Robin Hayes

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5590) to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the enforcement and effectiveness of civilian orders of protection on military installations.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her presence, her leadership, her good humor and tremendous contribution to a very, very serious issue that a group of us from Congress traveled to Fayetteville to try and help provide some solutions. Mr. Speaker, domestic violence is currently one of the greatest ills in our society. In both the civilian and military sphere, spousal abuse remains one of the most underreported and difficult crimes to detect and prosecute. Often victims are at a loss as to where to seek help, refuge and comfort. Unfortunately, this past summer at Fort Bragg in my district in North Carolina, there were several homicides that resulted from domestic violence. Four military wives tragically lost their lives, Mr. Speaker. One case of domestic violence is one too many. In order to address this grave problem and help stop domestic violence in all sectors of our society, four members of the House Committee on Armed Services and I recently spent the day at Fort Bragg and Fayetteville, North Carolina, in order to hear from many different individuals regarding this tragic problem. We met with military leaders, chaplains, civilian law enforcement, health care providers, advocacy organizations and women's groups, to name a few. We also met with victims. One of the most salient things we heard during this session with survivors of domestic abuse is that safety is hard to come by. Finding resources to help one out of a desperate situation is an arduous challenge, and often victims feel trapped. For those who are able to come forward and take action, enforcement mechanisms within our legal system often remain inadequate. We heard from local officials, notably Judge Beth Keever of Fayetteville, North Carolina, that presently there is a legal loophole that does not require protective orders issued by civilian courts to be enforced on military facilities. This means the victim could be without necessary, extra physical protection while on Federal property. Mr. Speaker, today we help make sure that we provide safety and resources to victims of domestic violence. This legislation takes a step forward, moving our society in the direction to help stop domestic violence. Making protective orders enforceable on military installations will protect both civilian and military individuals on Federal property. They will know that no matter where they are, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, the supermarket or the PX, the individual from whom the victim is protected will not be allowed to come near. The recent murders at Fort Bragg are truly a tragedy. Domestic violence is wrong, and we must do everything we can to prevent it. This important legislation represents a small, initial step to address this problem. It is important that we close this loophole. This act was inspired by the courageous stories of former domestic violence victims, insight from those who have experience in the area, and others. Passage of this bill will appropriately honor the courage of these individuals and the dedicated work of their advocates. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5590, the Armed Forces Domestic Security Act, and take a step forward in protecting the lives of individuals, both on and off military property. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her leadership and her wisdom and her input. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. He made the trip possible, and his input and leadership were instrumental in getting us to this point; and he will take us further with the passage of time.

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who also, if I might add, celebrated his birthday in Fayetteville last Sunday night. So we appreciate his sacrifice in that regard too.

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for closing remarks. Let me again thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her very well put, meaningful words; and I identify myself with her remarks. I would too like to take a brief moment to identify with and to thank personally the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), my geographic Congress mate in the seventh, and myself in the eighth, for his participation and his consistent and constant service on behalf of our military in our State of North Carolina. The moving testimony of these women, I cannot begin to tell my colleagues how heartwarming, but also how moving this testimony was. As I recall, one lady came on her own expense all the way from Kansas City. And in particular, one lady, Laura Sandler, I would like to pay particular tribute and thanks to her, whose written testimony I think burned a real moving, heartfelt impression on all of our hearts as she had the courage, along with her other colleagues, to come forward and bring us into a much clearer understanding of this problem. Again, thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and all of those involved, and I would strongly encourage unanimous support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 5010, the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. The tragic events of just over a year ago, have thrust our Nation's military into the spotlight and called to duty the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again, U.S. citizens are rallying behind them in strong support of the harrowing mission they have been called upon to do; and today the United States Congress has a duty to pass this important legislation that will help provide the necessary resources for these brave men and women to do their job. This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital asset in the military, our people. It provides every servicemember with a 4.1 percent pay raise. The legislation gives our military personnel the necessary resources to do their job. It fully funds budgeted increases in steaming, flying, and training hours and resources needed for increases for spare parts and real property maintenance. