Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering today a manager's amendment that will perfect the underlying bill to ensure that H.R. 1065 is a fiscally sound piece of legislation that uses a self-funding mechanism for the United States Boxing Commission established under the act. Let me be crystal clear to my colleagues, taxpayers are not being forced to pay for the USBC. Boxers, boxing personnel and the sanctioning organization, such as the World Boxing Association, WBA, the International Boxing Federation, IBF, and so on, will provide the funds, through payment of license and other fees, which will be collected by the USBC. Specifically, my amendment will do the following: Section 5 of the bill will be amended to clarify that fees authorized and collected shall be available to fund the operation of the United States Boxing Commission and administration of this act. Section 14 of the bill will be amended to clarify that offsetting collections are available to the USBC subject to appropriation. This is a very good amendment. It is bipartisan. The bill itself will save lives, protect vulnerable athletes and help get the sport of boxing back in fighting shape. First and foremost, it will end the corruption and abuse that has plagued the sport for so long so America will regain its pride in boxing and all of its wonderful champions. Moreover, it will be done in a fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to support this perfecting amendment and support H.R. 1065. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, this Friday, Americans will observe Veterans Day, a special day of national observance that we have set aside to remember our veterans and their sacrifices. The 50 million Americans who have served our country since the American Revolution have done more than just protect our national security. They fought for our freedom, and in so doing, our veterans have provided a shining example for the millions of Americans who followed in their footsteps. In my own family, my father served in the Navy during World War II in the Pacific theater. He was in the Iwo Jima campaign and was awarded the Bronze Star. Nearly 2 million veterans live in my home State of Florida. Thousands of my fellow Floridians have served or are on active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice and many have suffered grievous wounds. I salute these brave men and women. Madam Speaker, may God bless our veterans, their families, and this great Nation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, President Bush addressed a Virginia audience, vowing no letup in the war on terror. He acknowledged we have rocky roads ahead but we will not falter. The President said, ``Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision and they end up alienating decent people across the globe.'' And he said, ``And tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent, until the day that free men and women defeat them.'' Mr. Speaker, why did he say this? For what exactly are we fighting is the question. On Saturday, October 29, 2005, in India, explosions rocked two New Delhi markets, killing almost 60 people. Although Indian officials appeared hesitant to immediately place blame, Pakistan-based Islamic militants have been suspected in these bombings. Possibly, as some Indian analysts and newspapers have suggested, these are Pakistani-based groups fighting to wrest Kashmir from India. Meanwhile, in Jakarta, Indonesia, that same day, seven assailants attacked a group of high school girls walking through a cocoa plantation on their way to class in Indonesia's tense province of Central Sulawesi, beheading three and seriously wounding a fourth. The girls were from a private Christian high school. Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation. But Central Sulawesi has a roughly equal number of Muslims and Christians, and sectarian violence. The province witnessed such a bloodly war in 2001-2002 that killed around 1,000 people from both communities. At the time, beheadings, burnings and other atrocities were common. Last week, a grateful Nation paid respects and laid to rest a woman who had the courage to practice her convictions, Rosa Parks. In great part, thanks to her understated fight for freedom, we can take for granted in this country our civil liberties. One of the most fundamental of these, of course, is the simple freedom to worship. However, the irony of our Nation being touched by such a peacefully resolute woman being an agent of change with nothing more than the word ``no'' the same weekend we witness these alternative, violent ways of objecting to our fellow man by these Islamic fundamentalist terrorist practices is not lost on me. As did Rosa Parks, thousands of individuals today around the world want to practice their civil rights in the name of freedom of worship, perhaps in a faith not held by their nation's leaders. We want to practice Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or observe no religion at all, yet there are some people who just cannot stand this, who absolutely refuse to allow us this opportunity. The Web site www.persecution.org, a Web site that tracks human rights and persecution of people for choosing to simply practice their Christian faith, reported on October 6 that 53-year-old Pamilton Tadoa, a member of the Tabernakel Pentecostal Church in Indonesia, was shot in the head and killed in the area of Poso while he road his motorbike to school where he served as a treasurer. His death raised fears of a new Islamic crackdown on evangelicals in Indonesia, where 10,000 Christians died between 1998 and 2003 at the hands of extreme Islamic jihad warriors, according to human rights group Open Doors. About 1,000 churches were burned down by Islamic mobs, Open Door said in that report. Some ask why are we at war? Why are we fighting this war on terror? Because this is how some people in the world continue to settle their differences. Our Nation faces angrily squabbling, fighting mad, groups and individuals who are diametrically opposed to one another, but it seldom rises to the level of bloodshed. We settle our differences at the ballot box, here in Congress, not with car bombs; through media exposure, not machete swipes. If one cannot see that continued civilization itself is in danger, I don't know what else can persuade you. Twenty-six years ago last Friday, November 4, 1979, Islamic terrorists took hostages in Tehran. This is how some people in the world address disputes: They take hostages. They push old men in wheelchairs over ship rails into the sea, the Achille Lauro example. They behead little girls. They strap dynamite to their children and send these innocent children to detonate clusters of fellow innocent citizens. They bomb nightclubs, subways, pillars of commerce and symbols of freedom. As long as people reign who cannot live peacefully, the war on terror must press on for the safety of all of us.