[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Issue]
[Pages 17065-17225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 17065]]
VOLUME 149--PART 13
SENATE--Tuesday, July 8, 2003
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
______
prayer
The Chaplain, ADM Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Eternal Lord God, who rules the raging of the sea, great and
marvelous are Your works; just and true are Your ways. Thank You for
smiling upon America and for blessing this Nation with your generous
providence. Forgive our tendency to forget Your goodness and our
failure to express gratitude for Your gifts. Thank You for these
Senators, who seek to produce fruits that will nourish this land. Give
them a kindness that remembers those on life's margins and a courage
that will narrow the gap between the creed and the deed. Remove the
scales from our eyes, that we might discover celestial solutions to
Earth's most difficult problems. Today, let our words, thoughts, and
actions honor and glorify Your Holy Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The PRESIDENT pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period
of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the
Senate will begin up to 15 minutes of debate on the nomination of David
Campbell to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona. At
11:45, the Senate will vote on the Campbell nomination. Immediately
following that vote, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to
invoke cloture on the nomination of Victor Wolski to be a judge of the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Therefore, the first vote will occur at
11:45 and that vote will be the first of two back-to-back votes.
For the remainder of the day, the Senate will resume debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 11, the Patients First Act. A cloture motion on
the motion to proceed to the bill was filed yesterday and that cloture
vote will occur on Wednesday.
I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Wolski
nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to
S. 11.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the
majority leader if there were not a vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on Wolski, would the distinguished majority leader consider
allowing several hours this afternoon to debate Wolski? If cloture is
invoked, of course, we would have 30 hours. It would seem to me that
for the people who have been seeking this vote, we could vitiate the
cloture vote and the leader could give us, say, 3 or 4 hours to debate
Wolski and then vote.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would certainly entertain that. I ask if
I might have a discussion with Chairman Hatch, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, before committing to that, and I will get back
shortly with the assistant Democratic leader.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the unanimous consent request
withdrawn?
Mr. FRIST. No, it is not.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. No.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be a
period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with the time equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during
the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
PATIENTS FIRST ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business
on the issue that is pending before the Senate, which is the motion to
proceed on S. 11. This is a bill relative to an important issue that
really we have to grapple with in this country, and that is the
question of medical malpractice. It is an issue which has come at us in
so many different ways. Unfortunately, the bill that is before us, S.
11, which we are now considering under a motion to proceed, looks at
the issue of medical malpractice from only one narrow perspective, and
from my point of view a very ineffective perspective.
What the bill before us would suggest is if you or a member of your
family or one of your children is a victim of medical malpractice,
there would be a
[[Page 17066]]
strict limitation in this bill of how much you could recover in court
for what is known as noneconomic losses, pain and suffering. That
strict limitation would be $250,000.
To many people, $250,000 seems to be a very substantial sum of money,
and it is until it is put in the perspective of the injuries we are
discussing. Yesterday, in the course of the debate, I told the story of
a 6-year-old boy in my home State of Illinois who went to a downstate
clinic with a high fever. Unfortunately, he did not receive appropriate
medical care and a jury decided he had been a victim of medical
negligence. The doctors who had treated him did not perform the type of
medical procedures necessary to monitor his serious condition. As a
result of that, this poor little boy at the age of 6 became
quadriplegic and uncommunicative. It is now 11 years later. He is 17
years old. He needs care around the clock. He cannot respond to
stimulus that ordinary people do. He certainly cannot communicate. His
situation for the past 11 years is, frankly, what he will face as long
as he is alive.
That is a harrowing prospect for his family and it means they are
going to have to dedicate the rest of their lives, as mother and
father, to try to make his life on Earth as bearable as possible. So
$250,000 in that context has to be taken from a different perspective.
It goes beyond his medical bills, of which he will receive
compensation, to the question of pain and suffering for him and
certainly for his family.
If this young man, now at the age of 17, is going to live 20, 30, or
40 years, what is $250,000 worth? That $250,000 turns out to be a very
small amount when we consider that the injuries he suffered and the
problems he has endured are going to be there for a lifetime. So for us
to say we will decide in the Senate in S. 11, the bill that is before
us, that this little boy and his family will never receive more than
$250,000 regardless of the circumstances facing him for the rest of his
life, I think is totally unfair.
In fact, it is a dramatic departure from where we have been in the
United States for so long. We have said, first, that this is an issue
to be decided by each State. Each State should decide if there is going
to be a limitation on how much money someone can receive if they are a
victim of a certain injury or malpractice.
Secondly, we have said historically this is an issue not to be
decided by 100 Senators, men and women sitting in Washington, but
literally by 12 of this family's neighbors and friends who live in the
community, who will try to reach a fair amount of compensation when in
fact they find fault on the part of the doctor and the hospital. That
is the jury system. It is a system we have believed in in America from
the start of this Nation. It really is a system which parallels free
elections in America where we say we entrust our Government to the
people of this country.
In the courtroom, we entrust these decisions to the people of
America, 12 of them chosen at random to come to a fair conclusion.
Those who are pushing this bill today say we can no longer trust the
jury system in America; we cannot trust 12 of this little boy's
neighbors and friends and people in the community to come forward and
reach a fair verdict.
I think that is a terrible condemnation of a system of justice which
has really been the bedrock of American principles and American values.
It is curious to me that many of the same people who decide today
that the jury system consists of people who cannot be trusted will
readily trust the jury system when it comes to questions of criminal
penalties, penalties as severe as the death penalty. If we trust a jury
of 12 to decide the life or death of a criminal defendant, is it not
also fair to say we would trust them to decide a fair amount of
damages, a fair amount of compensation, for this child and his family?
Well, no. S. 11, offered on the Republican side of the aisle, says
the opposite. It says, we will make the decision here. We are smarter.
We know what is fair, and $250,000 is adequate compensation for this
little boy who will face a lifetime now of care on a daily basis,
minute by minute, whose mother has had to quit her job so she can stay
home and tend to this 17-year-old boy who was a victim of medical
malpractice.
Let me also add that equally unfair and unjust in S. 11 is the
treatment of people who are senior citizens, who have been the victims
of medical malpractice, because what this bill compensates are medical
bills and lost wages, and limits any other recovery to $250,000. So if
one happens to be a senior citizen who has no active income, perhaps a
little retirement and the money they derive from their savings, and
they are a victim of medical malpractice, they are limited to $250,000
compensation.
I will come back later today and talk about a couple who were
victimized frankly because a blood bank gave them blood that was
tainted with the HIV virus, which resulted in this 70-year-old couple
contracting that HIV infection, ultimately dying of AIDS. It was a sad
situation and one that was graphic in terms of the malpractice
involved. But because they were not wage earners, their compensation
under this bill would be virtually nothing.
The medical care which they would receive, of course, would be
compensated, but it would only be $250,000 for pain and suffering.
Let's go to the root cause of this debate. Why are we even talking
about medical malpractice on the Senate floor? It is because we do have
a serious national challenge. In many States, including my own, for
many specialities of medical practice we have seen medical malpractice
insurance premiums increasing at an alarming rate. When we have asked
the General Accounting Office and private firms to analyze why this has
happened, they have said there is a variety of reasons that have led up
to it. Yes, in fact, there are more settlements in cases involving
medical malpractice than there have been in the past, and in some
marginal cases more verdicts. It is an indication of the fact there is
more medical negligence being discovered, and even the Department of
Health and Human Services gave us testimony a few weeks ago that we are
facing medical negligence and medical errors across America, in their
words, of epidemic proportion. So now we have this huge wave of
exposure and liability coming at the medical profession, and naturally
there are more lawsuits that are being filed to reflect this wave, this
epidemic, of medical negligence.
What has happened on the insurance side to protect the doctors?
Sadly, this has been, frankly, a casino mentality among many of the
medical malpractice insurers. Back in the Clinton administration, when
we had a strong, vibrant, growing economy, when the Dow Jones index was
going up regularly and people saw their retirement incomes growing and
their savings growing, many people were investing in the stock market
and doing well and many insurance companies did as well, too.
In the case of medical malpractice insurers, they would collect the
premiums from the doctors, invest them in the stock market or in bonds
and do very well.
Now what has happened? In the last 2\1/2\ years under this
administration, we have seen the economy in recession; we have lost
jobs; we have lost businesses; we have seen people lose their life
savings; they have made new decisions on whether they have to continue
to work.
Business investment, as well, has not been as profitable. These
insurance companies that thought they had a winning formula are
starting to lose. The premiums collected from doctors, invested in
bonds and the stock market, have not been as profitable. Because of
this, many of these companies have gone out of business or raised their
premiums because of anticipated exposure for medical errors. Those
raised premiums have caused real hardship among doctors in America.
Senator Daschle came to the Senate floor yesterday--and I tried to
make the point, also--to say we understand this issue is serious. On
the Democratic side of the aisle, we have offered to the Republican
side of the aisle to come together on a bipartisan basis to deal
[[Page 17067]]
with the malpractice insurance crisis and the malpractice crisis in
America. But we cannot resolve this issue by introducing a bill, S. 11,
that only goes after one discrete part of it--limiting the recovery of
medical malpractice to victims.
This drastic response is not going to solve the underlying problem.
We need to come together on a bipartisan basis as we did on terrorism
insurance after September 11. We found a way to do it. But we can only
do it if we engage the three elements that can lead to success. Those
elements are: First, the medical profession itself. We have to bring
together those doctors of good will across America who want to work
with us to reduce medical errors, to bring more safety to the practice
of medicine, to take away from the practice of medicine those doctors
and practitioners who are largely responsible for medical malpractice.
Fifty percent of the medical malpractice claims in America can be
attributed to 5 percent of the doctors. We need to make certain the
medical profession is more vigilant in taking these doctors out of the
practice of medicine, are changing the way they practice medicine so
fewer innocent victims emerge from this experience.
Second, we need to bring in the insurance industry. I know this is a
sacred cow in the Senate, to talk about insurance companies and holding
them accountable for the way they are treating doctors across America.
But you cannot have an honest conversation about dealing with medical
malpractice premiums without talking about the insurance industry. We
could cap recoveries across America in every courtroom for every victim
of medical malpractice with no guarantee that medical malpractice
premiums are going to decrease for doctors across America.
Here is what I think we should do. First, we should eliminate the
antitrust exemption for insurance companies across America. To think we
allow these companies to collude, to come together and share pricing
information to the detriment of their customers--in this case, their
doctors--is indefensible. The McCarran-Ferguson Act should be repealed
so the antitrust exemption is removed from the U.S. industry.
Second, we need to look at the whole question of reinsurance. Most of
these malpractice insurance companies only protect doctors up to a
certain amount--perhaps $1 million or $2 million--in terms of their
exposure to liability. Then they sell off the additional exposure--$2
million to $10 million, $2 million to $20 million--and buy insurance to
cover it. There are five major companies selling reinsurance in the
medical malpractice area. Four are offshore and not regulated by any
State or Federal regulation in the United States. We have no oversight
of the way they are treating malpractice insurers in America. That is a
guarantee that, no matter what we do in the Senate, there will still be
ultimate vulnerability by the medical profession to unreasonable and
excessive malpractice premiums.
The solution involves: Bringing together the medical profession to
reduce medical errors, to reduce medical injuries; bringing the
insurance industry in to make certain that we have some accountability
and fairness in the premium charges; and, finally, bringing in those in
the legal profession to make certain that any lawyer filing a frivolous
malpractice lawsuit is going to be held accountable for the costs and
attorney fees, initially, and ultimately, if he or she continues doing
so, banned from filing future lawsuits; also making certain that
punitive damages would be eliminated in virtually all medical
malpractice cases. All of these factors will move us toward a solution
to this problem.
This week, we are going to be visited by many doctors from across the
United States. They will come and tell us of their legitimate concerns
about malpractice premiums that are hurting their profession and
limiting the availability of good medicine and good doctors across
America. I do not quarrel with their premise that they have a problem
that needs to be resolved, that we need to face squarely and honestly.
But this morning, at 11 o'clock, I will hold a press conference in
which we will have five victims of medical malpractice. They will tell
their heartbreaking stories, how they went to the doctor, they went to
the hospital, and came home so injured and so changed that their lives
were never the same. The $250,000 being offered by the sponsors of S.
11 is totally inadequate to the injuries they suffered. The limitation
of $250,000 would make them wards of the state and dependent on
government and charity for the rest of their life. That is what is
being offered on the Republican side of the aisle.
The last point I make is this: When you read S. 11 closely, you will
find it is not only about doctors and hospitals, it is also about
protecting from liability HMO insurance companies and health care
organizations, the makers of medical devices, and those pharmaceutical
companies that are found to have been negligent in the sale of their
products.
I cannot understand how the medical profession can allow itself to be
used by the sponsors of this bill so that those who are coming in to
represent these special interest groups--the HMOs and managed care
organizations, the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical device
companies--get protection, using as their argument the sympathy that is
being generated on behalf of doctors who are struggling with
malpractice premiums. That is unfair to the doctors; it is unfair to
the hospitals; it is unfair to the Senate, that we would include in S.
11 that type of limitation.
Finally, this bill, S. 11, allows for punitive damages in the most
limited circumstances. It requires that there be a deliberate act on
the part of a doctor for punitive damages to apply, as well as
malicious intent being another option under punitive damages.
When I made an inquiry yesterday as to what it would mean if a doctor
were intoxicated or an addict to drugs and, because of that
intoxication or addiction, performed some medical procedure which
harmed a person for life, I was told that punitive damage section would
apply. I have to say quite honestly it does not because the language of
the section is only about deliberate and intentional conduct, not about
the kind of gross negligence involved in addiction and intoxication.
As we look at S. 11, we owe the medical profession as well as the
people of America more than is being offered. To bring this bill on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis, to say we will have no committee hearings,
no amendment process in committee, no opportunity for an exchange of
information, is not fair to the people of America. I hope we can do
better--I think we can--that when the vote takes place tomorrow on the
cloture motion, we will see a number of Senators are going to come
forward and ask that we try to resolve this difference in a fair way,
in a balanced way, rather than this unbalanced and unfair way being
offered.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. As I listen to the Senator today--and I am aware of what
the Senator talked about yesterday--is the Senator saying he is not
opposed to our doing something regarding medical malpractice?
Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly true. The Senator's home State, the State
of Nevada, was a classic example of serious problems that were
ultimately addressed last year by legislative action when the State of
Nevada accepted its responsibility.
We need to deal with this through each State, and we need to find
ways on the Federal level to try to make certain we do not have States
in crisis, as mentioned yesterday, because of malpractice premiums.
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. In Nevada, the Governor,
Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, called a special session of the Nevada
Legislature to address this problem which was created by one insurance
company that decided to take a powder when the stock market fell, as
the Senator aptly described.
The Senator, who previously served in the House of Representatives,
also said during his statements in the Senate that if we are going to
move important legislation such as this, there
[[Page 17068]]
should be committee hearings discussing the legislation. It is true, is
it not, that we have had no hearings on this legislation?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Nevada, that is accurate.
In fact, we had a limited hearing last February on the issue but not on
this bill. Senator Coleman of Minnesota had a hearing in the
Governmental Affairs Committee to talk about the general issue of
medical malpractice, where the administration testified we are facing
an epidemic of medical malpractice in America. But no one has sat down
to measure whether this bill will actually reduce malpractice premiums.
The only studies that have been done by the General Accounting Office,
as well as by a group known as the Weiss Institute, have come to the
conclusion that limiting the recovery of victims in medical malpractice
lawsuits is no guarantee of malpractice premiums coming down. In fact,
in many cases of States with caps on the recovery, limitations on
recovery for malpractice victims, the malpractice premiums for doctors
have gone up.
There is no linear connection or guarantee that limiting the recovery
for victims is going to help the doctors, yet that is the only solution
that is before us on the floor today.
Mr. REID. It is also true, is it not, I say to the Senator from
Illinois, that the two studies of the Weiss and the General Accounting
Office are not studies that have been paid for, were involved with or
directed by attorneys? Is that a fair statement?
Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly right. I would say to the Senator from
Nevada, it is true the medical profession feels very strongly on one
side and the trial bar on the other. But what I have tried to do is
gather information from those who have no axe to grind, people who are
trying to analyze this problem honestly. The conclusions they have
reached suggest to me this is a much more complex problem than what we
see today.
Unfortunately, S. 11 I think is a political answer to a much more
serious problem. If this is a question about whether the White House is
going to take on the trial bar in some sort of confrontation for the
next election, that is one thing. It is an interesting political
battle. It is not going to solve the problem, not in my State or any
other State. We have to deal with it honestly by saying the medical
profession, the insurance industry, as well as the legal profession
have to come to the table. We need to have not only committee hearings
so we can see publicly what this issue is all about, but we need to
have a good-faith effort. We can do it.
I think the Senator from Nevada recalls after 9/11 we had a problem
with terrorism, of course, and the threat of terrorism. That had an
impact on the construction industry and on investment. So people came
to us and said: We can't get people to invest in building new buildings
unless we do something about terrorism insurance.
We sat down on a bipartisan basis and worked it out. Senator Daschle
came to the floor yesterday and said: Use the same model on
malpractice. Bring us together, Republican and Democrat alike, and try
to find common ground and a solution. If it is not through a committee
process, let it be through an honest to goodness, good-faith
negotiation, but we can achieve that goal.
Mr. REID. The Senator is aware, is he not, the reason terrorism
insurance was held up for so long is that Republicans wanted absolute
tort reform, everything involving medical malpractice, slips and falls,
rear-end automobile accidents--everything. We said: Why don't we just
deal with terrorism insurance? We finally prevailed, and we have done a
good job. There is construction going on all over America today, and
they are able to go forward because they can get terrorism insurance
based upon the legislation we passed.
The Senator, as I understand it--I want to make sure I am correct in
this--believes reform is needed?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. REID. No. 2, you believe we should do it through the ordinary
process, have committee hearings.
Finally, you believe the insurance industry should be involved in
this because the McCarran-Ferguson Act, named after Senator Pat
McCarran of Nevada, was passed to give a few years of relief to the
insurance industry so they could gather together during the Depression
and not be involved with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and now, some 70
years later, they are the only business other than major league
baseball that is not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. So the
Senator believes they should be like other businesses in America,
subject to the Antitrust Act.
If we did some reform here and we involved the committee structure
and we involved the insurance industry, I think we could move the bill
pretty quickly. Does the Senator agree?
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator.
One other thing that needs to be part of the record: Even if we
enacted S. 11, which is the cap on recovery for medical malpractice
victims--children, elderly people and families alike--there is no
guarantee medical malpractice insurance premiums will come down. In
Nevada, significant reform legislation was passed but, as I understand
it, the premiums did not start coming down for some period of time, if
at all.
Mr. REID. It is absolutely true. The fact is, if you look around the
country, insurance rates have not gone down where these medical
malpractice reforms have been initiated.
But another thing it doesn't take into consideration is the
tremendous harm done to people who have no ability to move forward when
a doctor does something wrong to them.
I think the Senator indicated there are about 100,000 people killed
because of medical malpractice in America every year. But that doesn't
take into consideration the people who are paralyzed, people who are
injured and damaged in many other ways. With this cap, these cases
simply do not go forward.
So it is really not fair to analyze what goes on in those States
because you don't take into consideration the damage, the harm, the
pain and suffering of these people who have no way to recover their
expenses as a result of a direct negligent act by a physician.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree. I say to the Senator from Nevada, I do not
profess to be an expert, but I did, in my private practice as an
attorney before I came to the Congress, have several malpractice cases.