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, the ability to adequately care for their families and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues which are second to none. I believe this legislation builds upon our work from last year, continuing to reverse the decline of military readiness by funding key operations, maintenance, and training accounts. This financial support devoted to our national security is long in coming. We must adequately provide the men and women from Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base and all of our military personnel who are currently prosecuting the war on terrorism adequate and necessary resources to do their job. I would like to specifically mention that this bill provides some funding for some key capabilities for our U.S. Special Forces, many of whom make their home in my district at Ft. Bragg, NC. While they, alongside members from all our Armed Forces, serve in Afghanistan and all over the world today, we show our support by providing the funding necessary to effectively and safely do their job. The $355.1 billion we are voting on today will help do that. It is targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a quality of life and readiness. Furthermore, this legislation funds important projects in research and development, such as the optoelectronics program just getting underway in my district at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Mr. Speaker, it is gross injustice and misfortune that it took the tragedy in September to focus the public eye on the need for a more robust defense budget; but I feel the legislation in front of us takes that step, and the rule provides for its consideration. I urge Members to vote strongly in favor of the rule and the final legislation.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 5011, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003. This bill provides $10.08 billion for military construction projects. Providing adequate housing and facilities for our men and women in uniform enables them to do their job. This bill provides $5.41 billion for safe and secure housing, allowing servicemen and women to know that their families are out of harm's way while they are deployed or serving our country overseas. This assurance is a key component of our nation's military readiness and today we take steps to further improve and make adequate the housing and facilities of our military families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a significant component of the Milcon Appropriations Bill that will help all soldiers at Ft. Bragg, in my district in NC. Since I came to Congress, I have been working to secure funds for the Soldier Support Center at Ft. Bragg. This center, to be named in honor of General Hugh Shelton, currently recovering from a spinal cord injury, will provide a one-stop in and out-processing facility for soldiers at Ft. Bragg. Today we take the first step in providing the first half of the funding for this important resource for the epicenter of the universe, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have thrust our nation's military into the spotlight, and called to duty the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again U.S. citizens are rallying behind them, in strong support of the harrowing mission they have been called upon to do, and today the U.S. Congress has the duty to pass the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, and the Rule that provides for its consideration, that will help provide the necessary resources and security for these brave men and women to do their job. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 5011, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the Committee on Armed Services, very active.

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), a hard-working member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, it gives me an unusually great deal of pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services, someone who is uniquely qualified to speak tonight on this issue, who is a decorated combat veteran of both Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War, and knows Saddam Hussein on a personal basis.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), an active member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I have a rule, too; and that rule is I will not go to an enemy's country and say that that leader is telling the truth and our President is misleading the American people. As Winston Churchill said, the price of greatness is responsibility. Today we have the responsibility to do what is right and what is just, and what will provide for the security of the American people. We all without exception seek peace, but not at any price. We seek a lasting, long-term peace. That peace is obtainable because our President has forced Saddam Hussein to the negotiating table. And because we will speak with one voice, lasting peace through disarmament is possible, nothing less is acceptable. I would first like to highlight the strikes that Iraq fires on our pilots. Acts of Iraqi aggression against our American and British air patrols in the no-fly zone occur on a daily basis. U.S. and allied forces have patrolled the no-fly zone since 1991. In the past 2\1/2\ years alone, U.S. fighters have been fired upon more than 2,300 times. In fact, just an hour after the letter was delivered to the U.N. stating that Iraq would again consider allowing weapons inspectors to their facilities, an American jet patrolling a no-fly zone was fired on six times. Following the Gulf War in April 1991, the United Nations as a cease- fire condition ordered Iraq to completely open themselves to arms inspectors to ensure that Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction in production infrastructure. Eleven years have passed; nothing has changed. Saddam Hussein continues to defy that order, and there is overwhelming evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein is developing mass quantities of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Saddam is using weapons against other nations and against his own people. With these weapons Saddam Hussein will become the merchant for weapons of mass destruction for terrorists around the globe. Saddam Hussein is also aggressively trying to build nuclear weapons. He has the technology and know-how to build such devices. All he lacks is the fissile material. Once he acquires that material, he will be months or days away from being able to fire nuclear weapons beyond his own border. Once he has that technology, he can bind U.S. hands through blackmail and intimidation and rule the Gulf region through threat and coercion. Saddam