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, back in June, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Kelo versus City of New London that states that the Government can seize personal property for the purpose of economic development. Mr. Speaker, this ruling embodies everything for which our Founding Fathers did not want this country to stand. Mr. Speaker, the Kelo ruling is a gross misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment allows for the government to obtain private property for public use, meaning this property can be obtained for the government to build something such as a school or a road. However, the Kelo ruling allows the government to take property owners' farms, private businesses, or even our homes so that big-time investors and businessman can come in to our towns and cities and build shopping malls and supermarkets on the property that is rightfully owned by our constituents. I support H.R. 4128, The Private Property Rights Protection Act, and urge all members to do so. This piece of legislation will allow us as Members of Congress to protect our constituents against the loophole created in Kelo by the Supreme Court, and will allow us to punish those state and localities that take advantage of their citizens and of this ruling.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the recent release of a report from the Independent Inquiry Committee into the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, also known as the Volcker Committee, has once again brought the issue of U.N. mismanagement to the forefront. According to the Volcker Committee, $1.8 billion in kickbacks and elicit surcharges were paid to Saddam Hussein's government by nearly 2,200 different companies in widespread abuse of the Oil-for-Food Program. As we can see, the Oil-for-Food Program lacked proper accountability and oversight, and thus caused massive fraud and abuse. Unfortunately, this lack of accountability and oversight is nothing new at the United Nations. As the largest U.N. donor, the U.S. has the responsibility to ensure that the dollars of the American taxpayers are not being wasted. Until such accounting reforms are made, no United States money should be sent to the U.N. Only after such reforms are enacted will the United Nations begin its return to relevancy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the prospect of an avian flu pandemic has mobilized government officials and health care professionals across the United States. Every year there is a new outbreak of flu strains, with potentially serious consequences for the elderly, children and people with compromised immune systems. In his address this morning, President Bush accurately differentiated between traditional flu viruses and the avian flu. This specific flu strain, H5N1, is particularly virulent, with a 50 percent mortality rate once contracted. To date, 110 people have been infected, and 60 deaths have been attributed to this flu. The virus has been tracked from Mongolia and Siberia, through the Ukraine and Croatia to Turkey. Avian flu has spread to 16 countries. There is not yet an avian pandemic in the United States, but as we live in an ever-shrinking world with all our travel, we must be prepared for its unwelcome arrival. In this week's edition of Newsweek, Dr. Margaret Chan, head of preparedness for the World Health Organization, states, ``Key factors to combating a global pandemic are early detection, quarantines, availability of vaccines and antiviral drugs, and the state of hospital readiness to treat those infected.'' I would like to focus on one of these key factors in particular, the availability of this medication. On May 4 of this year in the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee where I serve, hearings were held on the current state of preparedness for the upcoming flu season. In those hearings, health officials testified that manufacturing of flu vaccines is an annual process beginning in February with the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control publishing their predictions of flu strains that are most likely to spread that winter. Manufacturing vaccines is a lengthy and complex process that leaves little margin for error. The possibility of contamination of these biologically grown vaccines is great, and, as we saw with the vaccine producer Chiron in 2003, could potentially render entire productions worthless. Fear of liability compounds the short supply of vaccines. In the 1960s, the U.S. had more than 26 vaccine producers in this country. Today only five companies remain. Currently, we rely upon one vaccine producer to make the annual flu cocktails as well as eight other common childhood vaccinations such as measles, mumps, diphtheria and meningitis. Lawsuits make production unprofitable and risky, pushing producers away from vaccines and towards the more lucrative industry of antiviral medications. This raises concern among health experts about resurgence of formerly eradicated diseases if vaccine shortages continue. Congress should consider offering companies incentives to enter the vaccine industry and, of course, limiting the liability burden. These were included in President Bush's avian flu strategy this morning. The President has asked Congress to remove the litigation burden on vaccine manufacturers and fund development of new cell culture techniques. These techniques reduce the time lag between identification of a new pandemic threat and development of a vaccine. Avian