In some I defended doctors and in some I sued doctors for what I
believed to be malpractice. Those are heartbreaking cases and should
not be dismissed easily by the Members of the Senate until they sit
down and talk to families.
I can recall a family who brought in an infant girl to my office. She
had gone to the doctor for her ordinary baby shots, which I am sure the
Senator from Nevada and my family have done; we have brought our
children in for them without any real concern. This poor little girl,
because she had a condition known as roseola, a form of measles that
was undetected before the administration of the baby shot, ended up
with a serious reaction to the pertussis vaccine for whooping cough and
literally became a quadriplegic. This little girl was going to live the
rest of her life in a virtual coma-like state and need constant care.
What we hear from the other side of the aisle is that that is not
worth more than $250,000.
I would say, if I were the parent of that little girl, I would view
this a lot differently. I would want to have a jury of my peers to
decide what it is worth, what is the value.
But S. 11 takes away the authority of the jury to make that decision
and decides we will make the decision here for every case in America--
no matter how serious the injury to the infant or the person who is the
victim of malpractice, no matter what the circumstances--to strictly
limit it to a $250,000 recovery.
I think that is unfair. I think the Senator from Nevada has made the
point.
The last point I will make on this issue is that I think we need to
give the doctors immediate relief on malpractice premiums. I am going
to introduce legislation with Senator
[[Page 17069]]
Graham of South Carolina that will provide an immediate tax credit, in
addition to the deductibility, an immediate tax credit of up to 20
percent for relief to the specialties that are hardest hit by these
increases in premiums for malpractice insurance--neurosurgery, OB/GYN,
trauma surgeons. I really believe we need to do something quickly.
S. 11 does nothing but change a law which may or may not, in 3 or 4
years, result in premiums going down. It is far better for us to do
something on an immediate basis, an emergency basis. I hope the medical
association and societies across America will take a hard look at this
bill--it is being offered in good faith to deal with the immediate
crisis--rather than penalize the victims of medical malpractice.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could say one thing--I know the
Democratic leader is in the Chamber--I have the highest respect and
admiration for my colleague from the State of Nevada, Senator John
Ensign, who has introduced this legislation. He is passionately
involved with doing something to solve this medical malpractice crisis.
As I have indicated, I have supported his efforts to do something about
it. He and I tend to disagree on how to do it. But I want the record to
be spread with the fact that I have great respect and admiration for
his moving forward on this problem.
I only wish there had been full committee hearings on his
legislation. I think it would have improved it before it reached the
floor. I think he has been shortchanged by not having his legislation
brought before the appropriate committee, had hearings, and then
brought here. I think with some changes in this legislation it is
something we could all support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment again, as I did yesterday,
the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his great work on this
issue and for beginning this educational process that I think has to be
a part of the debate at this time.
I also want to thank, as is always the case, the distinguished
assistant Democratic leader for his involvement in these discussions as
well.
I have concerns about where we are with regard to this issue on at
least two counts.
First of all, the procedural count: I wish I had $1 for every
occasion when Republicans would lament the fact that the committee
process was bypassed. Yet here we are. There has been no hearing. There
has been no markup. There has been no committee consideration at all of
what is one of the most complex and extremely controversial issues to
face the Senate and the country. To bypass the entire committee process
and bring the bill straight to the floor does an injustice to the
issue.
As Senator Reid has noted, a bill of this magnitude deserves careful
consideration, deserves the opportunity to be heard, and deserves the
chance to have some debate in the committee among the experts who know
this issue. I think it would be very helpful.
It is interesting that the president of the Tort Reform Association
said don't count on insurance premiums going down if this legislation
passes. I think Senators need to know that. If the president of the
Tort Association of America says, look, don't expect any relief, what
is it we are doing? This isn't from some trial. This is a person who
advocates tort reform, but he is in the name of real honesty saying:
Look, this is not the reason we are arguing for tort reform today. It
is not going to bring down insurance premiums.
I think procedurally we have a real concern about the reason we are
here today. I think that is something that ought to be considered very
carefully. This is an important bill. It deserves the kind of careful,
substantive attention that only committees can bring.
Second, of course, is the issue itself. As the distinguished Senator
from Illinois has said so ably, we understand how important it is to
address the seriousness of insurance premiums. We have two approaches
before us: The one offered by the Senator from Illinois, and the one
offered by the Senator from South Carolina which will give immediate
relief. We are talking within the next couple of weeks, if this went to
the President's desk, immediate relief for meaningful insurance cost
reduction.
When I go home that is the issue about which doctors tell me they are
concerned. They can't afford to pay the premiums. There is no better
way to reduce the premiums than to give them the immediate relief
offered in the Graham-Durbin bill. But I must say this is also a
recognition of the concern.
There has to be a way to address the problems created when mistakes
are made. Tommy Thompson himself--certainly no advocate of the status
quo--has recognized that last year, the year before that, and the year
before that 100,000 people died as a result of mistakes made in
operating rooms, in clinics, and hospitals across the country. That is
not my figure. That is not some special interest figure. That is the
Secretary of Health and Human Services--100,000 people died.
I oftentimes find myself equating numbers with Vietnam and Vietnam-
era veterans. We lost 58,000 people in Vietnam. We are losing almost
twice that number every year due to mistakes made in operating rooms
and in hospitals.
What I find perplexing--interesting--is that our Republican
colleagues, who say the States know best how to govern, are saying:
Well, in this case we don't think that is the case. In this case what
we think is we know better. Washington is going to dictate to the
States what the laws with regard to tort will be. Not only are we going
to set the cap at $250,000, but we are actually, under the legislation
before us today, going to preempt every single State law except the
cap.
We are going to tell the States we know better and we are going to
dictate to the States what it is they are going to have to abide by
from here on out--total Federal preemption of State law. It is amazing
that is coming from our Republican colleagues.
I would also say I am concerned because I can probably even consider
looking at caps if there was any conclusive evidence that caps work.
There is a very respected analytical group that made, with some
fanfare, a decision a couple of years ago to examine this whole
relationship between caps and premiums. They announced when they
started the study that they did not know how it is was going to turn
out. It could be pro-cap or it could be anti-cap. They didn't know. But
they believed an objective review of the available information ought to
be considered. They studied it. They looked at every single State. They
released their findings about 3 weeks ago.
Do you know what they found? They found that there is no
relationship. In fact, what they found is, in those States where there
are caps, insurance premiums went up more than in those States that
didn't have caps.
They are not arguing that caps had anything to do with it. But it is
an interesting fact. Those States today with caps have actually seen
higher insurance premiums than those without caps, according to this
very respected independent study just released.
Both on the substantive as well as on the procedural issue, we have
great concern with the fact that we are here today. We have a solution.
I would argue to anyone on the other side who really wants to resolve
this issue that we go back to what we did last year with terrorism
insurance. That, too, was a tort reform question. Member after Member
came to the floor and said unless we deal with tort reform we will
never solve the terrorism insurance question. We sat together in a
bipartisan fashion--Republicans and Democrats--worked out a reinsurance
concept and passed it on the Senate floor, finally, after a great deal
of tribulation and negotiation, with a large margin.
If you go to New York or to Chicago or to the hometown of the Senator
from Illinois or a lot of other places, you will find that the
terrorism insurance bill worked. I would argue it worked in part
because procedurally we decided to come together and resolve it
[[Page 17070]]
and solve it. I think it worked in partly because we addressed the
issue with real solutions. We didn't get hung up on all of this tort
reform because that wasn't the issue there either.
Today, we still celebrate a success story. We celebrate a success
story here, too. We have a bipartisan Graham-Durbin bill. It might not
be everything. Maybe we can figure out a way to make it an even better
bill. I think we have to deal with reinsurance. I think we have to find
a way to deal with reinsurance reform. We have to provide immediate
relief and the tax credit relief proposed by the Senator from Illinois.
We can do that. I think it is important that we do it. I think it is
important that we recognize unless we do it that way we are not going
to solve this issue.
Cloture will not be invoked tomorrow--not because we don't want to
solve this problem but because we don't want to have a bill that is
poorly conceived and will not solve the problem and which will be
rammed down the throats of the country. We can find a better way to do
this.
I would just implore my colleagues on the other side to work with us
to make that happen.
Let me again thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his
work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his
comments and for his leadership on this issue. I think he has shown a
good-faith effort in the past to deal with issues and with the
complexity of terrorism insurance. And that opportunity is still here
today.
This week in Washington, many representatives of the medical
profession will come to visit us and talk about the seriousness of this
issue. They don't need to convince me; I am convinced.
The question is, How do we resolve it fairly and not just for doctors
but for the victims of medical malpractice. We can do this. But I don't
believe S. 11 is the way to approach it.
If we are going to allow this to disintegrate into a political face-
off between the White House and the trial lawyers of America, perhaps
when it is all over someone will have bragging rights for a 30-second
ad. It will not help the doctor with whom I met who is serving
Primbrook Township, south of the city of Chicago about an hour-and-a-
half drive. You will find some of the poorest rural towns in America in
Primbrook Township. This doctor is literally giving his life to the
poor who need medical care. He said to me 2 weeks ago in Washington:
Senator, I am here to receive this Jefferson Award, and I am proud of
it, but I need help with malpractice insurance. I want to help him.
Limiting the recovery by malpractice victims may ultimately give
someone some satisfaction that they have scored a political victory
over the trial bar, or perhaps their limitation of victims' recovery
will give them some satisfaction, but it is not going to help that
doctor. It is not going to reduce his premiums. It is not going to give
him an opportunity to continue his practice.
So I say to my friends in the medical profession--and this doctor is
a good example--we honor and respect what you do. We need you. We need
to work with you. Do not get so caught up in a political agenda
involving the White House and the trial lawyers that you overlook the
fact there are many people of good faith and good will who want to sit
down and help.
We believe this can be done. It can be done in a way that is not
going to deny the parents and the family of the small child, who, as I
mentioned earlier, is going to live a lifetime of medical dependency
because of medical malpractice. It is not going to be done in a way
that is going to deny a woman who went in for simple cosmetic surgery
and ended up with horrific burns on her face that required a dozen
operations and years and years of suffering. That is not the way to
resolve this.
Do this in a fair way for doctors; do it in a fair way for medical
malpractice victims. Do not be afraid to call in the special interest
group, the insurance companies, and tell them they have to be part of
this conversation. We have the power in Congress to bring them in. We
have the power to change the laws to make sure they treat doctors and
hospitals fairly and to make certain the medical profession comes
forward.
It is interesting to me that as I have discussed the issue of medical
malpractice with doctors in my State and across the Nation, they have
been of one mind and one voice and they have agreed: We need to do more
to make certain we reduce the incidence of medical errors.
A doctor, who is a friend of mine, in Decatur, IL, also works on the
board of a local hospital. He said he went to the hospital pharmacy
where they literally write thousands of prescriptions each year for the
patients who come through that hospital and they wanted to find out how
many errors had been made in the prescriptions that had been written.
They came up with a handful of examples. The doctor said to me:
Senator, I know better, and you know better. We're not doing a good
enough job here to make certain that mistakes are not made in the drugs
that are prescribed and the prescriptions that are written.
We can do a better job--and we should--to have medical safety.
Doctors want the best results. They do not want bad results. Certainly,
the families and patients do not, either. We can work together to try
to improve medical care in America in a professional way.
The bill I am going to introduce is going to allow for the transfer
of information, data on medical safety, and the transfer of information
without legal liability, so a doctor who would report an incident at a
hospital that may lead to a change in a procedure or perhaps to a
disciplining of a doctor is not going to be held legally responsible
for having come forward with this information.
I think that is the only fair and honest way to deal with this issue.
But if we are going to deal with it, let us look at each of those
components: the medical profession, the insurance industry, as well as
the legal profession.
What I do not want to see occur is what S. 11 really mandates; that
is, instead of a jury of 12 in communities across America taking a look
at each individual case to decide what a fair, reasonable verdict and
outcome might be, we would have a jury of 100, 100 Senators, men and
women elected here, who would sit in judgment of every single case in
America involving medical malpractice.
We are not going to hear the story of the parents, who are going to
come from that downstate community in Illinois, who took their little
boy in with a high fever, who expected medical care--which each of us
would expect as parents bringing in our baby with a fever to a clinic--
and did not receive it because no temperature monitor was in place and,
as a consequence, that little boy's high fever led to complications,
quadriplegia, and the fact that he now has a lifetime of medical
dependence on his parents. He will never enjoy the simple things in
life which each of us takes for granted.
We are not going to hear that story in the Senate as a jury would
hear in a courtroom. We will not hear the details of his life and what
it means now: the pain and suffering he goes through every single day.
No, we will not hear those facts. We will not make a decision based on
the reality of the malpractice that this family and boy endured.
Instead, we will make a decision, under S. 11, that says $250,000 is
the maximum amount that boy and his family will ever receive for the
injuries which they have suffered when it comes to pain and suffering.
That isn't fair. We should not stand as a jury and make that decision.
We ought to trust a jury system that has been part of American justice
for a long time, a system that we rely on every single day in thousands
of courtrooms across America.
I think a sensible approach is to say that we do have a problem; we
will work with the doctors; we will work with the insurance companies;
and we will work with the legal profession to find a reasonable
alternative to it. S. 11 is not that alternative.
If, in fact, the cloture motion is defeated tomorrow, which means we
do
[[Page 17071]]
not proceed to the bill, I make this offer, not only to the sponsors of
that bill but to all who are interested in this issue, that I will
personally engage myself in trying to find a reasonable, good-faith
alternative that reduces malpractice rates, premium rates, particularly
for those doctors who have no experience of wrongdoing--now, there are
some doctors paying high rates who, frankly, have to pay them because
they have been found guilty of malpractice--but for the innocent
doctors, who have given their lives to medicine and who come forward
every single day in a valiant effort to save and improve lives, I will
stand on their side to make certain that they are treated reasonably
and fairly.
Please do not turn to S. 11 as your only recourse because S. 11,
being offered on the floor today, is one bill which is as unfair to
malpractice victims as the insurance premiums are unfair to doctors in
many places in America today. Let us work together-- as we can; as we
did under the terrorism insurance legislation--to find a reasonable
alternative.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for about 15 minutes on an upcoming judicial nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining time is on the majority side. Is
there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I was scheduled to make a statement on the
medical liability bill, and I am prepared to do that at this time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator how long he intends to
speak.
Mr. ENSIGN. Probably 10, 20 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from
Nevada finishes his remarks, I be recognized for 15 minutes on the
nomination of Mr. Wolski on which we will vote at 11:45 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was the Chair's understanding there would
be a substitute in the chair so he could make a statement on the
Republican time following Senator Ensign's speech and that the debate
would begin at 11:30 a.m. on the judges.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, are you saying there is no time between
now and 11:30 a.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time has been reserved on the
Republican side.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have come to the Chamber to talk about
the legislation we are going to be discussing for the next couple of
days. It is very important legislation that affects people in virtually
every State in the country.
We have patients today being denied access to medical care in many
States across the country, and we are going to explore why that is
happening and what I believe the solution should be. Several States are
losing medical professionals at an alarming rate, leaving thousands of
patients without a health care provider to serve their needs.
In Bisbee, AZ, the town's only maternity ward closed. Today expectant
mothers must drive more than half an hour to have their babies
delivered. In Mississippi, 11 out of 21 obstetricians terminated
service in four rural counties. In my home State of Nevada, our only
level 1 trauma center closed for 10 days, leaving every patient within
10,000 square miles unserved by a trauma unit.
The bottom line is patients cannot get care when they need it most.
By definition, this is a crisis. This crisis boils down to two factors:
affordability and availability of medical liability insurance for
providers.
The States in red are currently in crisis. A number are new States in
crisis. We can see they have been added, including the Chair's State of
Wyoming. My State has been in crisis for quite some time now, and it
has led to a lot of the national press, but it is certainly not alone.
The States indicated in yellow are the States that have problem signs.
The States that currently seem to be OK are indicated in white, and we
can see that very few States are in pretty good shape. Most of those
States have enacted medical liability reform that has been in place
long enough to stabilize the rates on medical liability insurance.
On affordability, the American Medical Association found that in the
year 2000, medical liability insurance rates increased at least 30
percent in 8 States and by at least 25 percent in more than 12 other
States. In this past year, the physicians in my State would be pleased
if the rates had only gone up that much. These rates are forcing more
physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers to limit their
practices or to leave the profession altogether.
Anecdotally--and obviously this hospital would not want this word to
get out--at this time of the year when they get applications for new
residents, they normally get about 18 to 20 residents applying for
slots at that hospital. That is an average of 18 to 20 each year. This
year they have received zero applications, and that is because of the
medical liability crisis that is occurring in my State.
Rates are forcing so many physicians and hospitals into a situation
they did not want to be in. They went into these practices because of
the compassion they felt for patients, and they are not being able to
deliver the services because of the out-of-control costs of medical
liability insurance.
On the issue of availability, thousands of doctors nationwide have
been left with no liability insurance as major insurers are either
leaving the market or raising the rates to astronomical levels.
Why are insurers raising rates or leaving the market? Because there
is no stability in the marketplace for providing medical liability
insurance. Why is that the case? Because our health care system is
being overrun by frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards. This
excessive litigation is leading to higher health care costs to every
American and an unstable peace of mind for our health care providers.
This chart shows the average payment in red from the year 1989 to the
year 2001 and the median payment. We can see the dramatic increase,
especially in the last few years, and if this chart continued out, it
is continuing that trend up to the point where the average being paid
in jury awards is continuing to skyrocket, and it is doing that because
of the number of over $1 million awards being made by juries.
This is a chart reflecting the median jury award. We can see this is
the $1 million line, and we can see what has happened. It has gone up.
This, unfortunately, has created a situation where doctors, hospitals,
and health care providers cannot afford to buy the insurance they need
to continue practicing.
This excessive litigation is leading to higher health care costs for
every American and an unstable peace of mind for our health care
providers. Health care professionals are forced to practice defensive
medicine by ordering unnecessary tests just to avoid being sued for
``underdiagnosing'' their patients. A study by the Department of Health
and Human Services found defensive medicine is costing the Federal
Government an estimated $28 billion to $47 billion in unnecessary
health care costs.
Who else pays for these unnecessary costs? Every American with health
insurance in the form of higher premiums and, obviously, the American
taxpayer. Too often costs are so great that employers have to stop
offering coverage altogether, thereby increasing the number of
uninsured Americans. A lot of those uninsured Americans are younger,
healthier people. So the people who are left in the health care field
are a higher risk pool, which drives up the cost even more, which
causes more and more people to not be
[[Page 17072]]
able to afford health care insurance; therefore, more uninsured. It is
a vicious cycle that goes on and on. This cycle has to be stopped. We
can do that by passing national medical liability reform right now.
Comprehensive reform is critical on a national level because every
American patient should have access to affordable and high quality
health care. Likewise, every responsible, meritorious member of the
health care community should not be afraid to provide such care because
of the fear of litigation.
To achieve these reforms, I have introduced the legislation that is
before us today, known as the HEALTH Act. It has several key reforms.
It includes a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, joint liability, and
collateral source improvements, and limits on attorney's fees according
to a sliding scale award.
In addition, my legislation includes an expert witness provision to
ensure that relevant medical experts serve as trial witnesses instead
of the so-called professional witnesses who are used to further abuse
the system today. If one talks to physicians, there is literally a
whole industry that has been created of these ``professional
witnesses.'' It would make sense that if somebody was testifying in a
case involving neurology, that the person should have expertise in the
field of neurology. I think that makes incredible common sense, but
that is not the way it works today. As long as somebody is a physician,
they are able to testify and be called an ``expert.''
