Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. In fact, I am humbled to follow my colleagues in this discussion about this great man, Justice Roberts, and of course my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Iowa, are both members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and my great friend and classmate, in fact all four of us are classmates, but our own judge, we have several in the House, but my judge, the gentleman from Texas Mr. Carter. It is an opportunity, though, for this physician Member to stand up here before this body, Mr. Speaker, and say while sometimes physicians are probably pitted against attorneys, I have great respect for them. In fact, I have two members of my immediate family, my brother and my daughter who are attorneys, who I am very proud of. But just to have watched this gentleman in the hearings in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, after a week of questioning by our counterparts in the other body, I believe that the Congress and our Nation has a good sense of what kind of a jurist John Roberts will be if confirmed as our Nation's 17th Chief Justice. In fact, on one of the television news shows this past Sunday, a member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from South Carolina, Senator Graham, when asked how did Judge Roberts perform, he said, ``Well, let me just put it this way: If it had been a prizefight, they would have called it in the second round as a technical knockout and the person on the ropes would not have been Judge Roberts.'' Without question, it was a technical knockout heading for a knockout. Judge Roberts will indeed, Mr. Speaker, bring a refreshing, fair, and balanced approach to the United States Supreme Court which has not had a vacancy in 11 years. Our Nation is a different place than it was in 1994. We have more access to information, more technology, a stronger economy; we have our brave soldiers defending democracy in our global war against terrorism. The United States Supreme Court needs a perspective that understands accountability to both the American people and, as the gentleman from Iowa said, especially to the United States Constitution. Like one of his mentors, the late Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts has a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. He interprets laws considering the intentions of our Founders instead of the whims and desires of a political party or electorate. That is why we need Judge Roberts on the Supreme Court. He can restore a sense of restraint to some very creative interpretations of late. The gentleman from Arizona just talked about a few. Judge Roberts' qualifications are, Mr. Speaker, unquestioned. However, the Supreme Court nominee has to face a litmus test on ideology. Some Senators are asking whether or not this particular justice will protect their favorite judicially constructed rights. Others have questioned how he might use the position as Chief Justice to help the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Roberts very politely responds that he will interpret our laws on a case-by-case basis, he will hear each side and will always heed restraint to the separation of powers and constitutional government. I could go on and on, but my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have said it so well. This is a man that is a brilliant jurist, and it showed through so clearly during the Committee on the Judiciary hearings. I hope that when they have the vote on Thursday, or whenever it comes to a vote in the Committee on the Judiciary, there should not be many, if any, ``no'' votes, and I look forward to a speedy confirmation by the United States Senate. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Iowa, for letting me participate in this special hour. It is so important, as the gentleman from Texas said, that while we do not have any official role in regard to advice- and-consent responsibilities, we do have a responsibility and we have a voice, and it is good that we have this opportunity tonight to express that voice and to commend to the American people the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity briefly to just say that in the aftermath of this terrible natural disaster known as Katrina we certainly have heard a lot of name-calling and finger-pointing on both sides of the aisle in regard to who might be responsible, who did good, and who did bad. I think at the end of the day, after we have an opportunity in this House to thoroughly investigate that, we will have answers to those questions. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to let my colleagues know that when I had an opportunity to go down to Baton Rouge to one of the shelters over the Labor Day weekend, I did not see the worst in human nature, as depicted in some of the TV scenes with the looting and the crime in the immediate aftermath of the levee break. I saw the best of human nature. I saw people pulling together, working hard; the Red Cross folks and volunteers doing all they could, driving down to Baton Rouge or trying to get down into the gulf coast or into Mississippi or New Orleans; just dropping everything and taking days off work and bringing supplies. It was really an amazing show of the best in human nature. It is something that I want to tell my colleagues that have not seen that side of the issue, a lot of good is coming out of this natural disaster. Hopefully we will continue to see that good as we help the people in the gulf coast, and particularly in the city of New Orleans, put their lives back together. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to touch on this. As we go through this week and the next several weeks, we will be talking more and more about this, hopefully during Special Orders, and drawing from other experiences, and experiences I experienced myself a week or so ago in the gulf coast area.