flu is the current threat to our Nation's health, but we can be assured it will not be the last. Therefore, increasing our vaccine capacity is necessary to our national security. There are two antiviral medications available that are believed to treat avian flu, Tamiflu and Relenex. Tamiflu is the more widely recommended medication, and our government is currently building stockpiles of this medication in anticipation of possible outbreaks in this country. However, there is a danger of many individuals building personal Tamiflu stockpiles. The Washington Post reported that 1.7 million prescriptions for Tamiflu were filled in the United States in just the first 8 months of 2005, which is three times more than last year. Personal stockpiles pose a twofold risk. The first is that private consumers reduce the already limited supply of the drug, causing the government to have to compete to fulfill its supply goals, and cause a shortage of supply for public health care providers. The second threat is from individuals incorrectly self-medicating that can lead to development of a resistant viral strain, limiting the medication's effectiveness. The 2006 agriculture appropriations conference report includes the appropriation of $28 million to control and manage avian flu. We have the ability and obligation to do more. President Bush this morning announced his three-part avian flu strategy to the public, requesting congressional support. This plan incorporates the recommendations of the World Health Organization by monitoring and rapid response to outbreaks, increasing availability of vaccines and antiviral medication, and creating effective pandemic emergency plans in cooperation with State and local authorities. I believe these recommendations are a good start and look forward to reviewing them in further detail. We must not panic. We must be prepared.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from New Hampshire has pointed out, we passed this twice before, and this is the third time. This a timely bill. More importantly, it is appropriate, and it is in need of passage more than ever. So I urge my colleagues not only to support it, but also I urge leadership in both Houses to move this bill to the President.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since the difficult weeks following the destruction wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, America has witnessed the overpowering kindness of the American heart, the charitable generosity of Americans to help each other. That outpouring of support, financial, spiritual, and otherwise, is beginning to give those who are suffering hope that their communities and lives will finally be rebuilt. The generosity of America is the heart of this great land and is a national treasure that benefits the entire world. Unfortunately, there are disturbing reports that some unscrupulous persons are again trying to capitalize on the plight of others to make a fast profit and sully the greatness of America and its capability. Like the reports following September 11, fraudsters are again at work trying to take advantage of the kindness of Americans who want to help people who are suffering. And as we learned at the Katrina hearing I held in my subcommittee, the Internet as well as the old-fashioned door-to-door and telephone solicitations again are the tools of choice for those thieves scheming to defraud Americans of their charitable contributions. This is abhorrent and, in my opinion, particularly egregious in times of national tragedy. While the Federal Government and the States have ways to prosecute these crimes, I think it is absolutely necessary to put those who take advantage of America's charitable generosity on notice that they will face severe penalties. Law enforcement is busy tracking down these thieves, and the Congress needs to make certain that this activity will be aggressively prosecuted once they are exposed and finally brought to justice. Our response to these crimes also must serve to encourage those who want to give their time and money to aid those in need to do so without fear of becoming victims themselves. Whether it is phony Web sites, spam e-mail solicitations, or just the old-fashioned scam artist, we must ensure that the financial generosity of Americans to help those in crisis is not slowly corroded by fraud. Charitable giving is a unique American tradition that provides incredible support to relief efforts and their agencies; and it must, Mr. Speaker, be protected. H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, would double the civil penalties available to the Federal Trade Commission in their prosecutions of fraudulent schemes that exploit popular reaction to national disasters or emergencies as unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Now, these increased penalties, up to $22,000, would go into effect after a declaration of a national emergency or a national disaster by the President of the United States. A trigger for international disasters also was added to the bill in response to international emergencies like the Asian tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a necessary bill that honors the generosity of all American people by ensuring that the tradition, our proud tradition, of charitable giving remains safe from the now notorious and despicable criminals that seek to steal from the hearts of our fellow Americans. I would like to thank, in particular, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his steadfast and strong leadership on this issue. He has done a great service to all Americans with this bill. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3675, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3675) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving unfair or deceptive acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 13 of that Act.