Our legislation today says that if they are to be called an expert,
they must have expertise in the field in which they are testifying.
Over 50 organizations are in support of my bill, including business
groups, medical associates, device manufacturers, and the list goes on.
I have heard from people all over my State, and not just physicians.
This is not a doctors versus lawyers issue. This is about patient
access to medical care. That is why we have heard from nurses, physical
therapists, and people who work in doctors' offices and understand the
problem that is going on. We have heard, of course, from physicians,
but we have also heard mostly from the patients who understand; we have
gotten so many calls from women whose physicians used to deliver
babies. The women are now pregnant and their obstetricians no longer
can deliver babies because they may be a high risk delivery and they
can no longer afford to provide that type of a service.
The broad coalition that has come forward to urge meaningful reform
highlights that this problem affects a number of industries, not only
our health care system. Starting the Senate debate with our strongest
proposal is critical because we must not approve a weak bill that the
President will not be able to sign into law. Doing something weak as a
Band-Aid would actually make things worse, and that is why we need very
strong legislation.
Opponents of this legislation ask how I know this approach works. It
works because this legislation is modeled after the highly successful
legislation that passed and has been in place for over 20 years in
California. It is known as MICRA. MICRA has brought about real reform
to California's liability system. The number of frivolous lawsuits
going to trial has declined dramatically. Injured patients receive a
larger share of their rewards because of the limits on the fees that go
to the trial attorneys. Disciplinary actions against incompetent health
care providers have increased.
The bottom line is that California's medical liability system works.
This is a quote by one of our colleagues from the other side of the
aisle, Senator Dianne Feinstein, January 14, 2003:
With the California law, we have a time-tested solution.
California passed MICRA in 1975, so we have our 27 years of
successful experience with the law.
One important point, neither MICRA nor my legislation limits the
amount of economic damages that an injured patient can recover. As in
every other profession, mistakes are made by health care providers. I
practiced veterinary medicine after graduating from Colorado State
University. I saw firsthand that mistakes are made.
Medicine is an art and a science, and there is a human being
practicing that very inexact science. Every day somewhere mistakes are
made. They are unfortunate. We should do everything we can to limit
those mistakes, but we know mistakes will be made.
Sometimes they are mistakes in judgment. When one looks back in
hindsight, they can see how they could have made that decision
differently. But when they are faced with it at the time, because the
human body does not read the textbook--this is how the disease is
supposed to progress, this is how the injury is supposed to progress--
the human body does not read that. So sometimes it reacts differently
to the way the physician was trained, and so what looks like a mistake
in a court of law could have actually been a very difficult judgment
call. Yet a lot of these are frivolous lawsuits that are going to
trial.
In our legislation, we are trying to bring some balance back to the
system. We do limit the amount of noneconomic damages, pain and
suffering as it is most often referred. People say, how can that be
limited? How can losing a leg be limited or how can a dollar figure be
put on that?
Well, a dollar figure can never be put on it. No amount could ever be
justified to somebody for some of the things that happen to them, but
we have to look at the overall good of our system.
With the system we have now, we are losing doctors, and we are losing
the kind of patient care we need. How does one put a dollar figure on
the doctor not being there, on the health care provider not being
there, on the hospital closing, on the trauma center closing?
We had a press conference several months ago in Washington with a
woman whose father was in Las Vegas visiting, and it happened to be the
week that our trauma center closed. During that week, unfortunately, he
needed our trauma center. I cannot tell my colleagues that he would
have lived if it was open, but the reason trauma centers exist is
because they provide intense expertise in the area of trauma. They have
great results, much better than normal emergency rooms. Unfortunately
for this family, that trauma center was closed.
By the way, the only way we were able to reopen the trauma center in
Las Vegas was because the State stepped in and said that we are going
to limit not to $250,000, but we are going to limit to $50,000 any
injuries and malpractice that occurs. That is not just noneconomic,
that is even economic damages. That is the only way that the trauma
center in Las Vegas was able to open. We are losing all kinds of
experts in emergency rooms in other areas in Las Vegas as well.
People talk about decreasing the amount of mistakes by physicians,
and we need to do that. It is very difficult and very complex to do.
One of the ways we can do that is to enact legislation to encourage
voluntary reporting. The current system actually is a protectionist-
type system that if somebody voluntarily reports mistakes, they set
themselves up for lawsuits. So we have no way to follow where the
mistakes are being made and to point out trends so we can correct those
mistakes.
The House has passed patient safety legislation. We are going to be
working on that in the HELP Committee, of which I am a member. I hope,
in a bipartisan fashion, we can craft patient safety legislation that
will make the outcomes more of what we all want to see. That means
fewer mistakes. But understand that there is no way to have a mistake-
free environment in such an area where the science is so inexact. We
have an opportunity here.
We have an opportunity with so many States now in crisis. The States
in red on the chart are in crisis; the States in yellow show serious
problem signs. We have a chance in the Senate--the House of
Representatives has already enacted this legislation--to make a real
difference in patients' lives. We can make sure trauma centers do not
close. We can make sure when a woman needs access to an obstetrician
she can have that access.
A friend of mine has Parkinson's disease, lives in Las Vegas, and has
to go
[[Page 17073]]
to Loma Linda where his specialist treats him. We do not have that
particular field of subspecialty in southern Nevada. He talked his
physician into coming to Las Vegas before the crisis hit Nevada. When
the crisis hit and we lost our major carrier of medical liability
insurance, the rates literally doubled and tripled overnight, and that
physician decided to stay in California. Why? Because they have enacted
a law that has kept rates reasonably low.
My next chart shows differences in larger cities around the country.
First, OB/GYN in Los Angeles, a well-to-do area that has enacted
medical liability reform, $54,000 on average for an OB/GYN; in Denver,
also where they have had enacted legislation, $30,000. Then we have New
York, Las Vegas, Chicago, with Miami the worst. These are places that
do not have medical liability reform. In Miami, rates are over $200,000
on average for an OB/GYN.
People say doctors make plenty of money. Have you talked to an OB/GYN
lately about their average income? In Las Vegas, the average income is
around $200,000 for an OB/GYN who goes through 8 years of undergraduate
and medical school and then a 5-year residency. They come out $250,000
to $300,000 in debt minimum and they work about 100 to 110 hours a week
to make $200,000. And their rates now in Las Vegas are around $130,000
to $140,000, up from a couple of years ago around $40,000 or $50,000 a
year.
Because of managed care they are not able to increase their rates, so
it comes out of their pockets. That is why a lot of them are leaving
our State. That is why a lot of new people are not going into the
practice of obstetrics and gynecology. Especially for delivery of high-
risk patients, rates have skyrocketed. Many physicians simply will not
treat high-risk patients.
What are the women to do with a high-risk pregnancy? More and more
women today are choosing to have babies later and later in life, and
more and more of them have high-risk pregnancies as a result. With
fewer and fewer doctors able to deliver high-risk pregnancies, this
does not add up. That is why it is so critical to enact this
legislation before the Senate today.
I know where the politics lie. We will probably not be able to pass
this legislation at this point. However, I want people to take a hard
look, talk to the patients in your States, find out what is really
happening at the grassroots level. This is not a question of how much
money a physician makes. This is not a question of whether hospitals or
insurance companies are going to be profitable. This is a question of
whether when somebody needs the health care services to save lives or
deliver babies, that health care will be there because the provider is
there.
I am passionate about this issue because people are in jeopardy of
not getting the kinds of lifesaving services they need, the types of
services that improve the quality of life for so many Americans. That
is why this legislation is so critical today.
As we go forward over the next 24 hours debating this bill, I
encourage Members to have a healthy debate with an up-or-down vote and
start hearing from the American people on this issue. If Senators
listen to their constituents, they will hear loudly and clearly we need
to reform our medical liability system so we can afford to have health
care that is so desperately needed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with remaining time
on our side of 4 minutes 21 seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Idaho be given
whatever time he needs. He is talking about a very important subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent to begin debate
on judges at 11:30.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senator have whatever time he
needs up to 25 minutes to the hour for this very important statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Democrat leader and I were visiting a
few moments ago about our Fourth of July break and what we were doing.
That is one of the reasons I am speaking this morning. I thank the
Senator from Nevada for that courtesy.
We all went home during the Fourth of July break to celebrate a
birthday, the birthday of our great Nation. We gathered with family and
friends. We set off fireworks. Some Members were in parades. It was all
about a birthday, the birthday of this great Nation.
My wife Suzanne and I were also home in Idaho because of other
birthdays. On May 31 of this year, our daughter Shae and her husband
David had twins. Two new grandchildren entered both Suzanne's and my
life, a boy and a girl, born on May 31. The little boy's name is Drew
Calvin Howell and he weighed 5 pounds and 3 ounces. His sister, I am
sure always to be called the little sister, is Peyton Shae Howell, and
she was born at 11:54. Drew was born at 11:32. She weighed 4 pounds and
1 ounce. They are twins and were premature so they stayed the first 3
weeks of their lives in intensive care in a Boise hospital before they
were allowed to come home.
Here we are, Fourth of July, and they are really home for the first
time. It is the first time grandpa had a chance to hold them and love
them and see them and be around them. It was a treat for our family but
especially for Suzanne and myself to be with our grandchildren.
This Fourth of July in Idaho with our family took on special meaning
as we celebrated the birthday of these grandchildren, these twins, with
our daughter Shae and her husband David. It is always an important time
in families when grandchildren enter them. Drew and Peyton are the
sixth and seventh grandchildren, so we feel very privileged by that.
Often we come to the floor to talk about momentous and meaningful
events. The Republican Senator from Nevada just spoke about a critical
issue of reforming health care in our country, and malpractice. But
probably there is no more important event than when grandchildren enter
our lives.
I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, morning business is
closed.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOMINATION OF DAVID G. CAMPBELL, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 11:30 having arrived, the Senate
will proceed to executive session for the consideration of Executive
Calendar No. 227 until the hour of 11:45, with the time equally divided
between the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
or their designees.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of David G. Campbell, of
Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote with respect to the Wolski nomination be vitiated; provided
further that at 2:15 today the Senate resume the motion to proceed to
S. 11; further, I ask unanimous consent that on
[[Page 17074]]
Wednesday the time between 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. be equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees; that at 11:30 the Senate
proceed to the vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S.
11; and, regardless of the outcome of that vote the Senate then proceed
to an immediate vote on the confirmation of Victor Wolski to be a judge
of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
I further ask unanimous consent that immediately after the
confirmation of the Wolski nomination the Senate proceed en bloc to
Executive Calendar Nos. 87, 129, and 130; and, further, that the
nominations be confirmed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action,
and the Senate then resume legislative session.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following that action the
Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 77, S. 925,
the State Department authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not
object--I will make a comment and then pose a clarification.
I talked to the majority leader earlier today about the concerns that
we have regarding Mr. Wolski. Although it was not our intent to extend
the debate indefinitely, it was our view that, given the nature of his
nomination, it deserved a little additional attention and some specific
time for debate beyond that which we were provided this morning.
I wish to express my appreciation to the majority leader for giving
us that opportunity. I hope, if there are breaks in the debate either
today or tonight, that Senators who have an interest in this particular
nomination use that time in addition to the amount of time that is
earmarked for the debate on the nomination tomorrow morning. So we will
certainly find a way in which to make that part of the schedule.
The clarification: As I understand it--and I ask for the majority
leader's affirmation--Nos. 89, 129, and 130 are the nominations
involving the Federal Claims Court. They are the other nominees whose
names are still pending on the Executive Calendar. I ask the majority
leader if that is, indeed, the case.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is the case, and the understanding as
put forth in the unanimous consent request is that we proceed to them
en bloc. They are the other three on the claims court.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more
than 2 minutes on the nomination of David Campbell upon which we are
about to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I advise my colleagues that the person we are
about to vote on is one of the smartest candidates for Federal district
court that I have ever seen nominated by a President of either party.
His name is David Campbell. He is nominated to be a U.S. District Judge
for the District of Arizona.
He has a distinguished record in the State of Arizona, primarily with
the Phoenix law firm of Osborn and Maledon. He was a graduate of the
University of Utah Law School in 1979, where he was a note editor on
the Law Review and was awarded the Order of Coif.
He clerked for both Judge Clifford Wallace for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice
William Rehnquist.
He has practiced primarily in the civil area but has a broad
experience, including a lot of work with the Arizona State Bar
Association's Committee on Rules of Professional Responsibility, and he
has been cobar counsel in a majority bar disciplinary case.
In addition to his work in the law practice, he has taught as adjunct
professor of law at the Arizona State University Law School and was a
visiting professor at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young
University where he was named Professor of the Year.
He has published articles and has had a distinguished career as a
lawyer in the State of Arizona.
I think the Senate will be proud to have confirmed him to the Federal
bench. He epitomizes what we are looking for in judicial temperament,
intelligence and integrity, and I think the State of Arizona and the
U.S. bench generally will be the better as a result of our confirmation
of David Campbell.
I commend the President for his nomination of David Campbell.
I also express appreciation to David's wife Stacey and their five
children for putting up with what will now be a career on the Federal
bench for this very fine candidate, David Campbell.
I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of his nomination to
be a U.S. Federal judge.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the confirmation of David G. Campbell to serve as a judge of the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
David Campbell is an extremely well-qualified nominee with a
significant amount of litigation experience, and he will make an
excellent addition to the federal bench.
He received his undergraduate degree magna cum laude, as well as his
law degree, from the University of Utah--which, in my view, is a
reliable and persuasive indication of his excellent judgment.
Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Campbell clerked for Ninth
Circuit Judge Clifford Wallace, and for then Associate Justice William
Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court.
He joined the Phoenix law firm of Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn &
Maledon in 1982 and became a partner there in 1986. Since 1995, Mr.
Campbell has been a partner at its successor firm, Osborn Maledon,
where he practices in the area of general civil litigation. The
American Bar Association bestowed on Mr. Campbell its highest rating of
unanimously well qualified in recognition of his outstanding legal
skills and reputation.
In addition to his distinguished legal career, Mr. Campbell has been
a great asset to his community and has donated many hours of pro bono
service and volunteer time to help individuals and families in need in
his community. His volunteer service has included building homes for
the homeless in Mexico, providing Christmas supplies to crises
nurseries, and providing back to school clothing for disadvantaged
children. He was also named Professor of the Year in 1991 by the J.
Rueben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University for his service as
a visiting civil procedure professor.
I am confident that David Campbell will be a model jurist, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we vote to confirm David Campbell to
a lifetime appointment on the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona. With this confirmation, we will fill the sole
vacancy on that court--which is actually not even vacant yet. Mr.
Campbell is nominated to a new position that will become vacant on July
15. I have been glad to work with the Senators from Arizona to consider
this nominee and provide bipartisan support. I congratulate the nominee
and his family.
The Senate has now confirmed 133 judges nominated by President Bush,
including 26 circuit court judges. One hundred judicial nominees were
confirmed when Democrats acted as the Senate majority for 17 months
from the summer of 2001 to adjournment last year. After today, 33 will
have been confirmed in the other 12 months in which Republicans have
controlled the confirmation process under President
[[Page 17075]]
Bush. This total of 133 judges confirmed for President Bush is more
confirmations than the Republicans allowed President Clinton in all of
1995, 1996 and 1997--the first 3 years they controlled the Senate
process for President Clinton. In those 3 full years, the Republican
leadership in the Senate allowed only 111 judicial nominees to be
confirmed, which included only 18 circuit court judges. We have already
exceeded that total by 20 percent and the circuit court total by 40
percent with 6 months remaining to us this year. In truth, we have
achieved all this in less than 2 years because of the delays in
organizing and reorganizing the Senate in 2001. The Judiciary Committee
was not even reassigned until July 10, 2001, so we have now confirmed
133 judges in less than 2 years.
In the first half of this year, the 33 confirmations is more than
Republicans allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session, when
only 17 district court judges were added to the Federal courts across
the Nation. In the first half of this year, with 9 circuit court
confirmations, we have already exceeded the average of seven per year
achieved by Republican leadership from 1995 through the early part of
2001. That is more circuit court confirmations in 6 months than
Republicans allowed confirmed in the entire 1996 session, in which
there were none confirmed; in all of 1997, when there were 7 confirmed;
in all of 1999, when there were 7 confirmed; or in all of 2000, when
there were 8 confirmed. The Senate is moving two to three times faster
for this President's nominees than for President Clinton's, despite the
fact that the current appellate court nominees are more controversial,
divisive and less widely-supported than President Clinton's appellate
court nominees were.
The confirmation of David Campbell to the District Court for Arizona
illustrates the effect of the reforms to the process that the
Democratic leadership has spearheaded, despite the poor treatment of
too many Democratic nominees through the practice of anonymous holds
and other obstructionist tactics employed by some in the preceding 6
years. David Campbell is the fourth Federal judge confirmed from
Arizona for President Bush. Under Democratic control, the Senate
confirmed Judge David Bury, Judge Cindy Jorgenson and Judge Frederick
Martone to the District Court for the District of Arizona.
If the Senate did not confirm another judicial nominee all year and
simply adjourned today, we would have treated President Bush more
fairly and would have acted on more of his judicial nominees than
Republicans did for President Clinton in 1995-97 or the period 1996-99.
In addition, the vacancies on the Federal courts around the country are
significantly lower than the 80 vacancies Republicans left at the end
of 1997 or the 110 vacancies that Democrats inherited in the summer of
2001. We continue well below the 67 vacancy level that Senator Hatch
used to call ``full employment'' for the Federal judiciary. Indeed we
have reduced vacancies to their lowest level in the last 13 years. So
while unemployment has continued to climb for Americans to 6.1 percent
last month, the Senate has helped lower the vacancy rate in Federal
courts to a historically low level that we have not witnessed in over a
decade. Of course, the Senate is not adjourning for the year and the
Judiciary Committee continues to hold hearings for Bush judicial
nominees at between two and four times as many as it did for President
Clinton's.
For those who are claiming that Democrats are blockading this
President's judicial nominees, this is another example of how quickly
and easily the Senate can act when we proceed cooperatively with
consensus nominees. The Senate's record fairly considered has been
outstanding--especially when contrasted with the obstruction of
President Clinton's moderate judicial nominees by Republicans between
1996 and 2001.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on
the nomination of David Campbell to serve as a U.S. District Judge for
the District of Arizona.
I was unable to vote because I was returning to Washington, DC from
official travel to Iraq in connection with my duties as a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Had I been present, I would have supported Mr. Campbell's
confirmation to the district bench. After reviewing his credentials, I
believe Mr. Campbell is well prepared to serve in this important
position and has the proper judicial temperament to fairly and justly
apply the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of David G. Campbell, of Arizona, to be
United States District Judge for the District of Arizona?
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Miller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Ex.]
YEAS--92
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Biden
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Inhofe
Kerry
Lieberman
Miller
Nelson (FL)
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, the
President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now return to legislative
session.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PATIENTS FIRST ACT
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, throughout the West, and all over the
country, more and more physicians are closing up shop and moving their
practices out of State because they can no longer afford their medical
liability insurance premiums in States that don't have some kind of a
control over the amount that can be awarded.
Whenever I go home for a town meeting or when I visit with
constituents, I hear story after story about people who are facing the
loss of the sole option for health care in their towns because of the
skyrocketing premiums their doctors must pay.
[[Page 17076]]
One constituent told me about her family physician in Newcastle, WY.
She had to close her doors because the cost of insurance premiums made
it impossible for her to provide obstetrical services to the pregnant
women of the town. She said: Telling a pregnant woman I won't be there
to deliver her baby was one of the hardest things I had to do as a
family physician.
