else. I think it was a tremendously compassionate thing for this Congress, this leadership, this Republican majority and this President, George W. Bush, to finally deliver on a promise that had been made by prior Congresses, prior Presidents. I will not get into naming names or saying who was in charge at what period of time. The fact is Medicare was first passed in 1965. Medicare was a very good program then, it is a very good program now, but it desperately needed modernization when we have come to realize, especially over these last few years, how important it is to have an opportunity to have that prescription drug benefit to go along with Part A and Part B. Part A of course, Mr. Speaker, you understand is a hospital part and the nursing home part. There is a pretty high deductible for that as well, today something like $850 out of pocket before there is any coverage for Part A. And Part B, if God forbid a person end up in a nursing home after 100 days, there are no benefits in any period or episode of illness. Everything else is out of pocket, and that is why so many of our seniors who do end up in a nursing home pretty quickly become dependent, wards of the State almost, and Medicaid, which is strapping our States so badly now across this country, pays about 85, 90 percent of all skilled nursing home bills, is paid by Medicaid because people literally are going broke and they cannot afford it. So here again, as I waited of course to have this opportunity to speak on the Republican side, the aisle where we have dedicated, Mr. Speaker, to explain and talk about something positive. We are a positive party. We want to do things that are for the benefit of the people and not just stand around and criticize like we heard over this last hour. I do not hear a plan from the other side, yet they voted almost overwhelmingly, thank goodness there were a few in a bipartisan fashion did vote in favor of the Medicare prescription drug modernization plan Part D, and it should not have been a partisan issue. It should have been not about the next election, but doing something that is going to help the most treasured part of our society, really, that being our senior citizens, and particularly those who are in greatest need. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be asked by the leadership tonight to lead this hour as a physician Member of the body. There are actually 10 M.D. physicians in this congressional body of 435 Members. There are other Members who are health care professionals, be they psychologists or pharmacists or registered nurses and physical therapists, veterinarians, people that have worked in health care, and I think we all owe it to our colleagues and to the American people to get behind and to support this legislation which will in fact go into effect January 1, 2006. Mr. Speaker, it is important for each one of us on both sides of the aisle not to discourage our constituents, our seniors from signing up for this prescription drug benefit, but to explain it to them and let them know and to particularly let those know who are at a low income level. We mentioned just a few seconds ago about that amount, about $11,800 for an individual, a single person, a widow or a widower, or about $15,000, $16,000 for a couple, that they are eligible for supplemental help. We anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that the deductible for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit would be about $250 a year and that the monthly premium would be about $35 a year, $32 to $35 a year. That is what we predicted a year and a half ago. Now that these plans are rolling out and are being offered to our seniors, the marketplace is working. Competition, that competitive entrepreneurial spirit is working without government price controls, and many of these plans are going to be offered or are being offered right now to our seniors at as low as $20 a month premium, not $32, not $35, but $20 a month. So already the predicted cost is coming down, and as a result of that I think the number of seniors who sign up and take advantage, sure, there will be, Mr. Speaker, some seniors who will realize that they already have coverage. Maybe they are a retired State employee, possibly a teacher, maybe they are a retired Federal employee, possibly they work for a company like in the State of Georgia, Lockheed Martin or Coca- Cola or Home Depot, some of these strong companies that seniors have worked for 30 or 40 years, and that was not atypical with the great generation, they stuck with the job and with the company and they have been promised health care benefits and benefits that do include prescription drug coverage. In this bill, by the way, we have done everything we could to make sure that companies do not drop those plans, that those promises made are promises kept. That is in addition part of this Medicare modernization. So some people, Mr. Speaker, some seniors will decline to sign up for Medicare Part D because they already have a plan and they have a good plan and they stick with it, and that is perfectly understandable. But for those seniors who do not have anything, who get to go to their doctor, maybe their family practitioner, their general internist for that annual physical, and lo and behold they find out that their cholesterol is elevated, their blood sugar is elevated, their blood pressure is elevated and they have that need to be on medication and they go to the drug store with a fistful, literally a fistful of prescriptions, maybe four or five. You talk about sticker shock. Currently our seniors in that situation, they are maybe not part of an HMO and they do not get any discount because of volume, it is just them trying to fill a prescription. I know that recently I went to the drugstore and happen to be on a statin to lower my cholesterol and ordered a 3-month supply, and only to find out that my part of the prescription, I think 25 percent of the true cost, was going to be $110. When I asked the pharmacist what it really cost, the cost per pill, and I will not mention the pill in fairness to the company, but it was something like $5.25 for each pill, and it is necessary that I take that every day, and my health is pretty good. But you take a lot of our seniors, Mr. Speaker, they do not have one thing wrong, a lot of times it just almost like you might say is multi-system diseases. They may have three things that impact each other. What has happened in the past of course is this: They maybe were too embarrassed to say they could not afford the prescription, and maybe they turned around and walked out and said they would be back but never came back. Or possibly they asked the pharmacist, instead