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), who is the author of the bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 800, the virtually identical House version of this legislation, I rise today to clear up any questions that might arise when trying to understand the intent of S. 397 and what its enactment would accomplish. The Protection of Lawful Coerce in Arms Act will eliminate predatory lawsuits that would otherwise cripple an entire industry. First, let me make two points about what the bill will not do. Nothing in the bill is intended to allow ``leap-frogging'' over the gun dealer to the manufacturer. The negligent entrustment provision applies specifically to the situation where a dealer knows or reasonably should know that a dangerous person is purchasing a firearm. When the manufacturer has done nothing but sell a legal, non-defective product according to the law, the negligent entrustment provision would not allow a plaintiff bypass of the gun dealer to get to the deeper pockets of the distributor or manufacturer. The amendment in the Senate offered by Senators Frist and Craig regarding ``administrative proceedings'' removed any confusion or misinformed rhetoric regarding the ``administrative proceedings'' section. This legislation will have no effect on the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or any administrative agency to revoke licenses or otherwise engage in administrative proceedings to punish bad acting manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, or otherwise enforce the laws and regulations that apply to them. While I do not think the amendment was necessary because neither my bill nor S. 397 as introduced by Senator Craig did so, now there can be no question. ATF is authorized to begin enforcement proceedings when a violation of our Nation's Federal gun laws has occurred. I want the Congressional Record to clearly reflect some specific examples of the type of predatory lawsuits this bill will immediately stop. The bill was drafted to require courts where these cases are pending or filed to dismiss them on their own motions, what the lawyers call sua sponte. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to not force defendants to incur the additional costs and delay of filing motions and arguing, and certainly not to go through costly trials and appeals of cases that the bill requires be dismissed forthwith. The predatory lawsuits that this bill will stop are an abuse of courts and law-abiding businesses and individuals. A clear cut example is the case of the City of New York v. Beretta USA Corp. et al, currently set for trial on November 27 in Federal court in Brooklyn, NY. The plaintiff has asserted that industry members have created a ``public nuisance.'' The lawful sale of a highly regulated product later misused by criminals is not a public nuisance, and has never been considered a public nuisance in American jurisprudence. One such suit that S. 397 will stop is the suit by the District of Columbia and nine individual plaintiffs who have sued members of the firearms industry under a District statute that, unbelievably, imposes automatic and absolute liability. The statute in question says a manufacturer is liable ``without regard to fault or proof of defect.'' There is also a case pending in Federal court in the District of Columbia in which a gun manufacturer is being sued under this very same statute--Charlot v. Bushmaster. The companies being sued under the District ``automatic'' liability law have no defense. Another example is the case of Ileto v. Glock, in Federal court in Los Angeles, CA, against a manufacturer and a distributor who are being sued over a criminal shooting. The facts, if you can believe it, are that the manufacturer, Glock, sold the pistol later criminally misused, to a Washington State police department and the distributor being sued never owned, sold, nor possessed the firearm that was criminally misused. Yet another example is the cases of Hernandez v. Kahr Arms and Maisonet v. Kahr Arms pending in State court in Massachusetts. Here a manufacturer, Kahr Arms, whose products are used by law enforcement across America, is being sued for a criminal shooting at a well-known gang hangout with a long history of drug use, drug dealing and violence. The criminal shooting was committed with an unfinished, but functioning firearm assembled from individual parts that were stolen from the factory over time by an ex-employee. Following the incident, James A. McNally of the ATF Boston Field Office told the local newspaper that theft from reputable gun manufacturers such as Kahr Arms is relatively rare. He went on to say, ``[Kahr Arms] is the victim. They're not the problem.''--Worcester Telegraph & Gazette at p. 1, March 18, 2000. There is also a pending suit against members of the firearms industry by the city of Gary, IN, even though the State of Indiana has itself passed a State law similar in purpose and intent to S. 397. In the days leading up to the Senate debate this summer lawyers from antigun interest groups rushed to the courthouse to file at least three such lawsuits, one in New York and two in Pennsylvania. There are reports that still more baseless lawsuits have been filed just this week. Congress is properly acting here under its Commerce Clause powers, as we have done many times in the past. We are also rightly concerned, as is the Department of Defense, that if these lawsuits succeed in driving gun manufacturers out of business, the national defense will be harmed. The same is true for our homeland security, as these same companies make the firearms used by law enforcement. It is our obligation to take steps to protect a vital component of our national defense infrastructure--America's ``Arsenal for Democracy.'' The Constitution imposes upon Congress the duty to protect the second amendment and the right it provides to individuals to ``keep and bear arms.'' This right will be a mere illusion if firearms manufacturers are driven out of business by predatory lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, let me continue to be clear here as to the purpose and intent of this bill so that creative lawyers cannot later try to come up with a creative argument to wiggle around this bill. For instance, the intent of Congress and this bill cannot be evaded or avoided by, for example, claiming that a public nuisance suit against manufacturers or sellers is based on criminals who unlawfully or criminally possess firearms but who may have not discharged them in the commission of a crime. In other