Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, despite their best arguments against free enterprise, personal responsibility and the protection of lawful commerce, critics fail to provide an alternative solution to the problem without compromising our liberties and second amendment rights. Just as a car is a tool for transportation, an ax is a tool for cutting trees and shrubs, prescription drugs are tools for better health, a firearm is a tool for hunting and self-defense and protection of our citizens. Any of these tools used in an irresponsible manner and used contrary to their attending purpose can hurt and, yes, even kill others. But a gun by itself, Mr. Speaker, cannot commit a crime. It takes an individual to use the product illegally and irresponsibly. The protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a bill to curb our lawsuit-friendly and, yes, sometimes abusive society and to protect law-abiding citizens from individuals who avoid responsibility and undermine the good faith of our legal system. Frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the survival of the gun industry, the jobs it creates, and our constitutional right to purchase, keep and bear arms. While many cases are dismissed, it only takes one bad ruling to sink a company and to send ripple effects across an entire industry. Although America's first gun manufacturer, Springfield Armory, went out of business in 1968, we still have to protect America's remaining law-abiding companies who conduct business in a responsible and in a lawful manner. It would be a tragedy for a Nation with such a rich and innovative history in manufacturing to have our police and military carry over foreign-engineered firearms. We need to protect the American firearm industry. We need to restore responsibility and end these frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this rule and passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this bill on the House side, H.R. 800, which was passed, as I mentioned earlier by the House Judiciary Committee, this bill actually had 257 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker. So this is certainly not a Republican bill. You can do the math. My colleagues certainly can do the math on the other side of the aisle. But clearly, this bill had strong, strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and Commerce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) I want to point out that this bill prohibits lawsuits against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition or not-for-profit trade association for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition. But it provides, as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, five exceptions to this liability protection, including, and I will just mention one in response to my good friend from Massachusetts. An exception would be for an action against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se, for example supplying a gun or ammunition to a person when the seller knows or reasonably should know that the buyer possesses an unacceptable risk of physical injury to himself or others. As an example again, the D.C. snipers were successful in court on these grounds.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before calling on the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. I want to point out, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, regarding this particular legislation, S. 397, we have in this body, not just in the 109th this year, passed very, very similar, almost identical legislation, and there were some 11 amendments I think offered during the markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. Those were defeated. In fact, at least one member of the committee from the other party, from the minority party, voted against most of those amendments and voted in favor of favorably reporting this bill. This bill also was passed in the 108th Congress, H.R. 1036. I think the vote on that particular bill was 285 to 140. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 493 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides one motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, before we open debate on the rule for S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, I would like to say that our Nation's judicial system is out of control. If a group or a person does not like what someone else does or believes, they try to sue them out of existence. This seems to be the case for the firearms industry. Our Founding Fathers designed our second amendment rights to be absolute rights that shall not be infringed. However, those who find the second amendment offensive have made a concerted effort to sue out of existence those who lawfully and legally facilitate a constitutionally guaranteed right. America's firearm companies are directly connected to and span our national history, but they are currently threatened by a lawsuit-friendly culture. Addressing the burden of frivolous lawsuits has become a necessity for free enterprise. It seems that for some individuals lawsuits have become the latest get-rich scheme. Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of goods and services, and they put law-abiding companies out of business. The passage of this legislation is time-sensitive. Every day without this legislation puts more stress on firearm manufacturers, their customers, and their employees. Indeed, some lawsuits are motivated by ideology and a distaste for the firearm industry and guns in general. They will simply keep suing until either the firearm companies are out of business or the guns are too expensive to purchase. This form of gun control will not only compromise one of our constitutional rights but, Madam Speaker, it threatens the jobs of many Americans. So it is important to note that S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, does allow the following types of lawsuits to be filed: number 1, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition, knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence, or drug trafficking crime or comparable or identical State felony law; secondly, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment; third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. This exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers who failed to maintain a required inventory list necessary to ensure that they are alerted to any firearm thefts. Fourth, actions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition; and fifth, actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition. So, under this legislation, manufacturers and sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State law. More than half our States have passed similar legislation, and I encourage passage of this rule and consideration of the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I would again point out to the gentleman that it also would be an exception if a vendor knowingly did not keep an inventory so that they would have knowledge that dangerous weapons or firearms were actually stolen from their place of business. And that also is one of the exceptions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet and discuss the situation on our borders with the members of the Minute Men Project. These dedicated individuals reaffirmed my concerns that illegal immigrants are crossing our borders in record numbers. They fear that any amnesty or free citizenship bill will only reward and entice more illegal immigration. I agree. Therefore, as Congress moves closer to a substantial debate on immigration reform, it is important that we not consider any guest worker or amnesty proposal until the administration makes a concerted effort to secure our borders and enforce our laws and Congress passes legislation that allows local and State officials to act as immigration deputies. The situation on our border is not pretty, and it is a problem that Congress must not ignore. Mr. Speaker, I ask for your help to reform and restore accountability to our immigration laws.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and I thank him so much for being with us tonight. I would welcome, if time would permit, for him to stick around with us and possibly get into a little bit of a colloquy regarding some other salient points of this bill. Certainly, I appreciate him being here and giving us this time this evening. I was earlier, Mr. Speaker, talking about that statin that I bought a 3-month supply of just last week and that the cost was going to be, the true cost, I paid 25 percent according to my plan, the prescription drug plan that I have, but the true cost was over $500. Well, a senior who maybe has no prescription drug coverage under any plan, they are not part of an HMO, they are not retired from a company or they are but the company is not providing prescription drug coverage as part of the health care benefit, if you multiplied 3 months times four which would give you 12, if my Georgia Tech math serves me well, then that cost would be $2,000 for that one prescription. Well, that is getting pretty darn close, Mr. Speaker, to the $2,250 that we were talking about, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was talking about. And the savings on that you would not have to have too many more prescriptions, maybe an antihistamine or two or an antibiotic here or there during the course of a year to get up to at least $250, if you have got one very expensive drug like that statin I mentioned. The senior who was enrolled in that scenario, they would actually save about $1,100 a year. That is how much the coverage would give them. Of course, if they had prescriptions above that and they got into the gap or the hole in the doughnut, certainly there would be more out-of- pocket expenses. But I think it is very important for people to understand when they hear these naysayers, some of whom we heard from earlier tonight during their leadership hour, that this is a waste of time and effort, and it is not any good. And now that you have torn up your AARP card, and by the way, the reason they made that recommendation when we came out with the transitional prescription drug discount card when we first passed this bill, knowing it would take almost 2 years to get the prescription drug part B insurance program part up and running, AARP had the audacity to support a Republican proposal, Mr. Speaker. I think the other side must have felt that that organization was always their best friend or, as the saying goes, in their hip pocket. And they could not stand the fact that AARP, and I am a member, have been since age 50. I will not tell you how many years I have been a member. It is a wonderful organization of 37 million seniors in this country. AARP serves them very well. And AARP as far as partisan politics, we are blind to whether it was an R or a D proposal. When they saw a good thing they supported it, and that is what they should have done, and that is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle should do. When you see a good thing, do not constantly say no, no, no, just because you are afraid that the majority party or this President is going to get credit for a job well done and a promise made and a promise delivered. Get on board. Join the team for the benefit of our seniors and to support a good program when you see one. It is a time now for all of us to work with our seniors to make sure that they understand the program, that they know how to contact Medicare, www.Medicare.gov or dial 1-800-Medicare. There are organizations in every State, the CMS, Committee on Medicare-Medicaid Services, has contracted with Medicare to explain this benefit. I know in my own office, Mr. Speaker, we are going to put computer terminals in the main office and have someone there that can be online with seniors who just drop in and say, I have gotten the brochures; I have seen the public service spots on television, but I am still a little bit confused and would you help us out. I know that I am going to do that. I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is