She then joined two other doctors in Newcastle to announce as of July
1 they would be unable to deliver babies because of a more than 50-
percent increase in their liability insurance premiums. That means
pregnant women in the Newcastle area will now drive 30 to 90 miles when
it comes time to deliver their babies. This is a problem for the people
of Newcastle, but it is one that also faces the people who live in a
lot of towns throughout my State of Wyoming and many other States.
Take Jackson, WY, for instance. A surgeon there paid $16,000 for
liability insurance in his first year in practice. He is now facing an
increase in his rates that will place his premium at $164,000. That is
a jump of $148,000 in 1 year. Emergency room and trauma doctors are
facing similar jumps in the cost of liability insurance. An emergency
room doctor in Rawlins, WY, nearly closed his practice after his
insurance company announced it would no longer provide coverage for
emergency room services. Fortunately, his hospital was able to find him
coverage at the last minute, but this is merely a temporary solution to
a critical problem.
Recruiting physicians to practice in rural States such as Wyoming is
a difficult job. The high cost of medical liability premiums is making
it nearly impossible. These examples highlight the problem we are
facing. This problem is not just about lawsuits and insurance rates, it
is about people who cannot get the medical attention they need. It is
about communities without doctors to serve them. It is about a health
care system in crisis.
The cost of medical liability insurance and the role of medical
litigation raise very complex issues, but the focus is not and should
not be on doctors or trial lawyers or insurance companies fighting
among themselves. Our focus should be on patients and on ensuring
accessible and affordable health care for all Americans. In Wyoming,
ensuring access to affordable health care is a persistent challenge. We
probably would have a shortage of health care providers even if our
medical liability system worked perfectly, but the costs of medical
litigation and of medical liability insurance are taking matters from
bad to worse for the people of my State.
In fact, a study released yesterday by the Agency for Health Care
Research and Quality found that States that limit pain and suffering
awards in medical lawsuits have more physicians per capita than States
such as Wyoming that have no such limits.
Here are some other examples of the impact this crisis is having on
Wyomingites:
Two physicians who practice internal medicine in my hometown of
Gillette have been notified that their medical liability insurance will
be canceled as of July 31--not increased, canceled. If they are unable
to find insurance coverage to replace their canceled policy in 2 weeks,
they will be forced to close their practice in a town that is already
experiencing a shortage of primary care doctors.
Another doctor in Casper, WY, was barely able to find insurance
coverage for this year. The doctor delivers more than 350 babies each
year. Nearly half of the mothers are covered by Medicaid. He also
performs nearly one-half of the gynecological surgeries in the Casper
area. The only insurance he was able to find cost him $140,000 per year
with an additional $69,000 to purchase ``tail'' coverage in case he is
sued for something that happened before his new insurance took effect.
In Wyoming, a physician who delivers a baby can be sued any time
until the child's eighth birthday. So this ``tail'' is quite long,
which means the premium could be quite high. In addition, this coverage
is a short-term policy only good for 1 year, and he expects his cost of
insurance will increase substantially again next year. Without his
service, many pregnant mothers will find it difficult to obtain
important prenatal care, especially expectant mothers in low-income
families.
Earlier this year, a doctor in Wheatland, WY, went to a high school
basketball game between the Wheatland Bulldogs and the nearby Douglas
Bearcats. At the game, he announced he would not be delivering any more
babies in Wheatland or Douglas and may be leaving the State because of
the cost of liability insurance. The irony is that he had delivered
just about every player on both teams. This was not somebody new in
practice.
We also have doctors who are being forced to leave Wyoming to find
relief from the financial burden of liability insurance. One doctor
from Riverton, WY, grew up there, married a native of Wyoming, and
returned to Riverton to raise his family and practice medicine in the
State he loves. But between paying off student loans from medical
school and paying expensive premiums on liability insurance, he is
being forced to move to a State that has limits on pain and suffering
awards. By moving, he will reduce his premiums by $43,000 a year.
The threat of lawsuits is enough by itself to raise insurance
premiums in a State such as Wyoming. Plus, with so few doctors
purchasing insurance in the pool, one major payout, whether the doctor
was at fault or not, can really send premiums for every doctor right
through the roof. As a result, many doctors in Wyoming are moving to
States with larger risk pools and fairer liability laws, just as their
colleague from Riverton is doing.
People who are truly injured by errors made by health care providers
ought to be compensated fairly for their losses. However, the medical
justice system today does not achieve this objective. If fair
compensation is the standard, our medical justice system falls woefully
short of the mark. Most people who are injured as a result of health
care errors do not receive any compensation. However, some who are
injured receive multimillion-dollar judgments as compensation for a bad
outcome often without regard for whether the physician or hospital was
even negligent.
The unpredictability of our medical justice system really does not
serve patients or providers well. The only people who come out ahead
are the personal injury lawyers who happen to find the right case. When
it becomes impossible for insurance companies to predict their losses
with any certainty, premiums go up. It is a fact of the business, and
it is no different for property insurers or life insurers than it is
for medical liability insurers.
Yes, people are hurt by health care errors, but skyrocketing medical
liability premiums are hurting people, too. They are hurting physicians
and hospitals in my home State by forcing them to curtail services or,
in the case of doctors, to leave their practices entirely. Those
doctors who continue to practice now look at each patient as a
potential lawsuit. So they order more tests, whether or not the patient
needs the tests. They spend less time discussing a course of treatment
with the patient so they can spend more time writing a report after the
appointment to justify the treatment decision in case they get sued.
Ordering more tests and writing more reports costs an already
overworked doctor time with his or her family and time to catch up on
his or her sleep. Doctors should not have to make choices between what
is right for their patients and what is right for themselves, but our
medical litigation system does not offer them a real alternative.
Most importantly, the medical liability crisis in my State is hurting
innocent citizens who are losing their trusted hometown doctors to
other States that have reformed their medical justice systems.
What do we know about our overall system of medical justice in
America today? We know compensation to patients injured by medical
errors is neither prompt nor fair. We also know verdicts with huge
awards that do not match the severity of injuries or the
[[Page 17077]]
conduct of the defendants destabilize the insurance markets. This sends
premiums skyrocketing, which forces many physicians to curtail, move,
or drop their practices. This leaves patients without access to
necessary medical care.
Finally, we know litigation does nothing to improve quality or
safety. In fact, the constant threat of litigation drives the
inefficient and costly practice of defensive medicine and also
discourages the exchange of information about preventable health care
errors that we could use to improve the quality and safety of patient
care.
The current medical liability crisis and the shortcomings of our
medical litigation system make it clear that this is the time for a
major change. We need a medical justice system that promotes
accountability and fairness instead of discouraging them.
Regardless of how we vote on this legislation before us, we all ought
to start working toward replacing the current medical tort liability
scheme with a more reliable and predictable system of medical justice.
We need a system that restores rationality to the way in which we
compensate the injured and learn from mistakes. We need a system that
restores the trust that patients and providers used to have in each
other. It is incumbent upon all of us to strive for such a system so
that we may raise the overall standard of health care in this country.
The legislation we are considering today is an important step in the
short term toward making the medical justice system work better for
everyone, not just a fortunate handful of personal injury lawyers. I
urge my colleagues to join me and vote for this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15, Senator Kyl be recognized to
speak for up to 15 minutes to be followed by Senator Feinstein for up
to 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until the hour of 2:15.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:32 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr.
Voinovich.)
____________________
PATIENTS FIRST ACT OF 2003--Motion to Proceed--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield just for a brief
second, it is my understanding the Senator from Arizona has authority
to speak up to 15 minutes, followed by a 25-minute speech by the
Senator from California. Is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the
Senator from California, Senator Cornyn be recognized for 30 minutes,
followed by Senator Hollings for 30 minutes, and following Senator
Hollings, I ask that Senator Voinovich be recognized for up to 30
minutes, and then he would be followed by a Democrat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to address one of the most
important issues I think we are going to be talking about all year. I
hope our colleagues will permit us to conclude our debate with a vote
so we can actually adopt some legislation to deal with this crisis of
lawsuit abuse in the United States. Some call it medical malpractice
reform. Whatever you call it, we have to deal with it.
Unfortunately, what we have heard is that some of our colleagues are
going to prevent us from having a vote on the bill that is before us,
S. 11. It is a bill that addresses one of the most fundamental problems
we have, and that is access to available quality medical care by a lot
of people in our society today. We need to reform this flawed medical
malpractice system which is prohibiting people from getting the quality
medical care they need and deserve.
We debated just before the Fourth of July recess Medicare reform to
provide prescription drug benefits to all of our senior citizens. We
took a lot of time talking about why our senior citizens needed access
to care and how we were going to improve that access. But all of that
will go for naught, it will do no good, if there are no hospitals and
there are no pharmacists, if there are no physicians and other health
care providers--or an insufficient number of those providers--to help
those people in need, whether they be senior citizens or others,
because of the high cost of malpractice premiums and therefore the
inability of these providers to continue to serve the people in their
communities.
Last year, the American Medical Association released a study on this
lawsuit abuse problem. It concluded that 12 States were having a full-
blown crisis and that 30 States were seeing serious problems in terms
of the ability of physicians and hospitals to stay in practice to take
care of their patients.
Today, just a year later, that study has been updated and the AMA has
now concluded that 19 States are having a full-blown crisis in dealing
with the medical malpractice insurance rates just for physicians. Let
me give some examples of how this is affecting different communities
around the country so you can see it is truly a nationwide problem.
In my State of Arizona, health care providers have experienced
dramatic increases in their insurance rates. Between 2001 and 2002, two
hospitals in Phoenix saw a threefold increase in their malpractice
premiums, paying more than $1.7 million. Meanwhile, in Winslow, AZ, the
hospital premiums have more than doubled, to $1.8 million.
Some of you know the town of Winslow, AR, from a famous song by the
Eagles. It is a town with great history and rich in tradition in
Arizona but it is not very big. It doesn't have the patient base to
support a hospital that has to pay almost $2 million a year in medical
malpractice premiums. It is not just in my State of Arizona. Methodist
Hospital in south Philadelphia recently closed its maternity ward and
prenatal program because of its medical liability insurance rates.
Greenwood Hospital in Mississippi was unable to keep its level II
trauma center rating because the neurosurgeons in the area had left
citing the high cost of liability insurance.
I spoke with a woman whose husband had been very seriously injured in
an automobile accident in Mississippi. She told the story of how--
because of the lack of physicians and because of the high cost of
premiums--her husband has suffered so terribly as a result of that
accident and the inability to get quick medical attention.
Back to my home State of Arizona, the Copper Queen Community Hospital
in Bisbee, AZ, was recently forced to close its maternity ward because
the family practitioners in that community were looking at a 500-
percent premium increase. Expectant mothers now must travel more than
60 miles to the closest hospital, which is either in Sierra Vista or in
Tucson. According to the recent news accounts, four women have since
had to deliver babies en route.
To cite the news accounts, Time magazine has a June 9 cover story
about the doctor being out and why so many patients are losing doctors
to the rising cost of malpractice.
This is now truly a national event.
In the Time magazine piece dealing with this question of physicians
having to leave the practice, there is a particularly interesting story
about a woman in Arizona whose name is Vanessa Valdez. The title of the
story is ``Taking the Highway to Have a Baby.'' The story points out
that Vanessa has to drive about 50 miles to see her OB/GYN and to have
a baby. She lives in the town of Douglas, which is on the Arizona-
Mexico border. But there is no obstetrician within an hour's drive to
deliver her child. There were six family practitioners in that
community but they couldn't afford the soaring malpractice premiums. As
[[Page 17078]]
a result, the hospital was forced to close its delivery room, and
suddenly rural Cochise County has but one delivery room for the 118,000
residents. That is in Sierra Vista, 50 miles from Valdez's home of
Douglas.
This is beautiful country. It is a great place to live. But it is no
place to live if you are going to get sick or you know you are going to
have a baby because you have an hour's drive to get to a doctor. That
is not right. It is not as if this is out in the middle of nowhere and
you chose to live there with all of the attendant risks involved. No.
There are a lot of communities in this area but none of them had
physicians able to continue to practice because of the medical
malpractice premiums they had to pay.
One other example: Nevada was very much in the news last year because
of the crisis in that State. Nevada's top level trauma center was
recently closed for 10 days after 58 orthopedic specialists in Las
Vegas temporarily quit because of the skyrocketing insurance costs.
Also, a lot of the physicians delivering babies and performing high-
risk surgeries have indicated that they won't be able to continue to
practice without some kind of relief.
Ultimately, this destructive lawsuit abuse hurts the patients. Yes.
The doctors can't make it, so they leave. But ultimately it is the
patients who are the ones who suffer.
Therefore, we are trying to deal with that through legislation that
will make it a little bit more difficult for this kind of lawsuit abuse
to occur so that the insurance companies won't have to charge quite as
high a rate, so the physicians and hospitals can stay in business, and
so the people of the communities can continue to be served.
Also, the threat of lawsuit abuse often forces doctors to perform a
lot more in the way of tests and surgeries and other kinds of
treatments than they otherwise would do simply to protect themselves
from a claim that they weren't doing enough for the patients--sometimes
expensive tests, sometimes invasive procedures.
All of this is called defensive medicine--trying to do everything
they can to make sure some smart lawyer out there doesn't try to pick
at what they did and find some kind of fault with it and find a client
who is willing and able to hire a lawyer to bring a lawsuit against the
doctor.
That is another effect of this lawsuit abuse. Another is the fact
that a lot of times doctors are no longer willing to perform risky
procedures that may be necessary to really help somebody or even save
somebody's life. Obviously, the more serious the condition, frequently
the more risky the procedure. You want to be served by a physician who
is willing to go to the mat for you in that case. But if the physician
is looking at a big medical liability suit, if the result doesn't
happen to work out right, then that physician is going to be less
likely to try to treat you.
All of this results in an inferior quality of medical care for
American citizens, which is wrong. It is not at all uncommon for these
lawsuits to be brought and the lawyers to get over half the settlement.
That is wrong. That is one of the issues with which this legislation
deals.
The Congressional Budget Office determined that the House bill, which
passed and which was pretty similar to S. 11, would reduce direct
Federal spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health
programs by almost $15 billion over the next 10 years. Since the
Federal Government is a payer for many of the medical services,
particularly for our seniors who are indigent, it is a saving to the
Federal Government as well for this lawsuit abuse to be addressed.
Because employers will pay less for health insurance for their
employees and more of the employees' compensation will be in the form
of taxable wages and other fringe benefits, including, of course, money
that could be plowed back into greater health care for the employees,
the Congressional Budget Office estimated that enacting this
legislation would increase Federal revenues by about $3 billion over
the next 10 years as employees receive higher wages.
Just a note about the legislation itself, there are a lot of
different ways you can do this. I had actually cosponsored a bill
somewhat different than this. But the basic idea is the same, even
though we might want to change specific provisions of this legislation.
It basically sets sensible limits on the noneconomic damages that can
be obtained in these lawsuits. The noneconomic damages are those
damages that go above and beyond the bills that have to be paid. When
you get sick and the physician allegedly committed malpractice, you had
to go to another doctor to get the problem resolved. Those are economic
damages as you lost wages, and any other expenses that you have. And
those economic losses are fully compensated. But above and beyond that,
you are entitled and juries will award substantial damages for
noneconomic losses, mostly called pain and suffering because of what
you had to go through. Certainly people recover something for their
pain and suffering. The question is how much.
In order to avoid lawsuit abuse, some States--for example, the State
of California has put a $250,000 limit on those noneconomic damages.
That is precisely what this legislation does as well. However, states
with higher caps can keep those under this legislation too. It also
reserves punitive damages for cases that justify it. Part of lawsuit
abuse is very large punitive damage awards which have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the economic or noneconomic losses but
nevertheless help to enrich the lawyers.
There are some other features of the legislation as well. But the
point I wanted to make is whatever the specifics of the legislation, we
need to act.
I hope our colleagues will permit us to conclude the debate and have
a vote on this legislation so we can get together with the House of
Representatives, which also passed a bill, have a conference committee
work out any differences, all have a chance to vote on that, and then
hopefully have a bill we can send to the President.
If we are never able to have a vote on this, it is not just the
doctors, hospitals, and other providers that are going to suffer; it is
the American people because they will not have access to the quality of
medical care which they need and deserve. I hope we cannot only debate
this legislation but also permit it to come to a vote so we can address
this serious crisis in America today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to use 12 minutes of the
Senate's time to discuss my reaction to this bill and my general
thinking about the subject of medical malpractice insurance premiums.
I think it is pretty clear that medicine is at a crossroads. I think
it is pretty clear that something has to be done. My own State of
California was at the crossroads 28 years ago. A bill was passed
through the legislature called the Medical Injury Compensation Reform
Act, known as MICRA. MICRA had a rough road initially. It had a number
of court challenges. Finally, it was sustained by the California
Supreme Court.
What we saw--I will go into this in more detail later on--was that
premium costs began to settle down. In fact, I think it is fair to say
that the California medical profession is very pleased with the MICRA
bill as it stands today.
The problem I have--and I am probably one of the few on my side of
the aisle who is not opposed to the issue of caps because I think in
this situation they are helpful, but my problem is with the bill that
is before us today because that bill is nearly identical to the bill
passed out of the House and, frankly speaking, it is not one that I can
support.
This bill before us sets a $250,000 cap for noneconomic damages in
medical malpractice suits. Now, this can be applied not only to suits
against doctors but to suits against HMOs, nursing homes, and medical
product manufacturers. It is a very broad provision. This cap would
even apply for extraordinary cases. I will give you one: A youngster,
Jessica Santillan, a 17-year-old who died after doctors mistakenly
transplanted the wrong kidneys into her body.
[[Page 17079]]
So under this bill, suits against drug and device manufacturers also,
such as the makers of the weight loss drug Phen-Fen, the Dalkon shield
contraceptive device, faulty heart valves, and other products that have
caused innocent deaths, would be limited to $250,000 in noneconomic
damages. I find that unacceptable.
Secondly, this legislation would severely limit the availability of
punitive damages not only for doctors but also for manufacturers. In
general, punitive damages are capped at the greater of $250,000 or
twice economic damages in this bill. But the bill also wipes out any
punitive damages in several different types of lawsuits against medical
product manufacturers. It would immunize the manufacturer or seller of
drugs from punitive damages for any packaging or labeling defect on
their product. So, presumably, if a drug package label had mistakenly
directed a patient to take 10 pills a day instead of 1 pill a day, a
patient could not sue for punitive damages, regardless of the harm
caused or the basis of the mistaken direction.
It would also limit the availability of punitive damages against any
manufacturer or distributor of medical products if the product complied
with FDA regulations. Let me give you an example: a product such as the
Bjork-Shiley artificial heart valve. It originally received FDA
approval, but these valves broke in an estimated 619 patients and led
to hundreds of deaths. Under this bill, they would be immune from any
punitive damage case. I think that is wrong.
This FDA exemption, in a sense, sets a downward and unacceptable
course. If a company has an FDA-approved product on the market and then
learns of a dangerous complication presented by that product or a
failure of that product, it should have the incentive to remove that
product from the marketplace as soon as possible. I think to provide an
exemption if the product has FDA approval creates a disincentive to the
rapid removal of that product from the shelf.
So while I cannot support this proposal, there are, however,
proposals which I could support because I do believe that rising
premiums are creating a crisis all across this country in terms of
access to care. Others have placed before this body a number of
situations. Let me just repeat a few.
Obstetricians and gynecologists in Florida pay over $200,000 a year
for malpractice insurance as opposed to $57,000 a year in California.