of a month's supply, just give me a 2-week supply, and then they would go home and they start breaking those pills and trying to stretch it just like we oftentimes have to stretch the budget when things are tight. But the problem is, of course, that is when these diseases get out of control. That is when the elevated cholesterol results in plaque formation in the coronary arteries, or the blood sugar gets elevated and all of a sudden there is a problem with blindness and loss of limb or a patient ending up on renal dialysis. I hope my colleagues would listen carefully to this. We heard at the outset a lot of Members, and very legitimately and honestly and sincerely, oppose this bill and the vote was a very close vote, and indeed it was. I am very proud that I voted yes, and I think most if not all of the physician Members as a body also voted yes on both sides of the aisle. But there were men and women of good faith who voted no. In some instances they were voting no because they did not think that we were doing enough. You even hear that today, the hole in the doughnut is too big and the plan is not good enough. It might be okay for some people, but for the typical average senior who is a Medicare beneficiary or someone who is on Medicare because of a disability, it is just not good enough. We want to do more, we want to close down, shrink down that hole in the doughnut, so they voted no. And I can understand that line of reasoning. There were Members mostly on this side of the aisle who felt that we cannot do this because we cannot afford to do it. We have got a deficit, we have got a debt that is far too big by everybody's admission. Although we would like to do this, we cannot do it because we cannot afford really to do anything. We are in a war in the Middle East trying to bring democracy. I think we are succeeding there. I think the light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to shine brighter and brighter with the success and the 60 percent plus turnout here recently in the new constitution and then hopefully parliamentary elections a month from now. The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the cost, the cost was calculated based on the fact that you would continue to spend in the Medicare program in this country the same amount, maybe increasing depending on, as the population of seniors increased for part A, you would have the same situation for part B; it would increase because of an increase in population of seniors. And then you would have this added expense. We were told initially that that was about $400 billion over 10 years, and then there was a recalculation and maybe it was going to be as much as $600 billion. The fact, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is this. We get no credit for the fact that taking prescription medications, when our seniors can go to the drug store and get those prescriptions filled, and they can in a very timely fashion lower that blood pressure, lower that blood sugar, lower that cholesterol, and guess what, we do not end up spending money on them for part A or part B, do we except maybe for an annual check-up on an outpatient basis by one of our wonderful primary care physicians who work so hard and such long hours? No. We keep them out of the hospital. Before the Medicare modernization, before December of 2003, you could not even go to your doctor and get a routine thorough physical and have it paid for under Medicare. You could not get a blood test for cholesterol, you could not get a mammogram, you could not get a PSA blood test screening for prostate cancer, you could not get a colonoscopy. In this bill, in addition to the prescription drug benefit, all of those things are now available and paid for. This is what we call, Mr. Speaker, preventative medicine. Not waiting until somebody is eligible for coverage under part B because they show up in the emergency room having had a stroke because their blood pressure could not be treated, or they ended up on the operating table getting the coronary bypass or even worse, having a leg amputated because they never had the money to treat their diabetes. We save money, Mr. Speaker, on part B because of part B. And even if we did not, it is the compassionate thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. Who wants to end up spending the rest of their life in a nursing home after a stroke no matter who is paying for it? But as I said earlier, those days are limited to 100, and then after that, mom or dad or grandmom or granddad exhausts every bit of their savings, everything that they have worked their whole lives for, maybe they wanted to send a grandchild to college, an opportunity that they never had when times were tougher, and all of a sudden they lose it all simply because we did not, Congress did not, give them this coverage, this Medicare prescription drug benefit. So I say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, to anybody who will listen, that this was the right thing to do. This is not something that we can afford to put off. You cannot. I have heard people say, well, gee, you know, the seniors have waited 3 years, surely because now we are in a bind, and we are trying to figure out a way to pay for the restoration of the gulf coast and rebuild that infrastructure, certainly we need to do that and we need to look for so-called offsets. And they are there. We talk about maybe taking a little haircut and cutting 1 to 2 percent of the growth in every Department. I think we can find those cuts, and I think we can do that. But to ask the seniors to wait another year or two or three, that would be the cruelest of ironies on our part. And I, Mr. Speaker, am not willing to do that. And I would beg my colleagues, let us not go down that road. We are about to do something that is really good for our seniors. It may be not unlike what we have done in the Middle East. We hear, whether it is from the 30-something Democrats or in the editorial pages from our liberal newspapers in this country, the constant, constant negative criticism and naysayers, and this talk about what is your exit strategy. I have been hearing that, Mr. Speaker, for 2 years. What is your exit strategy? I mean, you know, you are in the early part of the fourth quarter of a football game, and you are winning, but the going is getting a little tough. If you pull your team off the field, you do not win; you forfeit. And all of those lives, 2,000 dead, and four times that many injured, are for naught. What a disgraceful thing that would be if we did not follow through. So the analogy then is the light is at the end of the tunnel, it is shining brightly, I think, as I stand here