Hussein and his regime pose serious threats to peace and stability in the world. We cannot stand idly by and watch this happen. Pursuing Iraq is a continuing of the war on terrorism, and our forces are up to the test. We must ask ourselves what is the responsible course of action for our country. Are we obliged to sit by and idly wait for a chemical, biological or nuclear 9-11? Or is it our responsibility to take steps to deal with the threat before we are attacked? We have an obligation to defend against an attack on our people. We should be clear on the issue before us. It is not enough to get inspectors in. We have done this before, and we know this mad man has biological weapons. To quote the wise words of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If we are not prepared to defend ourselves and to defend ourselves alone if need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakeably resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to be purchased, no refuge to be found. Today Republicans and Democrats alike are concluding that this resolution needs to be passed to ensure that Saddam Hussein never has the opportunity to use his weapons of mass destruction against the United States. Iraq needs to not only subject itself to full inspections, but also disarm itself of all existing weapons. The legislation in front of us gives the President the authority he needs to protect the American people and U.S. interests from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction while at the same time respecting the prerogatives of Congress. We have the responsibility to act. I encourage all Members to keep the constituents in mind and support this resolution. The way to peace is through strength. As President Bush said on Monday night, war is neither imminent nor inevitable. Compliance without exception to the resolutions in place and total disarmament equals peace. Anything less is an unacceptable risk to the safety and the lives of all Americans. Without disarmament, we will lead an international coalition that will disarm Saddam Hussein. Churchill said an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. A vote for appeasement, not on my watch.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4600, the Health Act. Skyrocketing insurance premiums are debilitating our nation's health care delivery system. In April I visited hospitals in the 8th District of North Carolina to talk about workforce issues such as the nursing shortage. At every stop, the number one concern of these talented health professionals was resoundingly the dramatically escalating cost of liability insurance. Last year, NorthEast Medical in Concord, North Carolina paid approximately $600,000 for professional liability/general liability insurance for the hospital. This year they will pay approximately $1.7- 1.9 million for the same coverage. They have one of the best loss rates in North Carolina. Other hospitals that aren't so fortunate are paying even more. Scoltland Memorial, a rural hospital with only 124 acute beds, 50 bed nursing home, and minimal claims history, has seen an increase of over $545,000 this year with most of their insurance quotes over $1 million. Many of the potential insurers left in the industry are not willing to cover nursing homes or only at an even greater premium. First Health Richmond, another rural hospital, paid $836,810 in 2001 for liability premiums. But this past year, they paid over $2 million! This hospital submitted 14 requests for bids, and only one company was even able to offer a quote. Lack of competitive insurers means even higher costs for our hospitals. However, the problem is not isolated to hospitals. Many obstetricians/gynecologists have stopped delivering babies. Physicians are retiring or moving because they no longer can afford to serve their communities or are simply unable to even purchase insurance. Annual increases in malpractice insurance for doctors of 30- 70 percent are common today. Just this month, three sub-specialist groups have informed Union Regional Medical Center in Union County, North Carolina that they will have to discontinue serving the hospital's patients because of huge increases in liability coverage, or threats from their carrier of such. Smaller community hospitals, like most of those in my district need these sub-specialists from our larger cities such as Charlotte and Fayetteville. Their availability adds to the quality of health services available in our communities. In 1994, the average medical malpractice jury award was $1.14 million. In 2000, just 6 short years, the average award rose to $3.4 million. We must reign in run-away jury verdicts and the greed of trial lawyers who search for deep pockets. Taxpayers and seniors are the leading victims of a systemic trial lawyer-driven litigation explosion that siphons federal dollars out of the nation's healthcare system, threatens seniors' access to quality health care, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. The system is broken, and we need to fix it. Without federal legislation, the exodus of providers from the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it increasingly difficult to obtain needed health care. This crisis is a threat for all Americans. We must safeguard patients' access to care through common sense reforms. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4600.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response and in direct opposition to statements that have been recently made. Everyone in this House wants peace; the question is how. Those who say that we and the President have not connected the dots either cannot read or refuse to assess the information that is readily available in both secret and public briefings. We can look to the former weapons inspectors, we can look to the research data behind Prime Minister Blair's speech, and we can look at the research backing up the President of the United States' speech to the U.N. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear. We will protect America against terrorists, against thugs, bullies, and murderers like Saddam Hussein. In visiting Fort Bragg, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are ready to do what it takes to protect America and the civilized world.