And there is no more high-cost State than California. So OB/GYN
premiums in Florida, $200,000; in California, because of MICRA,
$57,000; surgeons in Michigan pay $110,000 for malpractice insurance.
Twenty percent of the OBs and GYNs in West Virginia and Georgia have
been forced out of their practice due to rising premiums.
Nine hundred doctors in Pennsylvania have left the State since 2001
to avoid annual premiums as high as $200,000. The Methodist Hospital in
Philadelphia discontinued its prenatal program for low-income women
because of high premium costs.
The neurosurgeons of Wheeling, WV, have left the area, and local
trauma patients requiring neurosurgery need to be airlifted out of the
State.
Not only are insurance premiums skyrocketing in some States, but
insurers are leaving the market, and that is a very dangerous signal.
There were 14 companies underwriting liability in Mississippi; today,
there is but one willing to write new policies. Texas had 17 insurance
carriers; today it has 4.
In California, we have nonprofits handling the insurance for
California's doctors, and that is one reason the system works.
I have spent a number of months taking a good look at the California
law to see what could be transferred to the national level. And I want
to say, here and now, this Senator would support reasonable caps on
noneconomic damages because I deeply believe they can lead to more
stable premium rates.
At the time MICRA was enacted in 1975, the cost of health insurance
in California was higher than any other market except New York City. In
the 6 years before 1975, the number of malpractice suits filed per 100
physicians in California more than doubled.
MICRA has kept costs down. In 1975, California's doctors paid 20
percent of the gross costs of all malpractice insurance premiums in the
country. Today, they pay 11 percent of the Nation's total malpractice
insurance premiums. Clearly, costs have dropped in comparison with
other States.
All over the United States, premiums have grown 505 percent in the
past 25 years. California's premiums have grown 167 percent. In other
words, premiums have grown three times slower in California than in
other States. That alone shows that MICRA is working, regardless of
what anyone might say.
Also, because of MICRA, patients get their money 23 percent faster
than in States without caps on noneconomic damages. Bottom line:
California's malpractice premiums today are one-third to one-half
lower, on average, than those in Florida or New York.
Because the California law has proven successful at keeping premiums
down--and I know there are those who do not want to believe it; they
will say it is some other reason; but I believe it has--I used the law
as a departure point for crafting a proposal which I believe is both
just and fair and which I believe should stabilize and, over time,
reduce premium costs.
I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator
McConnell in working with me to explore this option. I am not going to
offer it on the floor today for one reason: Unfortunately, it would not
have the necessary votes.
Specifically, my proposal would do the following: It would create a
schedule for attorney's fees. It would create a strict statute of
limitations, requiring that medical negligence claims be brought within
1 year from the discovery of an injury or within 3 years of the
injury's occurrence. It would require a claimant to give a defendant 90
days' notice of his or her intent to file a lawsuit before a claim
could actually be filed. It would allow defendants to pay damage awards
in periodic installments. It would allow defendants to introduce
evidence at trial to show that claimants have already been compensated
for their injuries through workers compensation benefits, disability
benefits, health insurance, or other payments--that is only fair--and
it would permit the recovery of unlimited economic damages.
My proposal would differ from California's law in two key areas: One,
noneconomic damages and, two, punitive damages. The California MICRA
law has a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages. In contrast, I would
propose a $500,000 general cap on noneconomic damages. Today 15 States
have caps of $500,000 or less for noneconomic damages. Twelve States
have a cap of $500,000 or less on noneconomic damages, and that
includes Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Hawaii, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. Three States have caps of $250,000-or-less and they include
Montana, New Hampshire, and California. Thus, 15 States already have
caps of $500,000 or lower.
In catastrophic cases, where a victim of malpractice was subject to
severe disfigurement, severe disability, or death--in other words, a
catastrophic exemption--the cap would be the greater of $2 million or
50,000 times the number of years of the life expectancy of the victim.
This really takes into consideration terrible morbidity done to a young
child whose life span might be 50 or 60 years more. Clearly, a cap of
$250,000 or $500,000 is really not fair to that youngster. Therefore,
the catastrophic exemption we would propose would provide the greater
of $2 million or 50,000 times the number of years of life expectancy of
the victim.
In addition, we would propose a less onerous punitive damages
standard than California law. California law is very strict today with
respect to a plaintiff's ability to prove punitives under the very high
standard of fraud, oppression, or malice. In other words, if you can't
prove fraud, oppression, or malice, you can't prove punitive damages.
If a doctor is in the middle of surgery and walks out to go to his bank
to make a deposit while the patient is
[[Page 17080]]
under a general anesthetic, in my view, that doctor should have
punitive damages brought against him because that clearly is not
accepted medical procedure.
California's law is much stricter. You have to prove fraud,
oppression, or malice. Under this law, I am not aware of a single case
where a plaintiff has obtained punitive damages in California over the
past 10 years. So at least in my view, for situations such as the one I
just indicated, the California law is too strict in this regard.
Instead we would offer a four-part test where a plaintiff would have
to show by clear and convincing evidence--and this was put together
based on measures that have passed this Senate in the not too distant
past--that the defendant, one, intended to injure the claimant
unrelated to the provision of health care; or two, understood that the
claimant was substantially certain to suffer unnecessary injury and, in
providing or failing to provide health care services, the defendant
deliberately failed to avoid such injury; three, the defendant acted
with a conscious flagrant disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable
risk of unnecessary injury which the defendant failed to avoid; or
four, the defendant acted with a conscious flagrant disregard of
acceptable medical practice in such circumstances.
Clearly, the doctor who walked out of a surgery and left a patient
under a general anesthetic would fall under this fourth plank. It
certainly is a flagrant disregard of acceptable medical practice which
would be, you don't go to your bank in the middle of an operation to
make a deposit when the patient is under a general anesthetic.
I firmly believe a variant of this type could lead to a compromise in
the proposal in the Senate. Why didn't I go ahead with it? Much to my
chagrin and, I think, surprise, both the American Medical Association
and the California Medical Association rejected this proposal. The AMA
contends that despite the fact 15 States have caps of $500,000 or less,
they believe that a $500,000 cap is too high and it would not stabilize
premiums.
The California Medical Association is opposed to it for a different
reason. Although we leave State law in place, whether that State law is
retroactively passed or prospectively passed, the CMA felt the State
legislature might--I say ``might''--change the $250,000 cap to
$500,000. So both of these associations have rejected that proposal
which meant I wouldn't have a chance to get the necessary votes on
either my side of the aisle or pick up a few votes on the other side of
the aisle.
They refused to move from a cap of $250,000 for noneconomic damages
in even catastrophic cases. To me this is wrong because a $250,000 cap
in 1975, when the California law set this cap, adjusted for inflation
was worth $839,000 in 2002. So last year a $250,000 cap, passed in
1975, would be worth $839,000, if passed today. If a figure of $250,000
was adequate in 1975, why couldn't a figure of $500,000, which is lower
than the 1975 cap adjusted for inflation, be acceptable this year?
Now if a victim receives $250,000 today, this is equal to $40,000 in
1975. So when California led the Nation by passing the Medical Injury
Compensation Reform Act and setting a cap for noneconomic damages of
$250,000 in 1975, everybody should know that that is worth $40,000
today. In my book, that is unacceptable.
There are many specific instances of why it is unacceptable. Let me
share one case. That is Linda McDougal. She is 46. She is a Navy
veteran. She is an accountant, a mother. She was diagnosed with an
aggressive form of cancer and underwent a double mastectomy. Two days
later she was told that a mistake was made. She didn't have cancer and
the amputation of both her breasts was not necessary.
A pathologist had mistakenly switched her test results with another
woman who had cancer. Is this Congress willing to say there should be a
cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages for this kind of mistake? I
think not.
A cap on noneconomic damages must take into account severe morbidity
produced by a physician's mistake, such as amputating the wrong limb or
transfusing a patient with the wrong type of blood.
Unfortunately, because of the opposition of both the American Medical
Association and the California Medical Association, I am not proposing
an amendment at this time. My purpose was to help physicians and
patients, and I deeply believe that a $500,000 noneconomic damage cap,
coupled with the catastrophic exception I outlined, would accomplish
this, would accomplish it fairly, and would stabilize premiums over the
long term.
I also suggest that State laws, where they exist, should prevail. So
the California MICRA law, or any other State law, would prevail
regardless of whether that State law was already enacted or
retroactive.
So, bottom line, I could not get 60 votes for this proposal with the
opposition of physicians. So the result may well be an alternative
because I don't believe the House bill can pass in the Senate in its
present form.
Let me say this. I have given this bill a great deal of thought. I
really mean what I say--that I am prepared to support a reform bill. I
am prepared to support a cap on noneconomic damages. But it has to be a
cap that is realistic in view of today's time. It cannot be a cap that
was passed 28 years ago that has an actual value of $40,000 today. So I
am hopeful there will be another time and another place when a bill
such as the one I have tried to outline might be found to be
acceptable. In the interim, I will vote against S. 11. But, again, I
stand ready to participate in a solution along the lines I have
mentioned.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the issue
of medical liability reform, a matter that cries out for a remedy from
the Congress because of its sheer scope and size.
When it comes to health care, I believe the proper role of the
Government is to protect the freedom of all people to act in their own
interests and in the interests of their health. I think it is
appropriate that we make sure their decisions are not made by the
Government but by themselves and their families. Patients and doctors,
rather than lawyers and bureaucrats, should be trusted to decide what
treatment is best for themselves and their patients.
I strongly believe that when people have good choices in a health
care system built upon free market principles, it ultimately translates
into high-quality care. One of the obstacles, though, to achieving
access to that high-quality care is the current crisis involving
medical liability litigation.
Today, America is experiencing a medical liability litigation crisis
that is increasing the cost of health care, it is decreasing access to
physicians and hospitals for many patients, and it is generally
lowering the quality of care. As a matter of fact, we could hardly call
our medical liability system a ``system'' because it is such a mess. In
recent years, average jury awards have more than doubled, from more
than $460,000 in 1996 to more than $1 million in the year 2000.
In the past year, medical liability insurance premiums in many States
have increased by more than 20 percent, on average, and more than 75
percent for certain specialties. That is just in 1 year. Between 1991
and 2001, the number of medical malpractice payments of $1 million or
more that were reported to the National Practitioners' Database
increased from 298 to 806. The overall result is sky-high costs for
liability insurance, increased costs for those who provide health
treatment, and costs that have really created a crisis of enormous
proportions, one that is threatening the quality of care, diminishing
access to care, and exploding the cost of care.
[[Page 17081]]
According to studies at the Department of Health and Human Services,
doctors across the country are closing their practices, they are
limiting the types of patients they see, or they are leaving
communities where they have long practiced because they cannot afford
the rapidly increasing costs of medical liability insurance or, worse
yet, insurance coverage is unavailable altogether.
Fear of liability suits--even frivolous litigation--also results in
the practice of defensive medicine.
A recent survey, for example, conducted by an organization known as
Common Good, revealed some disturbing trends: 79 percent of physicians
admit that the fear of litigation has caused them to order more tests
than they thought medically necessary, and 74 percent refer more
patients to specialists than their best medical judgment would
otherwise dictate. Half have recommended invasive procedures they do
not consider on a medical basis to be necessary, but they have done it
in an effort to protect themselves against the second-guessing that
goes along with the medical liability regime.
Defensive medicine increases risks for patients and it raises health
care costs by as much as $126 billion per year. This is a crisis not
just for the Nation's physicians, it is a danger to America's
patients--in other words, every single one of us.
For example, pregnant women in Nevada, Mississippi, West Virginia,
and Florida must drive hours just to find an obstetrician who can care
for them, and many still cannot get the essential prenatal care they
desperately need. The only level 1 trauma center in Las Vegas had to
close temporarily last year because its surgeons could not afford
medical liability insurance. Some physicians' annual premiums had
increased from $40,000 to $200,000 in just a year.
In many States, physicians are retiring or moving their practices
because they either cannot afford the liability insurance or simply
cannot buy the liability insurance they need in order to protect what
they have worked a lifetime to achieve.
In Mississippi, physicians are actually moving across the river to
Louisiana to serve the same patients they would serve in Mississippi
because they can no longer afford to practice in that State, and most
cities in the State of Mississippi with populations under 20,000 no
longer have any physician who will even deliver a baby.
There are many more examples from my State, the State of Texas. The
city of Austin, for example, is suffering from a shortage of
neurosurgeons caused by retirements and relocation to avoid liability
coverage costs, a shortage so heavy that some patients have to travel
more than 65 miles away to find treatment.
In 100 of the 254 counties in the State of Texas, there is no
obstetrician; in other words, there is no medically trained specialist
who will deliver a baby in 152 Texas counties. After 44 years, Spring
Branch Medical Center near Houston has stopped delivering babies
altogether due to the soaring malpractice insurance costs and the
shrinking pool of physicians that will actually deliver babies.
According to the Texas Medical Association's physician survey last
year, more than half of all Texas physicians, including those in the
prime of their professional career, are considering early retirement
because of the State's medical liability insurance crisis, and earlier
this year the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported about one story that
illustrates the way this problem affects patients who need care the
most. The story said:
Last summer, a pregnant woman showed up at Dr. Lloyd Van
Winkle's Castroville office in south Texas, less than 10
minutes from delivery. Her family doctor in Uvalde had
recently stopped delivering babies, citing malpractice
concerns, and the woman was trying to drive 80 miles to her
San Antonio doctor and hospital. ``She made it as far as
Castroville and decided she wasn't going to make it any
further,'' Van Winkle said.
We all want to prevent disease and injury. When patients get sick, we
all want to prevent medical errors, and when errors do happen, we can
all agree that a patient should be compensated fairly. But if you can
find some goal hidden somewhere within the current dysfunctional
medical liability system, that goal would not be either the prevention
of errors or the fair compensation for injury. Very clearly, the
current medical liability crisis operates for the benefit of a few at
the expense of the many.
Personal injury trial lawyers should not be able to drive good
doctors out of medicine or to reduce patients' access to health care.
This system undermines the ability of physicians to treat their
patients without fear, and it destroys the trust and the important
relationship between patients and their physicians, and it truly
abandons the American patient--that is, every one of us--when we need
the help the most.
I am proud to say that in my home State of Texas, the State
government has stepped up in the legislative session just ended and
passed some needed reforms in this and other areas. This year, despite
overwhelming pressures from special interest groups, the State passed
historic liability reform which makes it possible for doctors to
practice in Texas without fear of unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits.
The law puts caps on punitive damages while allowing for patients who
are truly hurt to be fairly compensated. Judgments will be based on the
amount of involvement in the act caused in the suit without
consideration of who has the deepest pocket.
I must add, though, that even in my State of Texas, there will be a
vote of the people on whether the Texas Constitution will be amended to
provide a means to achieve this historic reform and much needed reform,
and that vote remains to be given and taken. Yet there is still little
recourse for patients in States without meaningful reform, and this is
truly a nationwide crisis and not one that should be addressed by
individual States, given the sheer magnitude of the crisis, its
geographic expanse and, frankly, the amount of Federal taxpayers'
dollars to go in to paying for the current dysfunctional system.
Our health care system is still burdened with frivolous lawsuits and
outrageous jury awards. According to a Health and Human Services study,
premiums in States without meaningful liability reform went up 39
percent in the year 2001 and an additional 51 percent in 2002. An out-
of-control system in one State can have an effect on malpractice
premiums in other States, even those States that have made some
incremental step toward reform.
This is a national problem, and it demands a national solution. This
legislation is comprehensive reform that will enact several critically
needed components. For example, it caps noneconomic damages awarded in
medical malpractice cases at $250,000. It will eliminate joint and
several liability; in other words, the person at fault will pay for
their percentage or their share of fault and no more. It will create a
uniform statute of limitations; in other words, a period of time in
which a lawsuit can be filed and pursued in court in a way that will
preserve both the rights of the patient, as well as make sure that so
much time does not pass that memories dim, records are destroyed, and
the facts are difficult to discern.
It will reform the collateral source rule, another arcane rule of our
legal system that says that even if someone has already been paid from
one source they can still keep that information from the jury and seek
to be paid yet again for the same loss.
Finally, it will create reasonable limits and court approval of
attorney contingency fee awards. In many places, the amount of money
that a lawyer will receive, and others will receive, in terms of costs
of expert witnesses and the like routinely exceeds the amount of money
that an injured patient will receive, somewhere on the order of out of
every dollar that is awarded by a jury the injured patient only gets 40
cents. It is the lawyer and the bureaucracy in our litigation system
that absorb the rest.
If this were truly about what is best for the patients, we would see
reform. We would see it in the Senate. Unfortunately, this is about the
60 cents on the dollar that goes to people, other than
[[Page 17082]]
the patient, who are obstructing true reform.
This legislation is a comprehensive reform and is modeled after the
highly successful MICRA law in California, one that has been very
successful both in making sure injured patients are fairly compensated
while at the same time holding down the escalating costs of medical
liability insurance in a way that allows most physicians to practice
their chosen profession and which provides better access to good
quality health care.
This act will help protect our critical care hospitals and provide
needed relief for nursing homes and medical specialists. The cost of
health care will be reduced as the need for high premiums for liability
insurance will become a thing of the past.
We must remember that this crisis is not, in the end, about what is
best for doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, or personal injury
trial lawyers. What this bill is about is what is best for patients--in
other words, what is best for the American people.
This crisis is threatening the quality of care, jeopardizing access
to care, and escalating the costs of care. In my own State, one can
travel to the gulf coast and Corpus Christi where emergency room
physicians live in fear that they will be called to answer to a patient
in a hospital emergency room, someone who they know they have never
seen before and will never perhaps see again after treating them in the
emergency room, and for a patient visit that they will likely not get
paid or will get paid only pennies on a dollar for their usual fee, but
yet because of the medical liability crisis they will put at risk
everything they have worked a lifetime to build and achieve for
themselves and for their family. That is even when they can buy
insurance.
The truth is, the costs of medical liability insurance have escalated
so dramatically because of this crisis that many physicians cannot even
buy adequate amounts of coverage. If they can, it is at such a cost
that they figure why bother, why bother to practice, and so they simply
leave.
I reiterate that in the end this is not about doctors, lawyers,
hospitals, or insurance companies. This is about who gets access to
quality health care, and in many parts of my State, and in many States
across the Nation, access to health care is simply not there because of
this crisis.
I believe we should end the liability lottery, where select patients
and some trial lawyers receive astronomical awards, while others pay
more--all of us really--for health care and many suffer access problems
because of it. We should pass meaningful medical liability reform that
includes real and lasting change and bring the lessons of Texas and
other States that have done so to the Nation's Capital and the American
people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
My most respected colleague from Texas said it is not about doctors
and it is not about insurance companies. I would have to dissent from
that view from the standpoint of my experience over some 30 years
dealing with this particular problem.
We started in the early 1970s with my good friend Victor Schwartz.
Product liability was the style of the day, the crisis. The Little
Leaguers could not play anymore at the playgrounds. Football was going
to have to be abolished because they could not buy safe helmets. They
were all being sued because of the helmets. We faced down the situation
of so-called product liability and tort reform with the help of the
National Legislative Association, the National Governors Association,
and some others.
We went to Y2K. We would go to terrorism insurance. I resisted, being
an old States righter. I have an unusually good insurance commissioner
in South Carolina. In fact, we have low rates as a result of his
administration. But from a studied view of this particular situation,
the problem is, yes, the doctors and, yes, the insurance companies.
Why do I say that? Well, according to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Mr. Thompson, there are 100,000 deaths a year in
America as a result of medical malpractice. That is people killed. That
is casualties. We had 58,000 people killed over 10 years, just about,
in Vietnam.