tonight, Mr. Speaker, in the Middle East. And I think that is absolutely true in regard to health care for our seniors as we go forward. And to all of a sudden snuff out that light because we have this natural disaster, this catastrophe which nobody could prevent or predict, and we have to respond to it, but as Thomas Payne once said, when he was serving at Valley Forge with George Washington, these are the times that try men's souls. But we, thank God, Mr. Speaker, can walk and chew gum at the same time. This Republican leadership can deal with both of these issues, and it would be a terrible mistake to turn our backs on our seniors at this critical time where we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel and providing for them a benefit that they well, well deserve and have needed for so long. The thing about this bill that excites me, Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the things that I am the most excited about, is the fact that the benefit is the greatest for those with the greatest need. Yes, there is a hole in the donut, and it is true that for some people the benefit would not be great if they were not spending anything on prescription drugs. And there are those in our society who are very fortunate. Sometimes in medical parlance we refer to this as having the Methuselah gene: they enjoy long life and good health, and other members of their family the same. And, you know, maybe they will go see the doctor every year or two; but everything is always fine, and so they are not spending any money on prescription drugs. So they may look at it and say, gee, $250 deductible if I have to spend anything, that is out of my pocket. And if I am spending $30 a month, you know, that is another almost $400, and I am not currently spending that. So, you know, I look at that and I have spent $700 the first year of the prescription drug benefit that I have got, and last year I did not spend anything on prescription drugs, so I have lost $700. Well, that is true. That is true. But what that individual needs to realize, and I hope that my colleagues in the Congress on both sides of the aisle will make sure that they in a very fair way explain this to their constituents, you beware that next year or next month or next week or even tomorrow, do not all of a sudden have a little chest pain and end up being that person that needs to be on four or five prescription drugs, and then your bill could be 3 or $4,000 or $6,000 or $8,000 dollars a year. And it does not take long for that to put one in the poor house, if they can afford it at all. So for everybody, for every senior there is something that we call catastrophic coverage. So if they spend, an individual on Medicare, spends in any year up to $3,600 on prescription drugs out of their own pocket, that of course would include the deductible and the copay and then, yes, the gap or the hole in the doughnut; but beyond that, if there are still costs for prescription drugs, the Medicare part D insurance program pays 95 percent of everything above that. That is a wonderful benefit, what we call catastrophic coverage. I hope most people will not get into that situation. But clearly they could. They could get into that situation. So what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is this is a good benefit for everybody; and everybody is eligible, from the lowest income to the highest income. If they do not have coverage in some other way for prescription drugs, then they are eligible for this benefit. Of course, those who are living off of Social Security and they have very little assets, not much stuff, we all, I think, Mr. Speaker, have too much of a desire for stuff, stuff that really in some instances is not very important. Certainly more stuff does not necessarily make you happier. But a person can own their home, they can own it free and clear. They can own up to 50 acres of land that may have been in the family for some time and they do not want to sell. They can certainly own an automobile. But they cannot have much stuff beyond that. Much assets. But if they meet that means test, then the deductible is covered. The monthly premium is covered. There is no copay up to the first $2,250 or 25 percent as it is to everybody else, and there are no holes in the donut, there is no gap in the coverage. Everything is catastrophic coverage almost from day one, maybe a dollar copay for a generic prescription, and up to a maximum of $5 for the most expensive. Remember I talked, Mr. Speaker, earlier about that statin that I was taking that cost $5 a pill. For our needy seniors, a 3-month supply, 100 pills, you do the math, that is over $500. They might have a $5 copay for a prescription like that. Mr. Speaker, I see that one of my physician colleagues has joined us, and I thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to be with us during this leadership hour to talk about this Medicare part D prescription drug benefit that we talked about. He was very much a part of that, Mr. Speaker, and he was in the 108th, my classmate, my friend. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking my colleagues for a productive discussion on the rule and the underlying bill. Today, this House has an opportunity to again pass meaningful reform to not only promote personal accountability but also to strengthen the opportunities for legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated. Let us take one more step to turn back the tide of so-called ``jackpot justice.'' While runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits might make a few individuals and certain ambulance-chasing lawyers rich, the American people ultimately pay the price both economically and socially. Mr. Speaker, discouraging individuals from taking personal responsibility does not help anyone. In fact, it will only make matters worse. Encouraging healthy lifestyles and wise dietary choices should always trump rewarding poor decisions by shifting the blame to innocent bystanders. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 is a good bill, and I look forward to further discussing its merits on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, a strong bipartisan majority passed this bill in the last Congress; and I have no reason to doubt that we should be able to pass it again by a similar, maybe even a stronger, margin; and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, following which I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, H.R. 554, is all about, again, personal responsibility and to point out how ludicrous it would be if we allowed personal injury lawsuits against the food industry or any other company that makes a legitimate product. We just talked earlier in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in regard to gun manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, let me just give an example, if I might. This is a belt, an alligator belt. In fact, it is my belt. Size 36. I have a size 36 waist. This belt, I am proud to say, is hand-finished, American alligator, produced right here in the good old U.S.A. This alligator skin was obtained from a Louisiana hunt, it says on this belt, 1993, manufactured by the Trafalgar Limited Belt Company, a good company. And the belt has served me very well. Size 36 fits me well. Mr. Speaker, let us suppose now that I decided, it is unlikely that I would do this, but let us suppose I decided I wanted to wear a size 42 and I punched a few extra holes in this belt, which is a size 36, so I could wear it and buckle it with a size 42 pair of trousers. These trousers fell right to my knees in a public place. I do not think I should have the right to sue the belt company because I used its product in a manner that it was not designed to use. I could go out and buy myself a size 42 belt. Let me give another example, and this is more likely. Let us suppose I really felt like my waist was a size 34, and so I cinched this belt up really good so I could proudly say I am not a 36, I have a 34 inch waist at my age. I would feel pretty good about myself. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve at my waist called the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. If someone puts too much pressure around their waist by wearing a belt inappropriately, by cinching it up too tightly, they put compression on that nerve, that lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, and I speak from knowledge on this from 30 years as a practicing physician. That condition, my colleagues can look it up, but I will share it with them, it is called meralgia paresthetica. If Members do not believe me, look it up. It creates tremendous numbness and loss of feeling in the anterior part of the thigh. Let us suppose someone misused this belt and wore it as a size 34 and decided for that reason to sue this Trafalgar Company, this good, solid American company that makes this belt, for damages. That is totally ridiculous and ludicrous, and that is why this bill is so important. That is why it is called personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 494 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 494 and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and additionally I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for authoring the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, a common sense piece of legislation that passed this House in the last Congress by a substantial bipartisan vote of 276 to 139. I might further add that 55 Democrats joined with 221 Republicans supporting this bill in an effort to help rein in this mentality of jackpot justice that has plagued our judicial system and cluttered the dockets to a virtual standstill. This legislation would require courts to dismiss any lawsuits that seek damages for injury resulting from weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with obesity filed against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of any food product, in addition to trade associations that represent them. Of course, support of this bill is not limited to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker. A recent Gallup poll found that approximately 9 in 10 Americans, a number of whom are themselves in the ranks of overweight or even obese, opposed holding the fast food industry legally responsible for diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis. Without question, Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem in our society. Having practiced medicine for nearly 30 years, I am well aware of the habit and complications that obesity can wreak on a person's health, especially over a long term. Like most other Americans, I am also well aware that obesity is on the rise in our country, and particularly among our children. However, the root of the problem is not the existence of fast food or the presence of a local fast food restaurant, but rather the root of the problem lies in the choices of consumers. I have never heard of anyone pulling up to the drive-through window with a hamburglar sitting in the passenger seat forcing someone to buy just one more Big Mac. Mr. Speaker, allowing an individual to sue a restaurant because the consumer chose to eat there often or chose to eat too much is simply ridiculous and, frankly, it is a dangerous waste of the court's time. For every frivolous case that takes up a spot on the docket, a legitimate case where an individual is truly harmed and truly needs expeditious judicial review gets pushed farther and farther down the line. And as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. The title of this bill emphasizes the type of solution needed to address the underlying problem. It is called personal responsibility. It is not just a catch phrase. Individuals have to take control of their own lives. They have to make wise decisions, especially when it comes to their health. And when an individual does make a poor decision, he or she should not be able to abuse the courts so as to shift responsibility to someone else in order to cash in. Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 544 prohibits certain types of lawsuits, it does make various reasonable exceptions to ensure the protection of a consumer's legitimate claim for legitimate harm. An individual, for example, can still sue in those instances where a contract or a warranty is breached, as long as the basis for the lawsuit is not related to weight gain, obesity or a health condition associated with either. Additionally, a manufacturer or seller is still liable if they knowingly violate a Federal or State statute concerning the marketing, the advertising, or the labeling of a product. Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow individuals to bring obesity or weight gain related matters before the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, for consideration and appropriate action. Obviously, individuals can still sue in accordance with applicable State laws protecting against deceptive trade practices and if a person becomes sick from a tainted food product. In closing, I just want to emphasize that this legislation is common sense and it includes exemptions to ensure legitimate claims still make it to court while abusive lawsuits are stopped at the courthouse door. Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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