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 437. I think we are completely doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have heard the other side of the aisle argue that what is the hurry, you are rushing to create an oversight committee and let us wait a couple of months. I want to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are still in the hurricane season. In fact, we are just getting into the hurricane season, and we need to get this investigation going as soon as possible. It is very important that we not wait. We have a 5-month opportunity to study this problem and find out exactly where the responsibilities lie. The other side of the aisle also is suggesting that this is a Republican majority investigating a Republican administration. I point out we were not focusing just on the Federal aspects of this, as they would like us to do, but we are also focusing on the local and State aspects of this. There are Democrats and Republicans all up and down the line. This is not a partisan thing. This is a way to do it. This is what Congress has a responsibility to do and has done 41 times over the last 30 or 40 years. I could name any number of instances. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that is true. The creation of an outside independent commission, as they call it, they are calling for doing that and spending an additional $5 million to $10 million. We do not need to do that. We have the staff within this Congress on both sides of the aisle, both in the majority and on the minority, and hopefully we would not spend more than $500,000 to get this work done and get it done in a bipartisan fashion. That is why we call it the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and the Response to Hurricane Katrina. I am fully in support of that.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and, in closing, I would like to begin by saying that there are very few matters in our society that are as clear-cut as this one. Child abduction and abuse is not a new problem. It did not begin yesterday, and it will not end tomorrow. This is a continuing struggle to protect our children; and I truly believe that it will help protect my grandchildren, 7-year-old twins Ali and Hannah Manning, 5-year-old Hank Manning, IV, and 10-month-old Grey Collins. The recent tragedies that have grabbed the attention and sympathy of the Nation only serve as a grim and poignant reminder that our work is not done and we must continue to do everything that we can to stop the abuse and exploitation of our children. As I noted in my opening statement, this is commonsense, comprehensive legislation that attacks the problem in many different ways, from expanding the definition of sex offenders, to strengthening law enforcement's tools, to increasing mandatory minimums for child abusers and kidnappers. Additionally, I believe this legislation protects the constitutional rights of the accused while ensuring that the guilty see justice and the victims are protected. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on the Judiciary for putting this bill together. H.R. 3132 is sound, well-crafted legislation. I am confident that this legislation will empower the innocent over the guilty, victims over the predators. With its passage, our country, our children and our grandchildren, will be the winners. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), who has been extremely active in the crafting of this legislation. Her bill, which she will talk about, is actually included in this overall comprehensive bill. And she knows well, if not better than all of us, about these matters because some of these heinous acts occurred within the last year in her great State of Florida.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 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, House Resolution 436 is a modified open rule that 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. This rule 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. It provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule and that it shall be read by title. It makes in order only those amendments to the bill that are preprinted in the Congressional Record or are pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, provides that each amendment printed in the Congressional Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee, and that each amendment shall be considered as read. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 436 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005. First, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for this comprehensive bill addressing the unconscionable atrocities perpetrated against our children by sexual predators and for his committee's thorough work and committed devotion to seeing this bill realized. Mr. Speaker, this fight is not a new one. The sexual and physical abuse of our most fragile and defenseless citizens, our children, is perhaps the most offensive and utterly unconscionable act that can be committed. Members on both sides of the aisle recognize the need to continually find new ways to prevent sexual abuse and to thoroughly and justly punish those who commit these heinous acts. The Children's Safety Act of 2005 would combat the sexual exploitation and abuse of our children through mounting an offensive on numerous fronts and through combining various pieces of good, solid legislation into this one comprehensive bill. The final product compiles the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, the DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005, the Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005, the Protection Against Sexual Exploitation of Children Act of 2005, and the Foster Child Protection Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3132 is a commonsense bill. For too long the laws have not fully reflected or reacted to the changing environment in which our children are vulnerable. While the Constitution always protects the accused and harmed alike, we should not allow the law to be procedurally twisted by child abusers to keep them on the streets to harm another child because of a technicality or because of insufficient support for our law enforcement and communities. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3132 would require that the definition of sex offender be expanded to include both felony sex offenses and misdemeanor sex offenses. Additionally, this bill would make the possession of child pornography a triggering offense for registration and notification requirements. Another important provision of this bill would require a State to maintain a statewide Internet site to provide thorough and current information about sex offenders. This information would include the current location of the sex offender, the facts underlying the offender's conviction, any vehicles owned or used by the offender, a picture and other up-to-date information to keep communities informed and give them every possible piece of information available to assess the potential threats of these individuals. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes full use of new and innovative technologies available to law enforcement. Specifically, DNA technology. It has grown by leaps and bounds, and today this technology gives law enforcement new and more precise tools to keep innocent people free and keep criminals behind bars, where they belong. This bill would also require the Attorney General to create a prioritized DNA database focused specifically on those violent predators who would prey on our children. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough that our primary goal must be to prevent child abuse and stop these deviants before they get their hands on a child and before they destroy a child's fragile life. However, when one of these deviants does harm a child, then the full weight of the law should be upon them. This bill would impose new mandatory minimum penalties for violent crimes committed against children. These mandatory minimums include the death penalty or life imprisonment when a child is murdered. It imposes a 30-years-to-life imprisonment when the offender kidnaps, maims, commits aggravated sexual abuse, or causes serious bodily harm to a child. Additionally, the bill requires a 20-year minimum sentence when the crime of violence results in a nonserious bodily injury to a child. Fifteen-years-to-life imprisonment is required when the defendant uses a dangerous weapon, and in any other case the minimum penalty ranges from a mandatory 10 years to life imprisonment. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill would increase the existing mandatory penalties for several existing sexual offenses, including engaging in a sexual act with a child, committing abusive sexual contact and sexual exploitation of a child, trafficking child pornography, and the use of the Internet to prey on children. I would also like to add that this bill places new requirements on our States to ensure that they perform complete background checks on potential foster and adoptive parents, and grants relevant State agencies access to national criminal history databases. Our State and local governments should never, let me repeat, never deliver a child into the hands of a sexual predator. The Children's Safety Act also addresses the growing problem of kidnapping and sex trafficking. The trafficking of children is a problem not just here in the United States but globally, and this bill will increase the penalties for sex trafficking of children. We have to root these thugs out and shut down their operations. Sexual abuse of children must be stopped at all levels and in all degrees. From the lone abuses to a network of criminals peddling children for the pleasure of perverts, this must be stopped, and this bill goes a long way to strengthen law enforcement capabilities and making sure the punishment justly fits the crime. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite behind this commonsense legislation. Let us keep sexual predators away from our children, off the streets, and serving their time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise an organization in my district, Georgia 11, that has done a phenomenal job of delivering food, clothing, housing supplies, and even employment to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Rome Kares is a model of coordinated community response. The group has aided more than 100 families who have temporarily relocated to Rome, Georgia, and Floyd County from Louisiana and Mississippi. Rome Kares is a group that distributes an electronic newsletter detailing the items that relocated families need and acts as a clearinghouse for organizations and individuals looking for ways to help. Above all, Rome Kares helps evacuees get set up and settled in their new adopted community. These efforts have been incredibly successful. Rome Kares has delivered gasoline, diapers, water, and bedding to hurricane-stricken areas, and furniture supplies and clothing to local evacuees. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen the best of America; and Rome Kares is a model of this generosity and compassion. I ask that you join me in thanking Rome Kares.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concerns for the process, let me repeat, the process under which these supplemental appropriations are being considered. First, I want to emphatically express my full support for aiding those lives and those cities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Having been to Baton Rouge, having physically worked with the victims, there is no doubt in my mind that these people need our help. However, Mr. Speaker, we should help them in a responsible and thoughtful manner. There is no question that time is of the essence, but we are not talking about pocket change, $50 billion is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker, and fellow members of this body, we have a Constitutional duty to spend the people's money very carefully and with deliberate consideration. Even in times of crisis, a blank check does not guarantee results and can often lead to wasteful spending. Wasteful spending will not save one life. Wasteful spending will not rebuild one destroyed house, will not clear one single road, and will not feed one starving child. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in both this House and especially in the Senate to refrain from tacking on any pork. This supplemental should not be a gravy train for any special or individual interests. Every member of this body should condition their support of this supplemental upon strict oversight and follow up with sound policy changes. We cannot just throw billions of dollars at this catastrophe or any catastrophe for that matter. Mr. Speaker, we need to follow-up these dollars with thorough oversight and investigation to make sure that every penny, I repeat, every penny goes to help the victims. And, we need to cut down every unnecessary piece of red tape in the process, such as suspending the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to help the reconstruction of this devastated area. Let's untie the hands of those who are ready to help and rebuild. We have enough obstacles to overcome as it is. We don't need any kind of bureaucratic surcharge on saving lives. Mr. Speaker, I want to again caution my colleagues. Let's get help to the people in need but let's do so in a responsible and sound manner. The American people expect no less of us, and we owe them no less.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana not only for bringing forward this resolution but also for the great work that he did in the State of Louisiana in regard to organizing medical clinics and emergency health care, and I commend him for that. This is a great resolution. It emphasizes a positive. There is no finger-pointing, name-blame game. This is exactly the kind of resolution that shows the spirit of this Congress. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), I will just tell a little story about that, what really inspired me to go to Louisiana over the Labor Day weekend in Baton Rouge and try to help out in a medical clinic. I saw the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) on television talking about Jefferson Parish and the devastation and how much they had suffered. I was fortunate enough when I went to the emergency command center in Baton Rouge to run into my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson); and we had a brief hug, pat on the back, sincere handshake and the spirit of cooperation that he just expressed so eloquently. I want to echo what the gentleman said and what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and, of course, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and all of the legislative delegation Members of this Congress from the States that have been so adversely affected, especially Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, said. My own state of Georgia was not unscathed. We had a number of tornadoes that came as a result of the hurricane that touched down in the 11th Congressional District, and one life was lost and a business destroyed in Carollton, Georgia. So, again, I commend and support, as we all do, this resolution, which is just saying it in the right way, totally nonpartisan. When I was on the ground in Louisiana, I had an opportunity to see a lot of the evacuees and the Red Cross and the many people coming together. I saw the best of human nature, not the worst. And I think this is truly a time for the best of the human nature of the Members of this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, both bodies, to come together because this is all about uplifting people and the ones that are suffering so much. And let us not forget that the suffering continues. It is not just the emergency response, but it is going to go on a long time, and fatigue might set in for some of the volunteers; so we need to keep a list and keep going and continue to support the gulf coast in that great part of the United States. Again, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for the resolution and thank him for yielding me time for the opportunity to join in and say a few words.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, over the Labor Day weekend, I had the opportunity to go to Baton Rouge not as a Member of Congress but as a physician and to work in the River Center where the evacuees, over 5,000, so many of them were there, and to help provide basic health care needs. What I saw in Louisiana was the best of human nature: a level of confusion, of course, and some disorganization, but people pulling together and trying to do the best they could in a difficult situation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle at a time like this, probably the greatest tragedy this Nation has ever seen, to pull together, avoid the temptation to get into a finger- pointing, blaming situation, and let us see as a result of this the best of the human nature of this Congress.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share one of the many inspiring stories of personal commitment and sacrifice that have occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In the Eleventh District of Georgia in the town of Marietta, my hometown, a community came together to rescue more than 30 hurricane victims from the Waldo Boys Home in Louisiana. It started when Marlene Murphy, an employee at InfoMart, a local company in Marietta, made a desperate appeal to her fellow workers. Marlene's sister and brother-in-law were counselors at the Waldo Burton Boys Home in New Orleans. They were stranded, along with many of the residents and staff, after floodwaters engulfed that city. Without wasting a bit of time, InfoMart employees, led by the company's president, Tammy Cohen, swung into action, taking on the cause as their own. The employees brought food, clothing, and necessities for the stranded boys. They notified the Coast Guard of the situation. Naval Air Station Atlanta's Captain Sean King and other leaders in the community quickly organized a mission to rescue these victims. InfoMart rented three passenger vans and a truck, and they started that long trip to New Orleans. On the way, there were plenty of reasons to turn back: 2-mile long lines for gas, police barricades, and even cars driving on the wrong side of the interstate. But these volunteers did not for a second think of themselves or their troubles. They were only focused on rescuing these boys, no matter what; and I am proud to report that their mission was a success. Fifteen boys, aged from 12 months to 15 years, along with 16 staff and family members, were brought back to Marietta, Georgia, where now they were welcomed by a generous community eager to help. After spending the night in donated rooms at the Marietta Conference Center, the boys are now being transitioned into three homes owned by the YWCA. They have been