words, as the author of this legislation, I want my colleagues and our fellow Americans to understand that, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a ``Qualified Civil Liability Action'' covers criminal/unlawful possession, that includes, as used in the act, ``misuse means and includes possession''. I would also like to use this opportunity to clear up some other concerns and misunderstandings. Some have asked, ``Does the language in section 5 create new civil liability for a gun owner, if the person does not use a `secure gun storage or safety device' and the person's gun is stolen and misused?'' I would say quite forcefully that the answer is a resounding ``No.'' The fact is, there are almost no cases finding gun owners liable for misuse of stolen guns. Both the theft and the later crime are ``superseding acts'' that ``break the chain'' of causation under traditional tort law. I would tell my colleagues that the only way section 5 could create liability would be if a court thought it created a new duty or a new standard of care for gun owners. However, the language specifically states that it does not ``create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability [or] establish any standard of care.'' Finally, compliance or noncompliance could not even be used as evidence, except against a dealer who failed to sell the required locks, or by a gun owner who wanted to present his use of a safety device as a defense against a civil suit. On that point, section 5 provides a new defense, not a new line of attack. The purpose of the liability protection language in section 5 is to address gun owners' concern that the ``secure gun storage or safety device'' requirement would expose them to a new kind of lawsuits. The language neither creates nor eliminates liability for gun owners who use safety devices; in effect, it leaves the common law rules unchanged for those gun owners. If individual gun owners' liability for stolen guns becomes a major national issue like the suits against the industry, it could be the subject of additional legislation. The Indiana legislature changed Indiana law to prevent exactly this type of lawsuit after a court decision opened that door. Mr. Speaker, I have made these remarks to ensure that anyone trying to evade the letter and spirit of this legislation will have as little ``wiggle room'' as possible. It is my hope that I have done just that.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will begin the long road to meaningful Medicaid reform and I am proud to be part of this effort. Think back just a decade ago when, together, the Republican-led Congress and then President Clinton, the Democrat President, enacted a successful welfare reform with a transformation of the program from a sixties-era program that became a way of life to a temporary assistance program, sort of a hand and not a handout. I believe we can do this together for Medicaid. The Medicaid program that is vitally sustaining for some people has become a leaking raft, carrying too many others whom we want to help obtain health care with options in competition and consumer choice. It is time to take a fresh look at Medicaid. Spending for Medicaid, Federal-State medical and long-term care for low-income families, elderly and the disabled, has risen very dramatically in the past decade. It has an annual growth of 7.9 percent, almost 8 percent. This is an unsustainable trend. As mandatory spending grows, obviously less money is available for other programs with high priorities, such as education, homeland security and National Institutes of Health research. This is true in the States also. In Florida, Medicaid represents nearly a quarter of the budget and is projected by 2015 to include almost 60 percent. Yet Medicaid does not well serve either the beneficiaries or the providers. It is unwieldy for States to oversee, unfortunately making it a program which attracts fraudulent practices. Finally, it does not provide opportunities and incentives for beneficiaries to take charge of their own health care. This is especially worrisome when some eligibility categories depend upon the Medicaid program, such as the developmentally disabled. Some points I would like to highlight include, one, cost-sharing. No one has said this better than Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, who delivered the national Democratic address on a Saturday in June: ``Number one, everybody pays something. Imagine shopping at a store where nothing has a price tag and you never get a bill. You would spend a lot more than you do now. But this is exactly how Medicaid works today. Until there's a little economic tension, until everyone has a little skin in the game, the system will continue to be inefficient.'' Also, I am encouraged to hear some forward-looking Governors, like Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, who has been discussing the role that beneficiary behavior change could play and has received Federal approval for a tidal change demonstration project in Medicaid. Last Wednesday, October 19, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt approved an innovative Medicaid reform plan that will allow Florida beneficiaries to choose health care plans that best suit their needs, for the first time introducing competition and consumer choice to this government-funded health care program. Florida will begin the phase-in of this unprecedented demonstration in two counties, Broward and Duval, in July 2006. A statewide implementation plan will follow. The demonstration is approved to run through June 30, 2011. My colleagues, these are opportunities in Medicaid coverage where vast savings could be realized. More importantly, quality of life can be vastly improved if beneficiaries would make healthier, more responsible, more forward-looking choices. This could be implemented with a carrot, not a stick, strategy and it is not such a radical departure from other insurance models that we see today. The auto insurance industry has given safe driver discounts for years, and some health insurance plans give, quote, healthy life-style discounts for insurees who use a gym or stop smoking. Let's design a beneficiary- empowering reward system to