Now, the doctors have to get ahold of themselves in the State of West
Virginia, for example. There are some 40 doctors, I think it is, who
account for some 25 percent, one-fourth, of the 2,300 malpractice
claims.
Incidentally, they are moving down to South Carolina because I have
talked to some of my doctor friends. There is no better friend of
medicine than this Senator from South Carolina. I have worked with them
closely over the many years I have been in the National Government, and
as their Governor. We have a very disciplined, one might call it,
medical practice in South Carolina. In fact, they have always told me,
and again recently affirmed, that if we had the average licensed
doctors of some of the other States we would immediately add 1,000
doctors. In other words, it is not easy to practice medicine in the
State of South Carolina.
So we go immediately to the doctors disciplining themselves like the
lawyers, and I can get example after example of us at the bar
association disciplining the lawyers. Unfortunately, the doctors just
recently returned now to that particular practice and they are
beginning to see that they are having to pay for the whole thing.
Otherwise, it is not tort reform; it is insurance reform.
The distinguished Senator from Texas mentioned California. I have
heard, and it is true, that California has brought down the malpractice
insurance rates for the doctors there. That was done with caps in the
beginning, but it did not work--in 1975. And it wasn't until 1988 that
they had Proposition 103, to institute insurance reform--not tort
reform but insurance reform, where they had an immediate rollback of
the rates of some 25 percent, regulation written by the insurance
commission, and anyone who wanted to question any rate increase had a
right before the commission to petition and be heard.
So, yes, there is a way to do it. But you will see, as I speak here
this afternoon, it is not this tort reform. In fact, tort reform is
being taken care of in the States. They are moving fast. They are
already moving in the State of Illinois, as the distinguished Senator
Durbin has been pointing out, with respect to that, and other States
have not waited.
The only trouble with the cap is that it has not brought down the
rates. The cap States--I mentioned Illinois that has no cap. The rates
are up there. But four of the first five--Florida, Michigan, Texas,
West Virginia--these four of the five top States with the highest
premiums have caps on damages.
So the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have experienced
this with caps. I have other examples to show. Time and again, the
insurance executives say: Pass the caps, we are not going to lower the
rates.
But the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, is
one of the most eminent physicians. And I don't say that just speaking
on the floor in a right fashion. He saved the life of a good friend of
mine with a lung transplant back in Tennessee. She has been getting
along extremely well as a result of the expertise, the touch, the
sensitivity, the bedside manner of Dr. Frist. So there is no question
in this body that we have a very valued doctor friend as a Senator from
Tennessee.
But Tennessee doesn't have that problem. Of course, there are no caps
there. They are below the median in premiums, and they do not have
damage caps. I am sure the distinguished doctor/Senator would long
since have asked that his State move in that direction if that were the
problem.
No, the problem is a political one. We have the doctors in town. It
is almost like the computer crowd who came to town with Y2K, and the
sky was going to fall--we had to immediately pass Y2K to make sure at
the first of the century the world wouldn't end.
We have a similar situation now where we look for the needs of the
campaign rather than the needs of the
[[Page 17083]]
country. We call this bill, right in the middle of the energy bill,
appropriations bill, and all the other important matters that we have,
tort reform, medical malpractice, because the doctors are in town.
I guess instead of $2,000, those doctors could give $4,000 to
political campaigns, so you might call this the $4,000 bill we will be
voting on tomorrow morning, as to whether or not we should have
cloture. I hope we do have cloture because we ought to nail this
buzzard quickly and get rid of it.
You never hear anybody who has been represented as a result of
medical malpractice complain about the fee. It is always the loser who
complains about a plaintiff's fee. I never have found a plaintiff yet
who complained about lawyers' fees.
That gets me right into lawyers because that is the pollster cancer
we have in Government in Washington today. You get the pollsters--and
they don't know. I never have found a pollster, incidentally, who ever
served in government or public office. So they do not know the
questions to ask, What about lawyers? Shouldn't we have tort reform? Of
course, the Chamber of Commerce has us behaving like toadies for
corporate America, doing everything they want because we want their
money in order to run for office. So we only pay attention to the money
needs and the campaign needs and not the needs of the country.
As far as tort reform is concerned, it is being taken care of at the
State level. The big problem, of course, is the losses that have been,
not from medical malpractice, incidentally, but from their investments.
Let's say a word about those lawyers because, after all, we just had
the Fourth of July. I saw a program about the forefathers. They were
all mentioning the different ones who brought us this 227 years of
freedom.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the
price of chains of liberty and freedom? I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or
give me death.
A lawyer said that.
I can see that 34-year-old Jefferson, with the quill in hand:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal.
Equal justice under law, with the Declaration of Independence.
What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on
human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the
next place oblige it to control itself.
We are out of control: We have a $428 billion budget deficit, after
talking about the surplus, surplus, and surpluses for 2 years. The
public debt to the penny is $428 billion, and we have not finished the
fiscal year.
Madison, the lawyer, the Emancipation Proclamation--Abraham Lincoln,
the lawyer.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the lawyer.
You go right on down the line, giving meaning to equal justice under
law.
Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer.
These were eminent lawyers and not jury fixers. We have 60,000
lawyers working on K Street. I am one of the 60,000 licensed to
practice in the District of Columbia. There are 60,000, and 59,000 will
never see the courtroom of law. They are supposed to fix the 535 of us
lawmakers here in Government. They are salesmen. I delight in seeing
them. They are a big help because we have to have the proceedings, and
I listen to both sides and I make up my mind.
But they are, under the bill at hand that has been introduced, not
limited in their fees. They sit there claiming frivolity. If you are a
trial lawyer, you get the client who comes in. You have to perhaps get
the doctor for him, get the medicine. Then if you get the case, get out
on the highway, get some pictures and everything else like that, get
the experts, draw up the pleadings. After the pleadings are drawn, make
all the motions, the interrogatories, and discoveries. Still you
haven't gotten a red cent. Time passes on, and what happens is you get
to the trial and, after all the trial and the motions in the trial, you
have to win all 12 jurors. And after the 12, you have to make the
motions on appeal, you have to print up the briefs, you have to go and
make the arguments before the appellate court. Then, if you finally
win--if you finally win, yes, you get a good fee. But you probably
spent a couple of years or more waiting around. And that is the
practice of the trial bar.
I have been in it. I have also defended. And they are lazy. Man, they
are lazy. I have seen them. They just absolutely sit there and let the
runners and investigators do all the work, call that doctor and do this
and do that, and then if it is inconvenient, they say: We have a
witness who is sick, and we will move for a continuance--because, why?
The clock runs. The clock runs, and they get, what, $450 an hour?
I remember when I passed the first textile bill here, a Senator on
the other side of the aisle came and said: I know a lawyer downtown who
has been paid $1 million to get that bill passed, and he didn't do
anything. Here you are, a freshman Senator, and you passed it.
I said: Yes, and I passed it for free because I believe in it.
But you have big fees down here. The clock runs with this corporate
crowd, just look at the bill. They say: Oh, no, no--they have no
control over their fees. Just control the trial lawyers--with tort
reform. You have the biggest myth on the courts we have ever
experienced.
Let's go, since my time is limited, to the truth about malpractice
premiums. According to the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners:
Total profits as a percentage of premiums for 1999 [that is
the most recent year for which data is available] are nearly
twice as high in the medical malpractice line than the
casualty and property insurance industry coverage. Recent
price increases are merely an attempt by the insurance
industry to maintain the extremely high level of
profitability for malpractice coverage.
If that is all the profits, where are the losses? This is Enron. This
is Kenny Boy. The Justice Department spent 2\1/2\ years and they can't
get him. They have gotten everybody in the world. They have gotten
WorldCom all the way through the courts up to the SEC and reaffirmed
their bankruptcy plan, but you haven't heard any more about Kenny Boy.
Listen to what this says:
When terrorists slammed airplanes into the World Trade
Center in 2001, the Donaldson Co. in Bloomington felt the
blow almost immediately. The manufacturer's property
insurance renewed just days later, with nasty surprises.
Our premium quadrupled from $500,000 to $2 million.
I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Metro edition
of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Star Tribune, Mar. 9, 2003]
Few Spared as Insurance Rates Soar; Corporate, Household Budgets Feel
Same Pain
(By Dee DePass)
When terrorists slammed airplanes into the World Trade
Center in 2001, the Donaldson Co. in Bloomington felt the
blow almost immediately. The manufacturer's property
insurance renewed just days later, with nasty surprises.
``Our premium quadrupled from $500,000 to $2 million'' and
suddenly excluded $150 million worth of terrorism coverage,
said Marty Kohne, Donaldson's safety, environment and
insurance manager.
After Enron imploded, Donaldson's cost to insure its
directors and officers tripled to $300,000 a year.
``You get very frustrated because all these events affect
you, but you have no control,'' Kohne said.
It's a common sentiment among insurance buyers of every
kind, both corporate and consumer. Pushed by events as
divergent as Enron's collapse, terrorism, natural disasters,
and health care inflation, insurance costs are spiraling
industrywide unlike anything seen in more than a decade. The
insurance inflation is part of what's stifling corporate
profits and eating into household budgets, and experts
believe it could be at
[[Page 17084]]
least another two years before prices stabilize.
Insurance executives contend they've had little choice but
to make major adjustments in premiums. Paul Bridges, senior
vice president of Marsh USA, the nation's largest insurance
broker, explained the increases this way:
``We had an insurance industry that used to make all of its
money off of investment returns on Wall Street. But with the
death of the dot.bombs, those stopped,'' he said. ``Then,
with recent losses, margins reversed and [insurers] weren't
making money for stock holders.''
``We started ratcheting up prices partly on the backs of
disasters'' last year, added Bridges, noting that premiums
are still on the rise. Commercial policies ``started off
rising 30, 40 and 50 percent and some even 100 percent.''
There's no escaping
The burden is being felt at firms of all sizes.
Minneapolis CPA Barry Rogers runs his own firm with six
employees. There have been no major illnesses among his
workers, so he was shocked when his agent announced last year
that his premiums were ``only going up 12 percent.''
``We had one person who had outpatient surgery done, and
that was the extent of it,'' Rogers said of the firm's
previous claims.
The firm's health care premiums jumped from $145 per worker
to $163, with the co-pay from $15 per office visit to $25.
Rogers and his agent eventually worked out a plan to reduce
the co-payment back to $ deductibles for hospitalization
climbed from $300 to $500.
Statewide, commercial health insurance premiums rose 12
percent in 1999, 16 percent in 2001, according to the
Minnesota Department of Health. Estimates are that rates will
go up again around 12 percent this year.
Health care companies reported their costs rose 9, 13 and
10 percent in 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively.
In many cases, the rising health care costs are being
partly passed along by employers, effectively canceling out
workers' cost-of-living raises. Workers are then finding that
their personal insurance costs also take more money. Last
year, homeowner premiums rose 10 percent nationwide. This
year, homeowners' rates are expected to rise again.
``There's no doubt about it, '02 had lots of premium
increases,'' said Kenneth Ciak, president of American Express
Property Casualty, which collected $260 million in premiums
last year.
corporate coverage
``Frankly, it's about time,'' Ciak said. ``On the personal
lines side, we have not had a 9/11 catastrophe, but there are
a fair number of storms that have occurred and the
homeowners' product has just been underpriced. We have not
made money for the last four or five years.''
While homeowners paid $37 million nationwide to protect
their homes against storms, fire and other disasters in 2001,
insurers reported losses and expenses equal to 114 percent of
all home premiums collected last year.
Even corporate coverage, which for years was predictably
and modestly priced, has exploded in cost, thanks to recent
events. The accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other
companies have erased an change for reasonable directors and
officers insurance or cheaply priced surety bonds.
The recent $1.4 billion settlement by investment banks with
regulators over allegations of misleading stock
recommendations also has increased the pricing pressures on
such policies, as insurers brace for investor lawsuits
alleging biased stock research. Directors and officers
insurance protects companies if their executives are sued by
shareholders or other plaintiffs.
A 2001 survey by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin found that
insurance claims against executives averaged $5.7 million for
each of its 2,037 corporate respondents that year, up 75
percent from 2000. Shareholder lawsuits alone leaped 178
percent to cost insurers $17 million on average in 2001.
paying for enron's sins
Companies that haven't been sued aren't escaping the
fallout.
Apogee Enterprises of Minneapolis manufactures and installs
exterior building glass. The company has 5,500 workers, 12
directors and no directors and officer claims in its history.
Nevertheless, it is paying or Enron's sins.
``Last year we paid about $150,000 [in premiums]. Now we
can expect it to go way up, maybe triple . . . even though
[four underwriter groups] are very comfortable with Apogee
and our governance,'' said Michael Clauer, Apogee's chief
financial officer.
``That's the reality of Enron. If you want the coverage,
you pay the price,'' Clauer added.
Marcy Korbel, a Marsh vice president of financial
professional services, recently shared similar bad news with
risk managers from General Mills Inc., 3M Co. and other
firms.
Industrywide, directors and officers ``premiums average 50
to 300 percent increases and that's only if there are no
claims,'' she said. ``We are seeing increases of more than
300 percent if there is claims activity and even more for
companies with market caps over $1 billion.''
Policy prices have to reflect reality, said Bob Hartwig,
senior economist for the Insurance Information Institute.
``The end of 2001 and all of 2002 were horrific years for
this country in terms of corporate governance. We have had
some of the worst scandals in the history of this country,''
Hartwig said.
premiums going up
Enron alone hit 11 insurance companies for $350 million in
director and officers claims. Enron's bankruptcy also cost
the St. Paul Companies $10 million in surety bond losses and
$12 million in unsecured debt the insurer held in the energy
company. AIG has announced a $1.8 billion charge in part to
deal with claims for both Enron and WorldCom.
All of this was on top of 9/11, which brought insurers $40
billion in losses.
The St. Paul Companies, which lost $941 million in 9/11
claims, hoisted commercial premiums 32 percent in 2001, and
27 percent last year to squeak back into the black after a
dismal 2001. The company lost nearly $1 billion in 2001. It
earned $290 million in 2002, about half the $567 million it
earned in 2000.
St. Paul CEO Jay Fishman has said premium increases will
continue this year.
At Apogee, the company's property premiums have risen 40
percent, while its general liability premiums doubled. To
compensate, it has adopted higher property deductibles and is
self-insuring for workers compensation claims.
``Not only did we assume more of claims but we also
incurred even more costs because premiums keep going up. It's
been a very challenging year for us,'' Clauer said.
On top of that, the company is still waiting for some
projects to get going because of the lack of terrorism
insurance, a product that is only beginning to be offered
again now and is likely to add another cost equal to about 10
percent of the property's regular insurance costs.
``We still have projects on hold because of the developers'
inability to get terrorism insurance,'' Clauer said.
surging premiums
After going through a long period of subdued prices in the
`90s, premiums for business and homeowners insurance are
rising fast, pushed by a confluence of events including
terrorism, corporate crimes and natural disasters.
Percentages for 2002 are estimated, percentages for 2003 are
forecast.
Premium percent change from prior year--'90 4.5 percent;
'02 14.0 percent; and '03 12.2 percent.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Enron alone hit 11 insurance companies
for $350 million in director and officer claims. Enron's bankruptcy
also cost St. Paul $10 million in surety bond losses and $12 million in
unsecured debt insurers held in the energy company. AIG has announced a
$1.8 billion charge in part to deal with claims for both Enron and
WorldCom.
All of this was on top of 9/11 which cost insurers $40 billion in
losses. Now, we find 9/11 and Enron. Kenny Boy is responsible for the
losses. It is not medical malpractice. In fact, in all of the cases,
only 1 out of 9, or 12 percent, of the cases actually go to court. Some
26 percent of that small percentage actually are tried. The verdicts
are up instead of down. But now we find out from where they come.
I have another article in the final edition of the Gannett
Corporation on Friday, January 3, 2003. I ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From USA Today, Jan. 3, 2003]
J.P. Morgan, Insurance Firms Settle Legal Dispute
(By Edward Iwata)
Hoping to cut loose the Enron albatross, J.P. Morgan Chase
early Thursday settled a legal dispute with 11 insurance
firms that had accused the Wall Street bank of engaging in
sham financial deals with the collapsed energy-trading firm.
Later in the day, J.P. Morgan Chase said it will take $1.3
billion in fourth-quarter charges to cover losses on its
dealings with Enron and to create a $900 million reserve for
related but unresolved legal claims.
J.P. Morgan Chase had sued the insurers last year, after
the companies refused to cover $1.1 billion in losses on
several failed energy trades in the late 1990s involving
Enron and Mahonia, an offshore company associated with J.P.
Morgan Chase.
The insurers--plus congressional investigators who have
looked into Enron's ties with Wall Street banks--alleged that
the deals between Enron and J.P. Morgan Chase were fake
accounting transactions designed to hide debt and boost
revenue.
Under the complex settlement submitted in court, the
insurance companies could pay
[[Page 17085]]
from $520 million to $660 million to J.P. Morgan Chase.
Neither side admitted wrongdoing, and both claimed a legal
victory.
John Callagy, an attorney at Kelley Drye & Warren in New
York who represents J.P. Morgan Chase, says the settlement
bolsters the bank's contention that the Enron deals were
legitimate. ``There was absolutely no evidence of fraud,'' he
says.
Alan Levine, a lawyer at Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman in
New York and the lead attorney for the insurers, says,
``We're very satisfied with the economics of the
settlement.''
J.P. Morgan Chase's troubles relating to Enron haven't
ended, though. The bank still faces the giant Enron
bankruptcy case, a shareholders' class-action lawsuit against
Enron and several Wall Street banks and federal
investigations into the Enron scandal.
The insurers' settlement should have no legal impact on the
other legal fights, says one attorney close to the cases.
However, lawyers often use settlements as leverage in talks
in related cases.
In the insurers' case, the settlement came early Thursday
morning, near the end of a monthlong trial in New York before
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff. The jury was ready to start
its deliberations Thursday.
As part of the settlement, Travelers Property Casualty
could pay up to $159 million; Chubb's Federal Insurance, $110
million; Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, $94 million; Allianz's
Fireman's Fund, $93 million; St. Paul Fire & Marine
Insurance, $80 million; CNA Financial's Continental Casualty
and National Fire Insurance, $47 million; Safeco, $33
million; Hartford Financial Services, $25 million; and
Liberty Mutual Insurance, $13 million.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it says:
Hoping to cut loose the Enron albatross, J.P. Morgan Chase
early Thursday settled a legal dispute with 11 insurance
firms that had accused the Wall Street bank of engaging in
sham financial deals with the collapsed energy-trading firm.
As part of the settlement, Travelers Property Casualty
could pay up to $159 million; Chubb's Federal Insurance, $110
million; Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, $94 million; Allianz's
Firemen's Fund, $93 million; St. Paul Fire & Marine
Insurance, $80 million; CNA Financial's Continental Casualty
and National Fire Insurance, $47 million; Safeco, $33
million; Hartford Financial Services, $25 million; and
Liberty Mutual Insurance, $13 million.
Let us talk about those losses. Where do we go?
I quote from an article dated June 30 in U.S. News and World Report.
The case of Samuel Desiderio, while tragic, seems to give
perfect voice to the complaints of many doctors who see a
legal system gone wild. As a 4-year-old, he suffered brain
damage following surgery at a New York City hospital. A state
court jury awarded him a hefty $80 million for medical
expenses and pain and suffering. In April, just two months
ago, an appeals court approved boosting the award against his
doctors and the hospital to an astonishing $140 million.