going to do that. I know that my physician colleagues and my health care provider colleagues in this body and hopefully all 435 of us will take that opportunity, because there is a wonderful program and as the gentleman said, and I am so glad that he reassured our colleagues and anybody who might be listening to us this evening during this leadership hour, that we are not going to delay this program. We cannot afford to do that to our seniors. They have waited too long. And as I said earlier, this is a compassionate program, and it would be cruel to pull that rug out from under them when they have waited so long for this opportunity. With that, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess), if he would like to make a few more comments and possibly we can have a little bit of dialogue back and forth with the remaining time that we have this evening. And I will turn it back over to the gentleman from Texas at this point.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club, an exemplary community organization in the 11th District of Georgia. The West Georgia Club serves the youth of Troup and Meriwether counties, and it does so with distinction. The four facilities operated by the Boys and Girls Club are always buzzing with students, volunteers, friends and events. On an average day, you will find a host of activities that contribute to the Boys and Girls Club's goal of providing every child with the essential tools needed for success and a bright future. After-school tutoring gives students the skills they need to achieve. Friday night movies and social events give teens an alternative to street life. Service projects, leadership and skill development, even National Kids Day are all part of what makes the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club a true leader in community involvement and service. And do not just take my word for it. The West Georgia Club has been recognized and honored on a national level for their amazing work with the youth of Georgia. At the 2005 Boys and Girls Club National Conference in California this year, the West Georgia club won seven national awards. That is right, seven awards. These included awards for public service announcements, special events, web page, newsletter and even their annual telethon, which I was proud to participate in this year. Most impressively, the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club was selected as the best overall program for clubs with a budget under $400,000. Madam Speaker, an organization is only as successful as the men and women who commit their time to making it great. And the West Georgia Club has a first rate team. Chris Patton and Wally West oversee the club, and its board members, Judy Wilkerson, Linda Griffies, Emmitt Clark, Mel Jackson-Kendrick, Frank Walls, Rev. Dalton Hammock, Charlie Martin and the many other volunteers from Troup and Meriwether counties give their time to ensure this club is one of the best in the Nation. It is the commitment and creativity of community organizations like the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club that make our neighborhoods more than simply a collection of homes and buildings. The American spirit is alive and well at the West Georgia Club, and the beneficiaries in our community have a brighter future because of the club's dedication. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in thanking the West Georgia Boys and Girls Club for their creativity, their commitment and, above all, their willingness to help those in need.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coosa Middle School in Rome, Georgia, for being named a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. This award recognizes schools that dramatically improve student performance on State tests and whose students excel at the educational standards set by our States. I am extremely proud Coosa Middle School has attained these goals. Coosa Middle School was one of only 12 middle schools across the Nation to win this prestigious award and the only middle school in the State of Georgia to do so. Floyd County Superintendent Kelly Henson, Coosa Principal Lisa Landrum, the Floyd County Board of Education and all the teachers at Coosa Middle School deserve our praise and admiration for the fine work they do educating Rome's schoolchildren. Their efforts show how much our students can achieve when we give them a solid educational foundation based on high expectations and the resources needed to help students meet these expectations. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Coosa Middle School.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is absolutely right. A perfect example: Dr. Jones asks Dr. Smith to look in on her patient on Sunday morning because she was going to be at church for a couple of hours. Dr. Smith goes by the room, waves to the patient and says, how are you doing? Is everything okay? Dr. Jones wanted me to look in on you. The patient is fine, but in a subsequent time, a day or two, all of a sudden the patient's health deteriorates. Now, it has nothing to do with this doctor that was covering for 2 hours so his colleague could attend services at her church, yet that doctor gets named along with the primary defendant, who may or may not have had some significant responsibility or liability. But they are judged just as culpable, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points out, and maybe more culpable, particularly if they happen to have the most insurance or the deepest pockets. That is what he is referring to when he says this joint and several liability. This bill, as my colleague alleges, eliminates that provision and it changes it to several liability, so that a person who maybe has some minor participation in a case that goes south, where the patient does not do well and is injured, and maybe there is some practice below the standard of care, they are only culpable for a pro rata percentage of that. And that is the way it should be, and not liable based on