incentivize beneficiaries to lead healthy, fulfilling lives. Eat healthfully, drink in moderation, stop smoking, exercise, manage stress, purchase long-term care insurance when you are young and healthy, develop strong family and community ties as nurturing resources. Mr. Speaker, finally I am most hopeful about the prospect of making consumer direction in Medicaid a permanent option. For years there has been a proposed pilot project called ``cash and counseling'' in Medicaid in Arkansas, New Jersey and my home State of Florida. Since then it has been expanded to 11 new States who were impressed by its success. In the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, I included a provision creating an analogous demonstration and evaluation project in the Medicare program. And today I plan to introduce ``cash and counseling'' legislation to make it a permanent option so future States do not have to go through the bureaucratic waiver process for years to get on board. Besides the positive features of increasing choice, personal responsibility, and a sense of ownership over one's own health. Let's all take this opportunity to work together, Congress, Governors, beneficiaries, patient advocates, providers, on productive solutions.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his help in bringing this bill to the floor. He has been a leader on this bill in shepherding it through the Committee on the Judiciary time and time again. I also want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for introducing this bill with me through the last three sessions of Congress and all the other Members who have strongly supported the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act over the years. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. Almost the same bill passed this House on this floor 285 to 140. Over 60 Democrats supported it. This legislation will stop baseless lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers based on the criminal or unlawful third-party misuse of firearms. This may seem like an obvious idea. After all, would we hold a car company responsible if a driver gets drunk or reckless and hits somebody with a vehicle? Of course not. This is the United States of America where we are responsible for our own actions; but yet these frivolous lawsuits against a vital, legitimate and perfectly lawful industry have continued unabated for the last several years in the simple hope of bankrupting this industry. This is a commonsense, logical piece of legislation whose time has come. The States, the courts and the American people have decided again and again that these harmful and baseless lawsuits are unfair and must be done away with. If anyone does not believe me, let us take a look at this map. It shows that 33 States, or two-thirds of the United States, have laws prohibiting these same frivolous lawsuits. These States consider it fair and just to prevent these junk lawsuits. I am proud to say my home State of Florida is one of those States. The bill we are considering today is designed to simply mirror these States and what they have done to provide a unified system of laws United States-wide. There have also been dozens and dozens of lawsuits at the local, State, and Federal levels which have rejected this theory that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what violent criminals do with their lawful products. I have three charts here which list in detail these cases. It is really quite impressive the number of these frivolous lawsuits that have been rejected out of hand. If my colleagues would bear with me, I would like to focus on a recent case in this last chart which is circled. This case took place in the County of Los Angeles, California. The cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 12 other California municipalities filed lawsuits against 28 manufacturers, six distributors and three associations. This was a mammoth case and they lost. They appealed it, and it was unanimously upheld by a lower court and the appellate court. I would remind my colleagues that this is an idea that has been enormously popular with the public, also. A March 2005 poll conducted by the Moore Information Public Information Research Company showed that a remarkable 79 percent of the American people believe that firearm manufacturers should not be held legally responsible for violence committed by armed criminals. The fact of the matter is that there are several pending lawsuits which continue to abuse the judicial system and would threaten legitimate, lawful businesses, including in New York City and right here in the District of Columbia. We must also consider that just the mere threat of these suits or taking the first couple of legal steps to defend these suits simply can be enough to force some of the smaller companies out of business. As one proponent of this tactic once bragged, we are going to make the gun industry die a ``death by a thousand cuts.'' This legislation will end these coercive and undemocratic lawsuits. I remind my colleagues and those who are watching at home that this legislation is very narrowly tailored to allow suits against any bad actors to proceed. It includes carefully crafted exceptions to allow legitimate victims their day in court for cases involving defective firearms, breaches of contract, criminal behavior by a gun maker or seller, or the negligent entrustment of a firearm to an irresponsible person. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are voting on this bill. It has been a 6-year effort. It is with a great deal of satisfaction to the 257 bipartisan cosponsors that this bill, H.R. 800, as amended by the Senate and passed by the Senate two to one, 65 to 31, is poised to pass in this Congress as a bipartisan law. I urge my colleagues to join with us in voting for this piece of legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, over the weekend an historic day occurred in Iraq. Millions of Iraqis took another step toward democracy and turned out to vote for a new constitution. While the final results will not be known until the end of this week, the large turnout of voters and the significantly fewer security incidents are, therefore, a sign that Iraq is on the way to democracy. Close to 63 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters cast ballots, which is significantly more than turn out in the U.S. presidential elections. Violent incidences were far less this election than in January. Perhaps contributing to the low levels of violence was the presence of Iraqi security forces themselves. These forces were up 35 percent since January to almost 200,000. Finally, after years of oppression under Saddam Hussein, Iraqis were able to hold a truly fair, open election. Saturday was indeed an historic day.