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the rule and the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) strayed a bit from the subject, and I feel the necessity to respond. As far as the work of the House is concerned, the House is doing its work. Under article 1 section 7, clause 2, the House has passed a budget and many other important pieces of legislation. As required by law, we have done our work. The Senate has not passed a budget. More importantly, to say that protection of human life is not significant legislation is as sadly wrong as it possibly can be. H.R. 4691 is simply a clarification of current law. This existing nondiscrimination statute that Congress overwhelmingly approved and President Clinton signed into law in 1996 protects health care entities from being forced by the government to perform abortions. Because of judicial misinterpretation, H.R. 4691 is needed to clarify that health care entities include all health care organizations, including hospitals. In recent years, there has been a growing nationwide effort to attack the conscience rights of Catholic and other private health care providers. Alaska courts have assumed they have the authority to force private hospitals to provide abortions as a condition for receiving Federal funds or for full participation in the health care system. It is imperative that we clarify the protections contained in current law to ensure that no hospital is forced to perform abortions against its will. I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I admire and respect the gentleman from Maryland. I appreciate his point of view, but I have the opposite point of view. We have been working very hard. When welfare reform first came up, there was complete and total resistance on the other side of the aisle. We have gotten together and we have passed a good bill in the House on a bipartisan basis. I would love to have had more votes. That would have been wonderful. But the clear, pure fact remains, article 1, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution simply requires that the House and the Senate have to pass legislation before it can be signed by the President and become law. The House has done their portion. The remainder is clear. We need compliance with the Constitution. That is what this debate is about. It is very meaningful. It is very clear that 60-plus pieces of legislation have been passed under article 1, section 7, clause 2 by the House of Representatives. Those pieces of important legislation lie dormant. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the House and I encourage that we support and pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, despite an outcry of criticism, the U.S. Congress passed the most sweeping welfare reform measures ever. Now, 6 years later, no one can argue that this reform has been an overwhelming success. We have worked to end a cycle of dependence and replaced it with a spirit of self-sufficiency. These welfare-to-work success stories are proof positive of what I have always said--a government support check, while helpful, is no substitute for a paycheck. On May 16 of this year, this House passed comprehensive welfare reform, the President is asking for reform, the American people deserve reform and the Senate has not taken up this important legislation. Now is not the time to turn our backs on these successful reforms. We have replaced a cycle of government dependency with families that are proud of the work that they do and that are no longer dependent on a government check. That's the right thing to do to strengthen families, and we need to keep that record of success going.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, H. Res. 524. I am convinced that death should not be a taxable event. There is a widely read, widely respected book, the Bible, that says one of the duties of a parent is to have an inheritance for their children and grandchildren. Under the present law, if that duty is fulfilled, up to 81 percent of that inheritance will be taken by the Federal Government. That is not fair. To say that we are not moving forward, as my good friend the gentleman from Maryland was thundering from the well of the House, is simply not the case. We are working to make sure that our small businesses and family farms do not lose those farms that their children can carry on. This is very important legislation. The House has done its duty. It is very clear. The Constitution says both the House and the Senate must act in order for this good law to become law. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this very important legislation and help do the job that this House was brought here to do. We have done ours. Here is our opportunity. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing it forward and I encourage its support. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 524 sponsored by my good friend Mr. Nussle. I am convinced that death should not be a taxable event in a free society. Why should the Federal Government confiscate half of the assets accumulated through a lifetime of hard work? The death tax disproportionately affects enterprises that are asset rich, but cash poor, such as family farms and small businesses. According to Citizens for a Sound Economy, only 13 percent of family businesses or farms will survive to a third generation of operation. We can no longer tolerate this tax on hard work and the entrepreneurial spirit. This will not be the final step in reforming our outdated system of taxation, but we must begin the journey to assure tax policies that promote fairness, efficiency, and economic prosperity for all our citizens. In an effort to alleviate the potential nightmare for future generations and correct an injustice in the Tax Code, we must permanently repeal the death tax. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this vitally important issue. Mr. Speaker, as other Members of the body, I have just returned from a district work period. The major part of that district work period was spent listening very carefully to constituents in the eighth district of North Carolina. Not only about their concerns but asking them for their advice, their common sense, using their own experience to help us here in Washington make policy that solves problems back home. As I traveled the district from east to west, one of the most consistent areas of comment, one of the most consistent problems that I faced that people unanimously talked about in the same tone and the same content was the need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Beside me is a list, a petition if you will, signed by senior citizens in Concord, Kannapolis, Charlotte, Raeford in Hoke County, Laurinburg in Scotland County, Troy and Mount Gilead in Montgomery County, Wadesboro in Anson County, Fayetteville in Cumberland County. Each one of the people that signed this petition said very clearly to me, we need a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. On June 30 of this year we celebrated the 37th birthday of Medicare. In that period of 37 years many people in this country have been properly helped by Medicare. During that period of time, Mr. Speaker, a number of dramatic changes have taken place in the practice of medicine. Many diseases, many conditions that required treatment previously by extensive hospitalization or invasive surgical procedures are now able to be treated with medications. Given that and a number of other reasons, it is all the more appropriate that we provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, given not only the necessity for prescription drugs to improve the quality of life for our seniors and to give them the support that they so richly deserve for supporting us for many years, but the point is it is appropriate from a factual standpoint to upgrade our treatment of Medicare to reflect the modern- day miracles of the practice of medicine. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention and the body the following information from the Constitution. The House of Representatives has passed a prescription drug plan under Medicare in a bipartisan manner. The U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 7, clause 2 says: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives must also pass the Senate before it becomes law.'' As I said, the House has passed a bipartisan prescription drug plan under Medicare for our seniors. There have been a number of bills debated in the Senate. A number of bills have been voted on in the Senate. They have not passed a prescription drug plan in the Senate which is controlled by Democrats. The Constitution is very clear. In order to become law, a prescription drug benefit must be passed by the House. We have done that. The Senate must pass a bill. The two bills will be combined in a conference committee and then the President can sign that bill into law. Our seniors need and deserve the prescription drug benefit plan; and that is the only way, rightfully so, under our Constitution that we can get that done. And, again, I refer to the names, and I have many others on sheets of paper, who have looked at and are simply saying we need to follow the Constitution. We need to provide this for our seniors. Medicare is a good program. It has been helping millions of older Americans meet their needs since that first day back in 1965, but we can and should strengthen Medicare to make it even better for our seniors. Again, we need to follow the Constitution. There is a bipartisan plan that we have passed here in the House. And let me give you some of the details of how it provides an affordable, immediate, and permanent prescription drug benefit. Under the plan passed by the House, these are some of the things that would happen: it is a voluntary drug benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. All Medicare beneficiaries are covered. Those who want to stay with their current coverage will not be forced into a government plan. Extra assistance for lower-income seniors, fully subsidized premium and cost sharing for couples earning up to $16,000. Partial premium subsidy, for couples earning up to $19,000. This plan would provide immediate discounts on drug purchases. Seniors would benefit immediately from discounts, approximately 15 percent or more on their purchases through a Medicare-endorsed discount card program. Beneficiaries choose the plan that is best for them. A choice of at least two plans is included in the House package. It guarantees competition, and competition helps hold down costs. Quality improvements: to improve health care for seniors; protection against adverse drug interactions; electronic prescribing to minimize potential medical errors; pharmacy therapy management for chronic conditions; mechanic modernizations; a rural relief package for underpaid rural hospitals. Again, vitally important pieces for the plan; and yes, this plan provides catastrophic coverage for those seniors most in need of financial assistance. No senior should ever be forced to choose between buying their prescription drugs or purchasing food and other necessities. Our seniors have been promised prescription drug coverage. They deserve no less than immediate action. Mr. Speaker, again, I would refer to article I, section 7, clause 2, and ask that we do our job. We have done it in the House. We would ask the Senate to pass a plan, any of the ones they have discussed, at which time the President can sign that into law and provide a badly needed and well-deserved benefit for seniors for prescription drugs under Medicare.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, ``Struecker felt his own heart sink. His vehicles were all shot up. The rear of his Humvee was splattered with Pila's blood and brains. When the body was pulled out, it did not even look like Pila anymore. The top of his head was gone and his face was grotesquely swollen and disfigured. Struecker's men were freaking out.'' This is the scene Mark Bowden describes in his novel retelling the horrors of the firefight in Somalia. Here today leading us in prayer is a hero and a survivor of this vicious fight, Captain Jeff Struecker, currently serving at Ft. Bragg in my district in North Carolina. Captain Struecker is a model citizen and soldier for us all. A devoted husband and father of five, Jeff has experienced combat in such places as Panama, Kuwait, and Somalia and has received numerous medals honoring his service. Entering the ministry during his service at Fort Benning, Jeff has provided inspiration and ministered to many in the past few years. He states that the experience in Mogadishu called him to God, as it was his faith that gave him the strength to fight the rest of the night. This ``bullet-proof faith,'' to use Jeff's words, would serve as example to all of us about the power of God. We are lucky to have Chaplain Struecker here with us today. May God bless him and his family and the men and women that currently fight for our freedom.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.