fed. They have been given fresh clothes and personal necessities. Efforts are being made also to locate other family members, and local businesses and charities are donating the resources needed to get these victims settled. Mr. Speaker, if I thank all the people who deserve praise for this astonishing and selfless effort, we would be here all night. A gas station in Birmingham donated gas for the trip home, and local restaurants, like Panera Bread and Mellow Mushroom Pizza, are donating food for the boys. InfoMart employees and community members have donated supplies, clothes, and that most important gift of all, their time. This is a shining example of a community coming together to help another community. In this time of crisis we can draw strength from the knowledge that Americans are helping Americans. It is good to know that the American way is a generous and giving one. Mr. Speaker, the acts of kindness I have witnessed in Katrina's wake make me proud to be a citizen of this great Nation. Neither waves, nor rain, nor wind, nor blistering heat can crush the American spirit. Wherever nature kicks us down, there are millions of hands waiting to lift us up. There are many acts of kindness taking place across this Nation, and I ask that you join me in praising the selfless dedication our citizens have shown in opening their wallets, their homes, and, most importantly, their hearts.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, let me join my colleagues in thanking the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for bringing this bill to fruition. I know it was not easy. It was a heavy lift. I am particularly grateful because in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, we have a project called the 411 Connector. We have been working on that at the State level for 25 years. It is a very congested area. It involves Floyd and Bartow Counties in particular, and will connect a congested road to I-75. We have had great help on that project from the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) in getting the necessary funding. I want to thank my two Senators, Senators Chambliss and Isaakson. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for helping us keep the necessary funding for this project. Certainly, I thank Secretary Norman Mineta for placing this on a fast track list of only six projects in this country. Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mary Peters. I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) say she would be retiring to her home State of Arizona. Highway Administrator Peters came to my district, met with the folks from Bartow and Floyd Counties, and talked to us about how to get this project, apply for fast track; and I am very grateful to her for those efforts. I want to say to Mary Peters, good luck on her retirement and be safe on that motorcycle in Arizona, and just ask all of my colleagues to support this bill, as I know they will.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we make sure that all our colleagues are clear on some of the issues that have been discussed here today. I know there has been some hyperbole maybe on both sides of the issue, and I want to be very clear. This bill protects our patients, first and foremost, and gives them an opportunity to have access to affordable health care and to the specialist that they need and when they need them. It also helps our physicians, our doctors be able to stay in practice when they have an opportunity to have a stable medical malpractice insurance premium that they have to pay. Yes, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that section 7 in regard to punitive damages, that is applicable to our doctors as well as to companies that make medical equipment. It also is applicable to drug companies that provide us with life-saving drugs if they have done so in a fashion that is not negligent and not deliberately intended to harm a patient. Here is an example, Mr. Speaker: things like time released infusion, chemotherapy, treating cancer patients, insulin pumps for diabetics, titanium hip replacements, artificial heart valves. If the makers of these life-saving devices were subject to punitive damages every time something through no fault of their own went wrong, we would be in the situation that we were in a year and a half ago in regard to the flu vaccine. Nobody wants to get involved in that business for the fear of a lawsuit. And with the government setting prices on flu vaccines, the profit margin to begin with was very limited. So this section 7 is a very important provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. So again, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand that this is not a bad provision. This is a good provision. Mr. Speaker, also one of the speakers in opposition, well, actually several of the speakers in opposition, said that this bill has been brought to us, we have had no hearings, we have had no opportunity, we have had no voice. It is not true, Mr. Speaker. This is the fourth time in 3 years that this exact same bill, H.R. 5, has been dealt with on the floor of this House. It is the exact same bill. I joined this body in 2003. We dealt with it in 2003. We dealt with it in 2004, and here we are with the exact same bill. Section 7 was in the bill, the section in regard to punitive damages. Nothing has changed. In fact, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce this February, a hearing was held on medical liability and some 15 witnesses were at that hearing, Mr. Speaker. So it is untrue to suggest that we have not had hearings and they have not had an opportunity. They know this bill. It is a good bill. We have passed it three times. We are going to, in a few minutes, pass it for a fourth time; and, hopefully, the other body will do the same thing so we can get this to the President for his signature and level this playing field once and for all.