the amount of malpractice coverage they have. And I really appreciate the gentleman for bringing that up. The other thing that I think is important to mention, is that a major provision of this bill is something called collateral source disclosure. The gentleman from Texas, just a few minutes ago, was talking about economic awards, and if a person needs some additional surgery or they need additional testing to make them whole because of some injury, then there is compensation for that. As an example, lost income, lost wages because an individual cannot work. But suppose that plaintiff has a disability income policy that covers 90 percent of their income for the rest of their life if they remain disabled. Suppose that person has the best first dollar health insurance policy that money can buy that covers any additional medical expense and rehabilitation expense, such as durable medical equipment, power wheelchairs, or whatever. Then that needs to be disclosed to the jury so that we do not have this situation, Madam Speaker, of what I consider double dipping. It is a fairness issue. And as we said at the outset, that is all we are talking about. We want to make sure that those that are injured get justly compensated, but we do not want, as my colleague from Texas said, this civil justice system to become a lottery in the minds of individuals. Because that is where we get to the situation where indeed it is easier to sue your doctor than to see your doctor. And I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter), my good friend, for yielding. This is a hugely important issue in this Lawsuit Abuse Prevention Week when we are focusing on not just medical malpractice suits but a number of other things like frivolous lawsuits, class action abuse. This Republican majority has dealt with these issues time and time again. This House of Representatives actually, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say, has passed this particular bill, H.R. 5, about four times since myself and my colleagues. And we are all in the same class of the 108th Congress; I think we passed it twice. It was passed in the 107th and now once again in the 109th. I think that totals five times, this issue of tort reform. As a physician Member, Madam Speaker, I am often I guess considered someone who is anti-attorney, who has a bias against attorneys. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in my immediate family, I have two attorneys; my daughter, who is a prosecutor in State court in Cobb County; and my brother, who spent his lifetime as a practicing attorney doing real estate law; and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter) who was a good lawyer and an even better judge as a superior court judge in Texas. I have great respect for the legal profession. Rather, Madam Speaker, this is about leveling the playing field and making sure that every voice on each side of the issue is fair and balanced. That is all it is, pure and simple. I think my colleagues would agree with me on that. I am joined by some of my doctor friends here tonight along with the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter), and we have all experienced situations where maybe one of our colleagues in the health care profession is being sued for practicing below the standard of care, and in those situations where we know that they practiced below the standard of care or the hospital, through negligence, has resulted in an injury to a patient, we are right in there pulling for the plaintiffs. There is no question about that. I think it is very important, as we discuss this during this hour, for our colleagues, Madam Speaker, to understand that. We are trying to bring balance to a situation that right now is way out of kilter, totally unbalanced, and it is to the detriment, not so much to the health care providers, but to the patients who need, who desperately need the access, as Judge Carter was talking about at the outset. And physicians who are involved in high-risk specialties, emergency room doctors, orthopedic surgeons like my colleague, the gentleman from Cobb County, Georgia, (Dr. Price) who we will hear from in just a few minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Murphy) who deals with mental health, which is such a vital issue, so important to the health care of individuals, you are in a situation where if you do not have these doctors available, particularly in emergency situations, people suffer, people get injured and people die. So that is really what it is all about. I appreciate so much being with my colleagues. At this point, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Judge Carter) and hope to participate later in the hour as we discuss this critically important issue during this time this evening.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, the same bill I said earlier in the evening that the 107th, the 108th twice, and now the 109th have passed in this body, and by the way, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the orthopedic surgeon, was talking earlier in his presentation and showed a poster with the pretty alarming statistic that 78 percent of the American public want us to do something about this crisis because they want to be able rather than sue their doctor to see their doctor. So those Members either in this body or the other body, on both sides of the aisle, I say to my colleagues, if you are poll driven, this is a no-brainer. This is a slam dunk winner of an issue, but even if the statistics were not there, it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. I would say to our colleagues in the other body, and I know that we are not supposed to stand over here and criticize the other body, and I will not do that, but I am awfully frustrated. I am terribly frustrated that we have addressed this issue, this same bill, every provision identical, for the last three Congresses, and yet, the other body, for some reason, I will let my colleagues figure out why, but for some reason, they are not addressing this issue. I would literally beg them on behalf of my patients, our patients, to address this issue because the statistics are clearly there, but it is the right thing to do.