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago next month, a new periodical entered the marketplace and American history. That publication was National Review, its founder and editor was 29- year-old William F. Buckley. From the beginning, Buckley's magazine stood ``athwart history, yelling `Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.'' And for five decades, it has bravely and effectively espoused conservative values and ideas, with both humor and intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the inaugural Publisher's Statement of November 19, 1955, for the Record. It is no surprise that since its inception, we've witnessed Republican victories in eight of eleven Presidential elections, the revolutionary Republican Class of 1994, America's victory in the Cold War, and widespread acceptance of conservative positions like economic freedom, limited government, individual responsibility and traditional values. Obviously, Bill Buckley and National Review did much more than stand athwart history--they helped shape it. America and the world are the better for it. There is no more influential and popular opinion journal in the United States than National Review, with 155,000 paid subscribers and a readership of over 310,000. The Internet version of National Review, NRO, is just as popular and well written. It is well known that Ronald Reagan--who was a Democrat in 1955-- started to read National Review when it first came out, and it played a significant role in his personal and political development. This publication has influenced at least two generations of young conservatives, and will assuredly have a positive impact on many more lives in the future. No doubt there are young men and women here on the Hill, and all across America, who are reading National Review, perhaps for the very first time, and whose lives will be transformed. In addition to the 50th anniversary of National Review, William F. Buckley will also soon be celebrating his 80th birthday. Buckley, who served in the U.S. Army, worked for the CIA, and graduated from Yale, has had a very busy and productive life. In addition to editing National Review up until last year, he has written 47 books, including 18 novels, some 900 editorials or other articles in National Review, 350 articles in other periodicals, more than 4,000 newspaper columns, and for 34 years he hosted the tremendous talk-show ``Firing Line,'' where he had over 1,400 televised debates with people ranging from Muhammed Ali to Margaret Thatcher to Noam Chomsky to Mother Theresa. He famously ran for Mayor of New York City in 1965 as the Conservative Party candidate. Although he predicted be would receive only one vote, Buckley in fact won 13 percent, and to this day his race is considered one of the City's most rollicking and interesting campaigns ever. Buckley counted as his friends conservative and intellectual giants such as Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, L. Brent Bozell and Claire Luce Booth. The conservative movement he helped nurture and flourish gave us Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker, it was Buckley's younger brother Reid, I believe, who best summed up the philosophy that guided William F. Buckley and his life's work. He noted that: ``We learned from our parents to prefer the good man to the brilliant man. It is a sacred humanity in people we respect. Our compassion is earned in the quality of the human condition. People are surprised to realize that we, princelings of Dame Fortune, as they feel us to be, tread the same hard interior landscape. And it may be this that comes through, that fascinates, because we do not presume, `Come, let us lead you,' but, instead, petition, `Come, our philosophy is your way, the human way, and it is you who will and must lead yourselves. . .' '' I offer a most sincere ``happy birthday'' to Bill Buckley, and ``thank you'' for his wonderful creation, and I congratulate the family at National Review for 50 years of fine work, with hopefully many more yet to come. [From National Review, January 03, 2005} Standing Athwart History, Yelling Stop (By William F. Buckley, Jr.) There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for National Review. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined. Let's face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did National Review not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it. National Review is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic. ``I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,'' said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, ``but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does.'' We have come around to Mr. Holmes' view, so much that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater--of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things. Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals'. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler's bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror. Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country--at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is a serious question of whether there are others--are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is a dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality of never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity. There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses--on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending. And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas--not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is--dare we say it?--as necessary to better living as Chemistry. We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for National Review. Yet we start with a considerable--and considered-- optimism. After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over 50 men and women of small means invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives. Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn't enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D's in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Can a Member of Congress intimate as the gentleman from New Jersey is doing about Mr. DeLay in reference to a black book and all the innuendo that he is doing on the House floor? Can he do that?