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding me the time. With all due respect to the distinguished ranking member, let me say that in response to his comments, this is a special interest bill. That is right. It is a special interest bill. It is a special interest bill for the American consumer of health care, for our patients. That is where the special interest is; not, Mr. Speaker, the insurance industry, not drug companies or manufacturers of medical devices. The insurance industry, of course, offers a broad range of products. It could be health insurance. It could be automobile insurance. It could be homeowners insurance. It could be an umbrella policy for general liability. And, yes, of course there is a product line called medical liability insurance. But let me tell you what is happening to the insurance industry in regard to that piece of their business. In my home State of Georgia, 3 years ago we had 20 companies that offered that line of business. Today we have one. We have gone from 20 to 1, and that is a mutual company. If these insurance companies were making out like bandits, as the other side of the aisle and the opposition to this commonsense bill are suggesting, then they would not be quitting the business in droves. They would be continuing to stay in the business and raising those premiums and making these tremendous profits. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the industry of insurance in regard to other product lines. The gentleman may be right on that. But in regard to this line of business, I can tell you they are losing money even when they have good returns on their investments, as did Mag Mutual in Georgia several years ago. In fact, the return on their very conservative investments, they are very restricted by the insurance commissioner in that very conservative portfolio of investments, returned them $7 million; but they still are losing money because of these outrageous claims and the expense of defending so many frivolous lawsuits. In regard, Mr. Speaker, to the drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices that the distinguished ranking member mentioned, this bill would only relieve them of punitive damages, that is all, punitive damages, if it is shown that they did deliberately market a drug or a device that they knew was harmful to a patient and they deliberately withheld that information from the FDA. It does not relieve them of liability for being named in a lawsuit. It is only the punitive damages. If they are guilty of something like that, of withholding information deliberately, we went through this with the tobacco industry in regard to lung cancer, the punitive damages can be in the hundreds of millions and, maybe if it is a big Fortune 500 company, billions of dollars. So this is a distraction from the real problem. And the real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an unlevel playing field. That is all it is. This bill, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, is not going to take away anybody's right to sue if they have been injured and to seek economic damages and payments for medical care for the rest of their lives. The gentleman from Texas explained to us that many of these cases in California, a State that since 1979 has had a cap on noneconomic so- called ``pain and suffering'' at $250,000, these cases that he just talked about, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million worth of economic awards, people are not being denied access to that care, Mr. Speaker. This is only to balance the playing field so that we do not have this situation in this country where we are supposed to have the greatest health care in the world, and yet our specialists are dropping out. They are not delivering babies. They are not getting involved in high- risk pregnancies. They are not manning emergency rooms. They are not doing newer surgery. Because of all the defensive practice of medicine, every specialist practices in two areas: his or her specialty and also the specialty of defensive medicine, and it is driving up the cost of health care and people cannot afford to get health insurance. That is all we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, of leveling the playing field. It is not taking away anybody's right to sue. It is not denigrating or bashing the legal profession. Those attorneys who specialize in personal injury, most of them do a great job representing their clients well. My brother is an attorney. My daughter is an attorney. We are not here to bash the legal profession. But we just want to ask them to give us an opportunity to level this playing field to make it fair for everyone. And so this idea that the other side suggests that we are taking away anybody's rights is absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker. Let me say some of the things that this bill does do besides limiting noneconomic to $250,000. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is something called ``collateral source disclosure.'' Current law did not allow a jury to know that a plaintiff in a malpractice case has health insurance or has a disability policy. So when they are calculating all of these economic losses and loss of wages, it is not known by the jury that maybe that disability policy gives them 80 percent of their earnings or their income for their whole life or that they have health insurance. The other thing, and I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, the other things this bill does is it stops this issue of joint and several liability where, when multiple defendants are named, the person, the doctor who has the deepest pockets, who may have had very little to do, if anything to do, maybe just walked down the corridor on a Saturday and said hello to the patient, but they happened to have the most insurance and the deepest pockets so they pay all of the claims.