But as Joan Butsko's modest award suggests, caps may not be
the answer. Insurance costs are up, but it's not clear that
juries or the courts are the culprits, or even that the
crisis is as dire as it's being portrayed. The statistics
don't line up as neatly as doctors and insurers would have
them, and left out of the argument is recognition that
ordinary market forces may be at work instead.
For starters, there's no explosion of cases that might
drive up legal costs. The number filed each year has remained
fairly steady during the past decade, according to the
National Center for State Courts. Further, most malpractice
plaintiffs never even see a jury--two thirds of their cases
are dropped or dismissed--and when they do, it often isn't a
sympathetic one. Only a tiny sliver of cases filed--just 0.9
percent of some 5,500 cases surveyed for 2002--produce jury
verdicts for patients claiming injury. And even the size of
that small wedge is down by half since 2000, according to the
Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group
for malpractice insurers owned or operated by doctors, which
account for about 60 percent of the market.
Within that wedge, the number of payments that doctors'
insurers make following jury verdicts has held steady in
recent years, at around 400 annually, according to a U.S.
News review of hundreds of thousands of payments of all kinds
reported to the federal National Practitioner Data Bank.
These payments total about $143 million each year.
Malpractice insurers are required by law to report their
payouts to the system.
Doctors and insurers say that frequency of claims aside,
the prime issue is the size of awards. Indeed, the size of
insurer payments stemming from jury verdicts has been
increasing in recent years, U.S. News has found; in 2002 it
reached a median of $295,000. But, that's far below the
median jury award of $1 million the AMA and others often
cite. Even assuming two defendants per case--a number
insurers say is typical--plus other adjustments, the median
payment remains hundreds of thousands of dollars short of the
$1 million figure.
But it's not clear that verdicts are really the whip behind
settlements. Over time, the size of a typical settlement
payment has grown somewhat faster than a typical jury verdict
payment. And while the sum from jury awards has remained
stable over the past decade, the total of payouts from
settlements has soared, especially recently, when doctors say
the crisis has emerged.
Mr. President, that is what punitive damages do. They really set the
pace.
Dickie Scruggs and Ron Motley, the trial lawyers in the tobacco case,
did more to cure people of cancer or prevent people from getting cancer
than Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler.
I have been in the vanguard since Warren Magnuson had me have cancer
hearings all the way back in 1967 and 1968. And over the years, we have
tried everything in the world to stop people from smoking.
If my time is up, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes,
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
People talk about those two lawyers and say, ``Look at all the fees
they got.'' I say look at all the good they did. Over the many years,
we have had the American Cancer Society, we have had fundraisers, we
have had cancer institutes, we have had all kinds of research and
everything else like that, but how do you stop people from smoking?
When they got that 360-some-billion-dollar settlement with the
Government, the Attorney General, the medical community, and everybody
concerned, and the State attorneys general, that failed to pass the
Senate, so it was taken up, and I think it was $232 billion that the
States settled for. That money is being paid out. In many States they
have programs to teach youngsters to avoid smoking. I go to the heart
of the Pee Dee in South Carolina where they grow tobacco, and you will
see a big sign on the courthouse that says: ``No smoking.''
Now, that really got me. Those two lawyers really deserve every dime
they get out of the legal fees. They had been bringing cases upon cases
upon cases, and I think their average victory was some 4 in 100 cases.
They just lost another case down in Charleston last year. Of course,
there have been ridiculous verdicts, like in Florida, where the
punitive damages is somewhere around $27 million, but had been $145
billion. Well, that was a six-man jury and a judge who did not know
what they were doing. That was just a seven-man conspiracy. I agree, it
was wild and unjustified.
My point is, these trial lawyers are really doing a wonderful
service. I can go to the class actions, I can go to the asbestos cases.
The onslaught has got to be stopped here on this so-called tort reform
because it is totally political. It is totally campaign funds. It is
totally the election next year and not the needs of the country.
Mr. President, that is what is going on, and colleagues have to wake
up and realize we have a President who runs off to Africa, who has not
settled Afghanistan, who does not know where he is in Iraq. All he
knows is the election is next year, in November. So there we are. We
are being put upon with not the needs of the country but, frankly, with
the needs of the campaign.
I have an article here dated September 7 of last year from the New
York Times. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Sept. 7, 2002]
Insurers Scale Back Corporate Liability Policies
(By Jonathan D. Glater and Joseph B. Treaster)
Shellshocked by corporate scandals and fearful of the hefty
payments they will have to make to settle shareholder
lawsuits, the big commercial insurance companies are cutting
back sharply on liability coverage for American corporations,
their directors and senior executives.
The cutbacks are taking the form of higher deductibles and
lower limits on overall coverage. But the insurance companies
are also demanding that corporations pay part of any court
settlements or jury awards out of their
[[Page 17086]]
own pockets. As a result, corporations in telecommunications,
energy, financial services and pharmaceuticals--where the
risk of being sued is thought to be highest--could face
payments of up to half of the cost of any settlement.
The three leaders in this line of coverage--the American
International Group, the Chubb Group and Hartford Financial
Services--have already begun requiring some customers to
share the expense of settlements.
The cutbacks effectively limit the size of policies
insurance companies will sell to any one company, said Andrew
Marcell, who is in charge of insurance for directors and
corporate officers at Guy Carpenter, a New York reinsurance
broker and a unit of the Marsh & McLennan Companies.
``Companies that until recently were willing to provide $50
million in coverage are now offering $25 million, and
companies that offered $25 million are now providing $10
million to $15 million,'' Mr. Marcell said.
Enron had $350 million in this kind of coverage and some
corporations had been buying up to $1 billion worth. But now,
Mr. Marcell said, ``$250 million in coverage is pretty hard
to come by.''
The sharing of the burden of settlements may also leave
directors' and officers' personal assets exposed, lawyers
said.
``This is very bad news for directors and officers,'' said
Michael Young, a partner at the law firm of Willkie Farr &
Gallagher in New York who often represents directors and
officers. ``The insurance industry is sending out the word
that for outside directors, insurance that provides 100
percent protection is going to be increasingly difficult to
get and companies are going to have to pay through the nose
for it.''
John Keogh, a unit president of the American International
Group, said that some corporations could avoid sharing the
costs of lawsuits with insurance companies and get full
coverage up to limits of their policies by paying higher
premiums. But David H. McElroy, who is in charge of this kind
of insurance at Hartford Financial Services, said the
riskiest clients could not get full coverage at any price.
The insurers say they are merely acting in self-defense as
they watch corporate giant after corporate giant collapse as
they come under fire for deceptive accounting and management
abuses that have drained companies like WorldCom, Global
Crossing and Tyco of hundreds of millions in corporate money.
As share prices of these companies have plunged,
shareholders have turned to lawsuits in an attempt to recover
at least some of their losses.
Combining the expected costs from some of the latest
lawsuits, which are still in their early stages, and scores
of others that have been working their way through the courts
over the last few years, insurers estimate that they will
have to pay out $7.5 billion this year on liability policies
for directors and officers--but they collected only $4.5
billion in premiums.
``The expected claims paid out are going to be multiples of
the premiums that have been collected,'' said Mr. Keogh of
A.I.G. He would not comment on specific numbers. Some
insurers said that they expected the actual losses to be
lower, but that the industry would still lose money this
year. Quietly, several insurers have also begun trying to
cancel certain policies, arguing that corporate fraud makes
them void--a nightmare for executives.
The cutback in liability coverage and increases in premiums
are hitting corporations hard. Bruce S. Zaccanti, an
insurance consultant at Ernst & Young, said a nationwide real
estate management company he had been advising paid $3
million for $100 million in coverage last year. This year,
the company's premium jumped to $4.5 million for $70 million
in coverage. On top of that, he said, the deductible has
jumped to $15 million from $5 million.
By forcing the companies to share the cost of settlements,
the insurers also hope to prod them to fight harder to keep
those costs down. When all the costs have been covered, the
insurers said, the corporations are often eager to settle
quickly--rather than work for a smaller settlement.
``There is no doubt in our minds that insureds' settlement
behavior has been less reluctant than maybe it once was when
there was an economic alignment,'' said Tony Galban, vice
president and manager of directors and officers liability
insurance underwriting at Chubb Specialty, a subsidiary of
Chubb & Son.
In recent years, the average size of settlements in
securities lawsuits has increased drastically, rising to $16
million in 2001, according to the Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, an organization at Stanford University that
tracks securities litigation. Before 1995, when a law was
passed making it tougher to bring securities fraud claims,
the average settlement was less than half that amount.
The possibility that individual directors and officers
could be forced to dip into their own wealth may make it
harder to recruit executives to serve on corporate boards,
said Brooks Chamberlain, head of the global insurance
practice at Korn/Ferry International, an executive search
firm. Fearful of personal liability, more and more recruits
are conducting their own due diligence on prospective
employers, he said.
Smaller companies, companies with financial problems,
companies in certain industries perceived to have a higher
incidence of fraud, and companies with fewer hard assets but
sizable market capitalizations will have more trouble, Mr.
Chamberlain said.
According to Mr. Young of Willkie Farr & Gallagher,
directors want some assurance that somebody else will be able
to pay any settlement or damage award.
``What if the company goes into bankruptcy? Then who
covers?'' he asked rhetorically. ``Or what if the company's
just not wealthy enough?
The changes have already had the odd effect of leading to
the creation of a new type of policy that will protect only
independent directors. A.I.G. will sell the policies that
cannot be canceled even in the case of management fraud, Mr.
Keogh said.
But Gregory M. Schmidt, general counsel at the LIN TV
Corporation, an owner of television stations in several
states, wondered whether companies might choose not to take
on the additional cost of these policies and instead promise
to cover any settlement costs owed by the directors. ``The
question is whether that's going to be satisfactory'' to the
directors and officers, he said.
LIN's policies are not up for renewal until March, he said,
but executives at the company are monitoring changes the
insurers are announcing.
``We're worried,'' he added.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We really are in trouble. I have in my own State the
widow of a physician who worked at a hospital in Columbia, where her
husband died after surgery. They had to sue as a result of his death.
How can we, the Congress, solve this problem? Let the doctors
discipline the doctors. They are going to have to do it on the one
hand. And let's have insurance reform. Yes, the Durbin-Graham approach
is salutary in that it does away with the fixing of rates. That ought
to be done away with. But the only way to really get at the problem
itself is what they did in California with proposition 103 that passed
in 1988 and that is to regulate the rates themselves.
You can get the information only then from the insurance companies,
and I have tried my best as a member of the Commerce Committee, subject
to insurance jurisdiction, to try to again and again, year in and year
out. And the insurance companies won't tell you anything because they
say they are State regulated and we have no jurisdiction whatsoever
over them. If there is one thing that is engaged in interstate
commerce, it is insurance.
Let's don't just go with terrorism insurance, and just tax credits to
pay the premiums, and patchwork little Band-Aids on this problem. Let's
get to the real heart of the problem. The insurance companies lost
money. They lost it on Kenny Boy. And now the officers and directors of
these corporations are being sued, and the rates have gone up with
respect to corporate bad practice. The only way to get at it is
insurance reform itself.
We are just acting like a dog chasing its tail when we go on about
tort reform, and the lawyer's fees, and joint and severable liability,
and product liability. If they are real problems, every State has a
legislature and they are subject to that jurisdiction. They can do it.
But as far as insurance goes, I have worked with them. I have seen
them, after 50 years of governmental service at every level. I had to
clean up my own insurance department as Governor of South Carolina. I
know it intimately.
I can tell you that we have an insurance reform bill, and I want to
work with my colleagues on this, for this is how to take care of the
medical malpractice increase in premiums.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S.
11, the Patients First Act, of which I am an original cosponsor.
Throughout my career in public service, health care has been one of my
top legislative priorities. We all want access to quality, affordable
health care. And when the quality is not there, when people die or are
truly sick due to negligence or other medical error, they should be
compensated. But when healthy plaintiffs file meaningless lawsuits to
coerce settlements or to shake the money tree to get as much as they
can get, there's
[[Page 17087]]
a snowball effect and all of us pay the price.
For the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the
rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society
to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments
that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the
expense of society as a whole.
I have been concerned about this issue since my days as Governor of
Ohio. I wish we had the outpouring of support for medical liability
reform 6 years ago that I see now. In 1996, I essentially had to pull
teeth in the Ohio Legislature to pass my tort reform bill. I signed it
into law in October 1996. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court
ruled it unconstitutional, and if that law had withstood the Supreme
Court's scrutiny, Ohioans wouldn't be facing the medical access
problems they are facing today: doctors leaving their practice,
patients unable to receive the care they need and costs of health
insurance going through the roof.
During my time in the Senate, I have continued my work to alleviate
the medical liability crisis. To this end, I worked with the American
Tort Reform Association to produce a study that captured the impact of
this crisis on Ohio's economy in order to share these findings with my
constituents and colleagues. Guess what we found? In Ohio, the
litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio
family of four $2,544 per year. These are alarming numbers! In these
economic times, families can not afford to pay $2,500 for the lawsuit
abuse of a few individuals.
It is not just the individuals but the lawyers who bear some of the
responsibility. I recently received my yellow and white pages. Look
what I found on the front and back covers, advertisements for personal
injuries. This is the yellow pages of the Cleveland phonebook and the
white pages, advertisements on the front cover and on the back cover.
One of them says: Medical malpractice. It talks about wrongful death,
quadriplegic/paraplegic. They have pictures, birth injuries, nursing
home negligence, Erb's palsy, cerebral palsy, heart attacks/late
treatment, cancer late diagnosis, emergency room negligence.
It goes on to say, ``Our firm will advance expenses for our clients
in most cases,'' and ``Clients do not have to repay expenses unless
there is a successful outcome.'' This kind of stuff is in the yellow
pages and on television every night.
When I got out of law school, solicitation was a violation of the
canons of professional ethics of lawyers. That has all changed today. I
think unfortunately so.
Next to the economy and jobs--the most important issue facing our
country today is health care. In fact, it is a major part of what is
wrong with the economy. We have too many uninsured, employers face
spiraling costs, and those who have insurance face soaring premiums
every year. The impact on businesses is great. It affects their ability
to offer health insurance to employees. Too many times, they pass on
the added costs to their employees, whose family budgets are often
already stretched razor thin. And then there are those who lose their
jobs and can't afford COBRA, assuming their company is still in
business and COBRA is available.
This issue is a personal one for me. My daughter-in-law, who is
expecting her fourth child, recently learned from her obstetrician that
after her delivery, she is no longer going to deliver any more babies.
Her doctor is in a four-physician group, all of them obstetricians.
They have never had any lawsuits against them, yet their insurance
premiums have skyrocketed from $81,000 three years ago to over $381,000
today. That's $75,000 per person over a period of 3 years. How can
physicians be expected to afford rate hikes like these? And how many
babies do they have to deliver in order to pay for medical insurance.
Think of somebody getting out of medical school that is an OB/GYN and
being told: Before you open the door, you will have to pay a premium of
$75,000 to $80,000 to practice medicine.
This crisis is out of control, and when you listen to the statistics,
you will be astounded:
From 1994 to 2000, the median award for medical negligence in
childbirth cases, $2.05 million, was the highest for all types of
medical malpractice cases analyzed.
The median medical liability award jumped 43% in one year, from
$700,000 in 1999 to $1 million in 2000; it has doubled since 1995.
Medical liability reform could produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion
in annual savings for the Federal Government and increase the number of
Americans with health insurance by up to 3.9 million people.
There are some who say the Federal Government doesn't have a dog in
the fight. We certainly have, when medical liability reform could
produce $12.1 billion to $19.5 billion in annual savings and increase
the number of Americans covered by insurance.
Seventy-six percent of physicians in Ohio, surveyed by the Ohio State
Medical Association, said rising professional liability premiums have
impacted their willingness to perform high-risk procedures.
Over half said they are considering early retirement as a result of
rising costs.
There has also been an immense jump in million-dollar verdicts. In
1995-97, a little over 36 percent of cases resulted in an award of $1
million or more. By 1998-99, the rate of million dollar awards reached
43 percent. By 2000-01, it was at 54 percent, with one quarter of all
awards exceeding $2.7 million. It is going up like a rocketship.
These numbers are shocking, and they continue to grow. We feel this
crisis very strongly in Ohio. Medical Liability Monitor ranked Ohio
among the top five states for premium increases in 2002. OHIC Insurance
Co., among the largest medical liability insurers in the State, reports
that average premiums for Ohio doctors have doubled over the last 3
years. But don't listen only to the statistics. Let's talk about
doctors--human beings who have practices and patients:
Dr. Perm Jawa, a Cleveland urologist, says that soaring liability
premiums leave him in perpetual fear of career-ending lawsuits. ``I shy
away from major cases now. Sometimes you know what the best thing is
but you don't want to be doing it because there are potential
complications with it,'' Jawa said. ``You're not as aggressive as you
should be.''
In Columbus, Dr. David Stockwell has seen coverage for his two-
physician OB-GYN practice climb to over $100,000 a year. And he
expected his premiums to rise 20 to 25 percent in May.
Dr. Robert Norman, a geriatrician in Cuyahoga Falls, saw his annual
medical liability premium jump $5,700 to $34,000 last year. He had been
warned that it could reach $100,000 this year if he continued treating
patients in nursing homes. But in May he received an unexpected
ultimatum from his insurer and every other carrier he queried: agree to
stop seeing nursing home patients or lose liability coverage
altogether. As a result, 150 of Dr. Norman's patients had to find a new
doctor.
Dr. Stephen Cochran lost his hospital privileges at Akron General
Medical Center when his insurer's financial stability rating was
downgraded recently. He is seeking another insurer, but meanwhile, he
says, ``We receive daily phone calls from the patients: `Why aren't you
here? Why aren't you seeing me? I want my doctor.''' He says. ``It's
been very stressful to a lot of the patients, particularly the
geriatric patients . . . This [the malpractice crisis] has probably
changed the nature of our practice more than anything that has happened
in the last 10 to 20 years.''
After practicing for 15 years--their entire careers--in Cleveland,
Dr. Christopher Magiera and his wife, surgeon Patricia Galloway,
decided to leave Ohio to seek refuge from overwhelming liability
premiums. Their insurance agent warned them that both would soon be
paying $100,000 in annual premiums, up from $30,000 this year. Magiera
and his wife decided to ``get out before the situation became
hopeless,'' he said. They resettled in Wisconsin. Good for Wisconsin.
[[Page 17088]]
This is disgraceful. This crisis is forcing doctors to close their
doors and greatly affecting patient access to care.
I want to commend the physicians' grassroots efforts--they are really
starting to get attention for this issue. On May 3, 2003, I spoke in my
home State of Ohio at the annual conference of the Ohio State Medical
Association. I also participated in a physicians rally last October in
Columbus, OH which was sponsored by the Ohio State Medical Association.
I was impressed with all of the speakers, in particular, Dr. Evangeline
Andarsio, an OB-GYN from Dayton, who described the changes in the
profession and the effect of the litigation cloud:
The professional liability crisis is creating a barrier to
patients' access to good medical care, especially pregnant
women. . . . a paradigm shift needs to occur in our society.
Our laws must change to begin to reflect this paradigm shift.
After speaking at this rally, I received a letter from a young
doctor, telling me that he was leaving Ohio because he couldn't afford
his medical liability insurance premiums. Dr. Cly had received a notice
from his insurance carrier that his premiums would be increased by
$20,000-30,000. This, plus the $20,000 increase from last year, forced
him to make the difficult decision of uprooting his family and his
practice to another State. Dr. Cly was unable to make the insurance
premiums and still take care of his student loan obligations and his
family. Even though he has never had a malpractice claim or judgment
against him during his residency training or his private practice
years, his rates continued to skyrocket to the point where he could no
longer afford them. His move to Fort Wayne, IN, will save him $50,000
per year in liability insurance.