Mr. STEARNS. I am stating an inquiry.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago a new periodical entered the marketplace in American history. That publication was National Review. Its founder and editor was 29-year-old William F. Buckley. From the beginning, Buckley's magazine stood ``athwart history, yelling `Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urged it.'' And for 5 decades, it has bravely and effectively espoused conservative values and ideas, with both humor and intelligence. It is no surprise that since its inception, we have seen widespread acceptance of conservative principles like economic freedom, individual responsibility, and traditional values. Buckley and National Review did much more than ``stand athwart history.'' They helped shape it and America and the world are better for it. I offer a most sincere happy birthday to William Buckley and thank him for his wonderful creation, and I congratulate the family at National Review for 50 years of fine work with hopefully many more years to come.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as summer turns towards winter, the American people will continue to face high prices of gasoline and soon will face even higher costs for natural gas. Short of moving to Florida or another warm weather State, the American people are looking to Congress to solve this problem. Recent events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have highlighted a very serious problem with the Nation's crude oil and gasoline supply/demand balance. One way to fix this balance is for the United States to increase its refining and production capacity. No new refinery has been built in the United States in nearly 30 years. Total current capacity at operating refineries is 17 million barrels per day while total U.S. demand is nearly 21 million barrels per day. Therefore, the only way to bridge this gap is to increase the amount of imported refined products from foreign sources. Currently the U.S. imports 7.9 percent of its total refined petroleum products. By 2005, the U.S. is expected to import 10.7 percent of its total. Mr. Speaker, these staggering numbers further underscore the dire need for new and increased refining capacity in the United States. If not, we will continue to rely on unstable, anti-American governments to meet our growing demand for gasoline. Not only will this situation be a blow to economic growth in this country but it will also represent a serious national security risk for all of us. Even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a number of market factors contributed to the record high gas prices: An increased demand at home and abroad, political unrest in the Middle East and in Africa and product disruptions contributed to the already tightening supply of crude oil. Until refining capacity and production capacity grow faster than demand, oil markets will remain tight and vulnerable to unforeseen and unpreventable events such as natural disasters. The high cost of gasoline and other fuels has the potential to stifle economic and job growth and is putting a strain on the wallets of American families. Of course the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on oil and gas is to encourage conservation. Making sure your tires are inflated properly, carpooling and using public transportation are all fast and easy ways to conserve gasoline. In homes, buying energy-efficient appliances and making sure doors and windows are properly sealed are effective ways to conserve. But, Mr. Speaker, these are short-term fixes. Curbing demand is necessary, but in the long term it is not merely enough. We need to increase domestic production of oil. Currently the U.S. imports about 60 percent of all of its oil. The Department of Energy projects this number to increase to 73 percent by the year 2025. In order to ensure reliable and secure supplies of oil, we have no choice but to increase the domestic supply. One way to increase production is to finally open ANWR to oil and gas exploration in Alaska. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there is between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable. This estimate does not take into account that with new technology, the share could become even higher. A resource of this magnitude cannot simply be ignored. ANWR alone would be capable of reversing the decline in U.S. petroleum supply within a decade. It is not a quick fix. There are no quick fixes. But it is the quickest and most reliable option we now have to reverse the decline brought upon us by years of neglect of our domestic capacity. In addition to gasoline, oil and natural gas play a key role in the homes of all of us. Oil and natural gas help generate the electricity that powers lights, appliances and entertainment systems. They also provide the building block for plastics, resealable food storage containers, and durable appliances and electronics, all of which contribute to a convenient and safe environment for all of us. In closing, Mr. Speaker, even under the best circumstances, storms like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would have had a noticeable impact on oil markets. However, at a time of extremely high demand and tight supplies, practically shutting down the United States' largest oil and refining region caused even greater pressure on our oil markets. In order to alleviate this pressure, we must increase our domestic refining capacity and production. If not, gasoline and home heating prices will continue to climb.