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time, I hope sufficient time, to refute some of these statements that have been made in opposition. I want to start with the gentlewoman from Colorado who just spoke. It is absolutely wrong about the issue of Federal law superseding State law in cases where the State has already addressed the issue. Let us say the issue of caps, my State of Georgia passed a law this year, and the caps there are $350,000. That would be applicable State law would apply. It is only when States have not addressed the issue when the Federal law would speak. I want to also address something the gentlewoman said in regard to this bill being nothing. I have heard this not just from her, but from number of other speakers on the other side in opposition, talking about that this is nothing but a protection for the insurance industry, and it is another bail-out of protection for the pharmaceutical industry, and they are relieved of all liability, which is absolutely untrue, Mr. Speaker. In fact, last night when we were talking about the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas, a registered pharmacist, opposed the rule and the bill basically for the same reason. I would like to remind him. I hope the gentleman is listening to the discussion this afternoon. But this would protect a pharmacist who prescribes a drug, a legally FDA- approved drug, that the pharmacist had no idea that there might be a problem or an adverse reaction. This is what this bill does. That would protect the pharmacist from punitive damages in a case like that, where there was no deliberate intent to harm the patient. So it is very important that all of our colleagues understand the truth here. The gentleman from Illinois kept talking about the Vioxx case, and the marathon runner. Well, if Vioxx and the company that makes that drug is guilty of withholding pertinent information that they had in clinical trials, and they knew that it was a harmful drug that they put out there on the market and exposed patients to that drug, then they are going to pay one heck of a price for that, yes, in punitive damages. So they are not relieved from that under this bill. It is only when they did everything right and they were approved by the FDA that they would have any relief from punitive damages. There are plenty of great athletes, Mr. Speaker. I remember an All- American basketball player from St. Joseph's University 10 or 15 years ago that dropped dead on the basketball court. He was not taking Vioxx. But we will see how that case turns out. The issue was brought up, Mr. Speaker, about young children who are injured, and they do not have a job or profession, so they need this pain and suffering compensation that can be infinity, hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than a cap at 250-, when the truth is the triers of fact, Mr. Speaker, the jury, can determine the life span, the expected life span of that child and what their earnings would be over the course of that lifetime. The same thing in regard to a stay-at-home mom who was a professional maybe, an attorney possibly, before she decided to become a mother and a homemaker. Those earnings would be calculated as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, a little while earlier a speaker in opposition, the gentleman from New York, he made this statement: It comes down to the issue of who we are fighting for. I am really not sure who the gentleman in the opposition is fighting for. I suspect that I know who they are fighting for. Does ATLA sound familiar to you, my colleagues? But I am going to tell you who we are fighting for. We are fighting for the patient. We are fighting for their right to have the ability to access needed specialists in health care, and they are not going to be there if we do not level this playing field.

Mr. GINGREY

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

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. A couple of minutes ago I was given some statistics. I want to continue in that vein. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) just mentioned the situation in California. Of course, this bill, H.R. 5, is patterned after that very successful MICRA legislation, Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, passed in 1979 in California. Here we are some 26 years later, and medical malpractice insurance premium rates have stabilized, growing only at about 6 percent per year. But listen to these numbers in regard to whether people continue to get just compensation for their injuries when you do have a cap on so- called noneconomic or pain and suffering. September 2003, 9-year-old boy, San Francisco jury awarded $70.9 million in compensatory damages after finding a hospital and a medical clinic negligent for failing to diagnose his metabolic disease. December 2002, $84.250 million total award, Alameda County, a 5-year- old boy with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia because of delayed treatment of jaundice after birth. January 1999, $21.789 million award, Los Angeles County, newborn girl with cerebral palsy and mental retardation because of a birth-related injury. October 1997, $25 million total award, San Diego County, boy with severe brain damage, spastic quadriplegia, mental retardation because of too much anesthesia administered during a procedure. November of 2000, $27.573 million, San Bernardino, California, 25- year-old woman with quadriplegia because of failure to diagnose a spinal injury. July 2002, $12.5 million, Los Angeles County, 30-year-old homemaker with brain damage because of lack of oxygen during recovery from surgery. Mr. Speaker, people are not being denied access to an opportunity to redress their grievances when they have been injured when someone has practiced below the standard of care. No physician member of this body, no physician in this United States would want anything like that. We want people to recover when one of our colleagues have indeed caused that harm. Mr. Speaker, we know of cases in our own hospitals where lawsuits are brought against one of our colleagues where we know they practiced below the standard of care, and we are the biggest cheerleaders for the plaintiffs in those situations. H.R. 5 has nothing to do with that. Mr. Speaker, we are just limiting this noneconomic so-called pain and suffering. It has worked in California, and it will work in the rest of the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, eight States have specifically focused on pharmaceuticals and punitive damages and statutorily provide an FDA regulatory compliance defense against such damages. Those States are: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, listen to these numbers: 19, the number of States in a full-blown medical liability crisis; 72 percent, the number of Americans who favor a law that guarantees full payment for lost wages and medical expenses, but limits noneconomic damages; $70- to 127 billion a year, the cost of the defense of medicine, which could be significantly reduced by medical liability reforms; $10.2 billion, the amount of money paid out by licensed commercial insurers in 2002 for medical liability claims; 100 percent or more, the increase in liability insurance premiums that one-third of the Nation's hospitals saw in 2002; 48 percent, the proportion of America's medical students in their third or fourth year of medical school who indicated that the liability crisis was a factor in their choice of specialty, threatening patients' future access to critical services; 3.9 million, the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance if Congress were to pass common-sense reforms. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about anybody's right to a redress of grievances when they have been injured because of a physician or provider of care or a facility or hospital practicing below the standard of care in that local community. There are no limits on economic awards. As I said earlier, that could be $5 million. And as I said earlier, when you get into a courtroom and you listen to the plaintiff's attorney calculating the cost, the economic cost, a new home because of a disability access need costing $450,000, an au pair, a companion to go to the movies with the person that was injured, and on and on and on, these economic costs sometimes are astronomical. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, in addition to about 75 percent of the American public that are in favor of placing caps on noneconomic damages, let me just list a few other organizations that are in favor of that as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Association of Home and Services For the Aging, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Surgeons, the American Health Care Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association; the absence, of course, of the American Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate on House Resolution 385, I would like to encourage my colleagues to not only support this rule but also the underlying bill. I want to thank all of those who spoke on behalf of the rule and applaud them for their willingness to address this problem in an honest and an open fashion. Unfortunately, some opponents of this legislation seem content to demagogue the issue and pander to those special interests who are determined to keep the playing field tilted in their favor. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters of the many organizations that have been submitted to me in support of this bill. Letters of Support A. PIAA (Physician Insurers Association of America) B. American Osteopathic Association C. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists D. American Academy of Ophthalmology E. American College of Surgeons F. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons G. The Doctor's Company H. Californians Allied for Patient Protection I. Physicians Insurance J. JPMSLIC Insurance Company K. American College of Physicians L. American Society of Anesthesiologists M. Premier Advocacy N. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists O. American Medical Directors Association P. American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons Q. American Medical Association--Michael Maves, Executive Vice President R. Chamber of Commerce S. American Benefits Council T. American College of Cardiology U. American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery V. American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians Mr. Speaker, some might not want to see reform, but I have list upon list and a binder full of organizations and individuals who recognize that we have a problem, and they see H.R. 5 as the solution. Over 200 medical organizations from the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, to the American Dental Association to the United States Chamber of Commerce have urged this Congress to act now, not later. A recent survey by the Health Coalition on Liability and Access found that 72 percent of Americans favor a law that would guarantee full payment for economic losses like lost pay and medical costs, but would limit noneconomic costs. With an overwhelming majority of the American people and most health care organizations in support of the language of this legislation, we in the House of Representatives cannot stand idly by with a good commonsense solution at our fingertips. Again, this bill in no way, shape, or form limits the amount an individual can receive in economic damages. If someone's hospital bill or lost wages costs $50,000, $500,000, or even $5 million, they can still be awarded the full amount in damages less attorneys' costs and fees. If there are punitive damages that are applicable because a physician or health care provider deliberately, deliberately, causes injury to a patient, then punitive damages can be awarded double the economic damages. So if it were $5 million worth of economic damages, then there could be $10 million worth of punitive damages. The same thing, Mr. Speaker, is applicable to medical product manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry that produces these drugs. The other side would make us believe that they were granted complete immunity. Absolutely not, if they knowingly withheld information. Only economic damages are limited; and punitive damages, as I say, would be calculated by a responsible formula. Finally, H.R. 5 ensures that victims benefit from a fairer system and they receive a greater portion of their damages. Ultimately, the biggest winner in H.R. 5 is the American consumer-patient who will have better access to health care and lower health care costs. I think that alone testifies to the importance of this bill and the need to put partisanship aside for the sake of the people who sent us here to represent them. They deserve no less. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their timely consideration of this bill, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and floor manager of H.R. 5. I again would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 385 and H.R. 5.