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, yes, and of course, the good judge certainly knows this. I am sure he has seen it in his courtroom many times. But the issue that is brought up a lot of times is, well, gosh, you are about to take away an injured person's right to a redress of their grievances; you are going to take away their day in court. That is absolutely not true, and I am so glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) brought that to our attention. We are talking about in the major provision of this bill, which is patterned, modeled after the California bill on tort reform in the late 1970s that stabilized the market and health care delivery system in that State, is a cap on so-called pain and suffering awards or what we call noneconomic, at some figure. In our bill, it is $250,000. Some States have addressed that, and maybe it is $350,000. In some instances, if there are more than one defendant in a case, and I can tell my colleagues and I know my two colleagues here with me this evening know this, but in almost every case there are multiple defendants. So let us say the cap on noneconomic was $350,000, and you had two or three defendants, then that award in itself, not counting any economic damages, is over $1 million dollar.

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we need comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, we need reform to support those who enforce our laws, instead of rewarding those who break them. The United States may need a temporary worker program, but definitely not an amnesty program. Our immediate need is more border patrol agents and diligent cooperation from local and State law enforcement agencies. The repercussions of poor immigration enforcement have a ripple effect across our entire Nation; and, indeed, an estimated 376,000 illegal immigrants are putting a tremendous financial strain on my State of Georgia. Every day we put off debating and passing comprehensive reform allows more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our laws and cross our borders. Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, and I request my colleagues' support for real immigration reform.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, I had an opportunity to speak with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) regarding her concerns and her amendment, and what we have committed to her and the Committee on the Judiciary has made a commitment that they will work with her in regard to the language of her amendment as the gang bill goes to conference which really is a more appropriate vehicle to modify that language, and we do make that commitment to the gentlewoman from California. Madam Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues for a productive discussion on this rule. H. Res. 462 is a good rule. It balances very well the laborious work of the Committee on the Judiciary with the amendment process on the floor. Multiple Members will have an opportunity to discuss their amendments and receive a vote, and I look forward to the further consideration of this legislation. From the FBI to the DEA, to the United States attorneys to the Bureau of Prisons, H.R. 3402 authorizes critical funding for the Department of Justice, allowing it to continue its fight to uphold the laws of our land and to keep our citizens safe. Additionally, this bill will strengthen many of the programs already available under the office of justice programs that aid State and local law enforcement on the ground as they work to protect their individual communities. This Act streamlines many of the request processes and, thereby, facilitates local officials and law enforcement in accessing the funds made available by these programs. Mr. Speaker, through the reauthorization of the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 creates stiffer penalty for abusers, and it gives more rights to the victims of domestic violence. For the sake of law enforcement and victims across this great country, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 178 takes an important step toward recognizing the need to research not only the cause of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis but also viable therapies and, we hope one day, a cure. It has recently been cited that IPF may be five to 10 times more prevalent than previously documented, and this may be due to increased awareness or an increased prevalence of the disease state. Regardless of what the reason, we need to act. That is why I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my friend and colleague, for bringing this resolution to the floor. It is important to elevate the education and awareness of this disease in our country because 83,000 Americans, including the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), are currently living with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. In that spirit, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for his courage and resilient spirit. He has fought this disease every step of the way, always maintaining his hard work and commitment to this great body, the House of Representatives; and I want him to know his dedication is deeply appreciated. Unfortunately, there is a lot we do not know and do not yet understand about this debilitating disease. We do not know what causes IPF, and in many cases the disease is misdiagnosed. Additionally, we are relying on treatment therapies that are more than 30 years old. These IPF patients need the help of cutting-edge technology. Unfortunately, researchers are being held back by the lack of appropriate funding. Currently, IPF research receives only a fraction of the funding of what other diseases get that are less prevalent in our country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to bring national attention to this horrible and devastating disease.