In his letter to me, which I would like to submit for the record, Dr.
Cly writes:
I represent young physicians in Ohio. Most young physicians
I speak with are all considering relocating to a place where
the ability to practice medicine is better and the liability
situation is more stable. I do not want to leave. I have
developed close relationships with many patients, families,
nurses, physicians, and staff here in Dayton, Ohio. I always
planned to retire here and raise my children here. It saddens
me greatly to have to make this decision. I feel as if I am
giving up and ``throwing in the towel'' by leaving, but I
believe my decision is the right one for my family.
I ask unanimous consent that this entire letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
May 16, 2003.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: Thank you for you listening to the
challenges Ohio physicians are facing regarding the medical
malpractice insurance premiums. As you may recall, I was the
young physician from Dayton, Ohio who spoke with you after
your speech to the Ohio State Medical Association May 3,
2003, while you were walking to another meeting. I work
alongside Dr. Evangeline Andarsio at Miami Valley Hospital.
I too, am an obstetrician/gynecologist here in Dayton,
Ohio. I have been in Dayton since 1988 when I attended the
University of Dayton. I later went to Wright State University
School of Medicine in 1992. After graduating from medical
school, I did my residency training at Miami Valley Hospital
from 1996 until 2000. I have been in private practice for the
past 3 years.
In order to attend college and medical school I had to take
out educational loans and work during those years. As a
result, I have accumulated $150,000 in student loans. With
the decreasing reimbursement and increasing medical liability
insurance premiums I am not able make much effort in paying
off my student loans. In addition, I am married with a set of
5 year old boy and girl twins. I haven't been able to afford
to save for their future college educations yet, nor have I
been able to put away much money in a retirement plan for me
and my wife.
Unfortunately, the liability insurance rates are being
unfairly and significantly increased once again this July by
our carrier, OHIC. I am expecting another $20,000-30,000
increase from the $20,000 increase last year. Currently,
prior to the July increase, I am paying $55,000 for my
insurance premium. It is important to know that I have never
had a malpractice claim or judgment during my residency
training or private practice years.
I no longer afford to stay in Dayton or Ohio to practice
medicine. I am leaving the state, in July, 2003, and I will
be moving to Fort Wayne, Indiana to practice medicine. I will
save approximately $50,000 per year in liability insurance
alone. In addition, the managed care penetrations is much
less and the reimbursement is better. These factors will
allow me to begin eliminating my debt and saving for my
family's future.
I represent young physicians in Ohio. Most young physicians
I speak with are all considering relocating to a place where
the ability to practice medicine is better and the liability
situation is more stable. I do not want to leave. I have
developed close relationships with many patients, families,
nurses, physicians, and staff here in Dayton, Ohio. I always
planned to retire here and raise my children here. It saddens
me greatly to have to make this decision. I feel as if I am
giving up and ``throwing in the towel'' by leaving, but I
believe my decision is the right one for my family.
I am extremely thankful of your willingness to help
physicians with this crisis. I am genuinely concerned about
the future of medicine for our patients. If these issues
aren't corrected soon, many patients will suffer due to the
lack of access to care.
If I can be of any assistance please contact me. My home
phone is 937-376-0705. My cell phone is 937-657-5094. My 24
hr pager is 937-636-3263. My office numbers, until June 27,
2003, are listed above. My email is [email protected].
Sincere Thanks,
Geoffrey Cly, MD.
Mr. VOINOVICH. For those of my colleagues who think medical liability
reform is a State issue, I ask them to read this letter and see how the
medical liability crisis transcends State lines--particularly my
friends from the neighboring State of West Virginia. Our Ohio
physicians who practice along the border are feeling the effects of
their proximity to West Virginia and its favorable plaintiff's
verdicts. They are feeling these effects in their increasing insurance
premiums.
This is a nationwide crisis. And it's not only doctors crossing State
borders to find better insurance rates--it's patients as well. Citizens
living along the thousands of miles of State borders very often obtain
their medical care across that line. Federal action is appropriate and
critically necessary. Even more so because this crisis affects Federal
health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and costs the
Federal Government billions of dollars every year.
In fact, the cost of this crisis to the economy is quite staggering.
With over 41 million Americans without health insurance, including an
estimated 1.25 million Ohioans at some time in 2001, we have to look at
a new system--because this crisis is not only bad for doctors and
patients, it also affects our competitiveness in the global
marketplace. Many of our company's insurance costs have skyrocketed
because of medical lawsuit abuse costs that their competitors just do
not have.
The Nation's medical schools and students feel the effects of the
medical liability crisis. According to the National Resident Matching
Program, a private, nonprofit corporation, the number of American
medical students applying to general surgery residency programs
declined by 30 percent from 1992 to 2002. If this trend continues, less
than 5 percent of medical school graduates will choose a career in
surgery by 2005, and only 75 percent of general surgery residency
positions will be filled by graduates of medical schools in the United
States.
Thank God we have foreign doctors who have come to the United States
of America. In Ohio, one out of six doctors is an Asian Indian.
And, in its 2003 biennial survey of medical residents in their final
year of training, the firm of Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, MHA,
noticed a disturbing trend. When asked if they would study medicine or
select another field if they had their education to begin again, one
quarter of all residents surveyed indicated they would select another
field--this compared with only 5 percent in 2001. It is sweeping across
the country and everybody is getting hit. It is going to have a
disastrous effect--it already is--and we have to do something about it.
When asked to identify what factors caused them a significant level of
concern, sixty-two percent of residents indicated that malpractice is a
significant area--compared to just 15 percent of residents surveyed 2
years ago.
Specific medical specialties feel the crisis more than others. A
September
[[Page 17089]]
25, 2002 report by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons,
Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and Council of State Neurological
Societies, entitled ``Neurosurgery in a State of Crisis'' found that
professional liability costs among Ohio neurosurgeons have skyrocketed
since 2000. For a $5 to $7 million coverage policy, in 2000, a
physician would have paid $75,000. By 2002, this number had jumped to
$168,000.
Not only in Ohio, but across the nation, between 2000 and 2002, the
average premium increase was 63 percent. As a result, of those
neurosurgeons polled: 14 percent said they plan to, or are considering
moving; 25 percent said they either plan to, or are considering,
retiring; 34 percent said they already do, or are considering,
restricting their practices.
In my hometown of Cleveland, OH, at one of our hospitals, the
neurosurgeons just left. There was no one there to take care of
emergency patients, although just recently because of something the
Cleveland Clinic did, they agreed to step in, but there were four
neurosurgeons serving about 15 hospitals, and they just decided they
were getting out. Who is going to pick that up for them? What is going
to happen to those patients?
Patients cannot get emergency medical treatment because fewer
neurosurgeons are covering ERs, and trauma hospitals are shutting their
doors and diverting patients with serious head and spinal cord injuries
to other locations.
Patients cannot find a neurosurgeon close to home because
neurosurgeons are moving to States where insurance costs are relatively
stable.
Further exacerbating this problem is the high retirement rate.
According to the American Board of Neurological Surgery, in 2001 alone,
over 300 neurosurgeons retired. This is 10 percent of our Nation's
neurosurgical workforce. And for the first time in over a decade, there
are now fewer than 3,000 board certified neurosurgeons practicing in
the U.S.
Earlier this year, I participated in a press conference with my
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and my
distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign. During this
conference, I met a doctor from Florida who had rushed his son to the
hospital with his head hemorrhaging, only to find that there were no
pediatric neurosurgeons there. He asked if a regular neurosurgeon could
help, but they could not because pediatric neurosurgeons require
special liability insurance. Due to the exorbitant costs of insurance
for pediatric neurosurgeons, only seven were practicing in the State of
Florida and the nearest one was 150 miles away. Fortunately, the boy
survived, but this type of scenario does not need to happen.
I was recently speaking with some doctors in Cleveland who told me
that the nephrologists practicing there will not even look at a baby
facing kidney problems, because adding pediatric work to their existing
practices will cause their premiums to skyrocket.
The effects of the medical liability crisis can also be felt by the
obstetrics-gynecologists community. In fact, obstetrics-gynecology is
among the top three specialties in the cost of professional liability
insurance premiums. Nationally, insurance premiums for OB-GYNs have
increased dramatically: the median premium increased 167 percent
between 1982 and 1998. The median rate rose 7 percent in 2000, 12.5
percent in 2001, and 15.3 percent in 2002 with increases as high as 69
percent, according to a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, a
newsletter covering the liability insurance industry.
According to Physicians Insurance Association of America, OB-GYNs
were first among 28 specialty groups in the number of claims filed
against them in 2000. OB-GYNs were the highest of all specialty groups
in the average cost of defending against a claim in 2000, at a cost of
$34,308. In the 1990s, they were first--along with family physicians-
general practitioners--in the percentage of claims against them closed
with a payout of 36 percent. They were second, after neurologists, in
the average claim payment made during that period.
Although the number of claims filed against all physicians climbed in
recent decades, the phenomenon does not reflect an increased rate of
medical negligence.
That is something we should point out. It does not reflect an
increased rate in negligence.
In fact, OB-GYNS win most of the claims filed against them. A 1999
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology survey of its membership
found that over one-half of claims against OB-GYNS were dropped by
plaintiffs' attorneys, dismissed or settled without a payment. Of cases
that did proceed, OB-GYNS won seven out of ten times. Enormous
resources are spent to deal with these claims, only 10 percent of which
are found to have merit. The costs to defend these claims can be
staggering and often mean that physicians invest less in new
technologies that help patients. In 2000, the average cost to defend a
claim against an OB-GYN was the highest of all physician specialties:
$35,000.
According to an ACOG survey of its members, the typical OB-GYN is 47
years old, has been in practice for over 15 years, and can expect to be
sued 2.53 times over his or her career. Over one-fourth of ACOG fellows
have even been sued for care provided during their residency. In 1999,
76.5 percent of ACOG fellows reported they had been sued at least once
so far in their career. The average claim takes over 4 years to
resolve.
Practicing medicine and having lawsuits hanging over your head, and
only 10 percent are well taken, can you imagine, Mr. President, how it
is to practice medicine under those conditions?
How does all of this affect patients' access to care?
As premiums increase, women's access to general health care--
including regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood
pressure and cholesterol, diabetes, and other serious health risks--
will decrease. OB/GYNs are disappearing.
It leads to more uninsured women. Last year, 11.7 million women of
childbearing age were uninsured. Without medical liability reform, a
greater number of women ages 19 to 44 will move into the ranks of the
uninsured.
The legislation we are debating today gets us on our way to enacting
meaningful medical liability reform.
There are going to be a lot of excuses. We are going to hear from
some colleagues as to why this is not a good thing, and they are going
to get into specific caps and so forth.
The fact is, this legislation provides a commonsense approach to our
litigation problems that will help keep consumers from bearing the cost
of costly and unnecessary litigation, while making sure those with
legitimate grievances have recourse to the courts.
That is what we want to do. We want to make sure those who are
legitimately harmed have recourse to the courts and are compensated.
The bill sets sensible limits on noneconomic damages to help restrain
medical liability premium increases, while ensuring unlimited economic
compensation for patients injured by negligence.
In other words, there is no cap on economic compensation. All of
those issues that can be documented, you can be reimbursed for. It
limits attorney's fees so the money awarded in the court goes to the
injured parties, who are the people who really need it. It mandates
that relevant medical experts testify in malpractice trials, as opposed
to highly paid ``expert witnesses'' who are often used to influence
juries and foster abuses in the legal system. It also allows physicians
to pay any large judgments against them over a period of time in order
to avoid bankruptcy, and requires all parties to participate in
alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as mediation or
arbitration, before going to court.
It is a sensible way of handling a problem in our country and, at the
same time, looking at the societal costs that are being paid today by
all Americans.
Providing this commonsense approach to our medical liability premiums
is a win-win situation. Patients
[[Page 17090]]
would not have to give away large portions of their judgments to their
attorneys, truly injured parties can recover 100 percent of their
economic damages, punitive damages are reserved for those cases that
are truly justified, doctors and hospitals will not be held liable for
harms they did not cause, and physicians can focus on doing what they
do best: practicing medicine and providing health care.
I end with the words of Dr. Andarsio, whom I quoted earlier:
Help us to maintain an ability to have a practice that
offers patients excellent access to care--to continue one of
the most important relationships in our lives--the doctor-
patient relationship--thus maintaining individualized and
compassionate care.
In my own particular case--and it may be why I am probably more fired
up about this than some people in the Senate--when I was about 2 years
old, I contracted osteomyelitis.
It is a disease in the marrow of the bone. There was a lot of
controversy among a couple of doctors on how I should be treated for
that osteomyelitis. There was one physician who had the courage to try
some new things. His name was Dr. Holloway. Dr. Holloway saved my life.
I will not ever forget going to his funeral.
There are a lot of other people around this country like George
Voinovich who are in need of access to orthopedic surgeons and other
types of medical care. I want them to have the same opportunity I had,
to have a life. That is what this is about.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I also understand we are under an
agreement that we go back and forth. It could be that a Democratic
speaker might have been next. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I
be allowed to go ahead and speak since I am in the Chamber and prepared
to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have heard colleagues on the other
side of the aisle extol the virtues of the Weiss report to justify
opposing limits on noneconomic damages. Some of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle seem to view this report as the end all and be
all of reports on the effect of damage caps.
This Weiss report makes the rather bold and somewhat astonishing
assertion that States with caps on damages actually have higher
premiums than States without caps on damages. I never heard of such a
conclusion. Indeed, it flies in the face of common sense, common
experience, and the expertise of actuaries and insurance commissioners.
As one can imagine, I was intrigued by this report and wanted to
learn more about it. Upon reviewing the report, it reminded me of the
saying by Mark Twain, or Will Rogers, who said: There are lies, there
are damn lies, and then there are statistics.
I am wondering how Weiss calculated the median premiums found in his
report. No one can seem to figure that out because the report never
really explains how the median premium was established.
The Weiss report uses data over a decade-long period. We are talking
about the cost of something, in this case insurance coverage, over a
substantial amount of time. Inflation is a pretty basic statistical
variable for which one should account. Does the Weiss report take
inflation into account in reaching its conclusion regarding caps? It
looks as if the Weiss report knows that to do a proper analysis one
should take inflation into account. After all, it does so in analyzing
insurance company payoffs.
For some inexplicable reason the Weiss report fails to do so in its
analysis of the increase in insurance company premiums. There is no
indication Weiss took inflation into account, despite the fact it does
so in making a similar calculation for insurance company payoffs in
other parts of the report. If I didn't know better, I would say such a
glaring and telling omission was part of an effort to arrive at a
predetermined conclusion.
The publication from which the Weiss report obtained its data is
something called the Medical Liability Monitor. It is one of the best
sources for medical malpractice premium information. Many legitimate
reports use the data found in this publication to help explain the
crisis. The most recent comprehensive rate survey in the Medical
Liability Monitor, dated October 2002, had a headline that reads ``2002
rate survey finds malpractice premiums are soaring. Hard market wallops
physicians. Average rate increase more than double those in 2001.''
It seems to me the methods the Weiss report uses are not only wrong
but, in fact, misleading. The Weiss report is so seriously flawed,
according to the Medical Liability Monitor, the experts who collect the
data that Weiss manipulated, actually had to print the following
disclaimer in a June 2003 issue to ensure this report was not used to
mislead the public.
Let me read the most salient parts.
The Weiss ratings analysis of medical malpractice caps
cites Medical Liability Monitor as the source of data Weiss
uses to calculate average and median premiums for physicians
during the last 12 years.
While we are an independent news publication and take no
position on tort reform or other proposals to improve the
medical liability climate, we feel it necessary to comment on
the use of our statistics because some readers have expressed
concern.
The medians and averages in the Weiss report are not the
numbers we report in our annual rates surveys. Weiss may have
taken our numbers--the amounts and increases of premiums paid
by doctors State by State--and used them to arrive at their
statistics, but it is impossible from their report to say
definitely how our numbers have been used.
It is our view that it is impossible to calculate a valid
``average'' premium for physicians or for physicians in a
particular State or territory, and we state that clearly in
the executive summary of our rate survey.
But the editor of the Medical Liability Monitor goes further,
advising the leaders it is misleading to use median annual premiums
compiled from data from the Medical Liability Monitor to demonstrate
the effect of noneconomic damage limits on medical liability rates.
This is exactly what Weiss does. The report uses median annual premiums
compiled with data from the Medical Liability Monitor to try to
demonstrate the effect of noneconomic damage limits on liability rates.
Not only is this wrong, it down right misleads the public.
I would be the first to confess I am not an expert on the subject but
according to many experts, including the PIAA, it is impossible to
calculate a valid and useful median premium using the numbers found in
the Medical Liability Monitor for many reasons. One of the obvious
reasons is a median is not a weighted average. Thus, the Weiss
methodology, as far as we can tell, actually inflates the insurance
carrier's premium increase by not weighing premiums according to market
share. This is critically important because the highest rate probably
has the lowest market share.
In fact, the Medical Liability Monitor does not report how many
doctors have a particular premium, so a helpful weighted average is
impossible to calculate based upon that data as the authors of the
Weiss report will tell you.
In short, according to the very experts upon whom the Weiss report
relies, the conclusion of the Weiss report on the effective economic
damages are wrong, misleading, and should be avoided.
I think it is better to look at some legitimate studies. While folks
should question the Weiss study, we can generally trust CBO. So let's
look at some highlights from CBO.
Reading from pertinent parts, States with limits of $250,000 or
$350,000 on noneconomic damages have an average combined highest
premium increase of 15 percent compared to 44 percent to States without
caps on noneconomic damages. In California, where the State has placed
a cap on noneconomic damages, punitive damages, or rewards for pain and
suffering at a quarter of a million, insurance rates have not shown the
sharp increase experienced in other States.
[[Page 17091]]
Looking at my next chart which has been used by a number of
proponents of the underlying legislation, it is very clear that major
cities in States which have adopted some kind of caps on noneconomic
damages are experiencing lower malpractice insurance rates for
physicians. California and Colorado, where there are sensible
restraints on noneconomic damages, whether you look at a specialty of
internal medicine or general surgery or obstetrics, there is a dramatic
difference between the rates in California and in Colorado compared to
States such as New York, Nevada, Illinois, and Florida where there are
no such caps.
The most dramatic example, I suppose, is in the area of obstetrics
where in California the annual premium is $54,000; in Colorado,
$30,000; compare these figures to a premium for obstetrics in Florida,
which is $200,000 a year, Illinois is $100,000 a year, Nevada is
$107,000 a year, and New York is just under $90,000 a year. These are
actual 2002 premium survey data looking at selected specialties in
States where there are caps versus States where there are no caps.
I repeat, once again, this legislation does not deny the victim a
full recovery for all economic damages, plus on top of that, a quarter
of a million dollars for pain and suffering, plus on top of that,
punitive damages at twice the amount of economic damages or a quarter
of a million, whichever is greater.
This is a bill that does provide for victims. In addition to that, it
provides some reasonable restraint on lawyer's fees, which of course
also benefit the victim because the dollars the lawyers don't get, the
victims do.
We can have many legitimate arguments. I know my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle seem to be terribly concerned about States'
rights as it applies to this issue. I think that is certainly a
reasonable argument to make. But it seems to me it borders on
nonsensical to argue that caps on noneconomic damages have not had an
impact on premiums, because clearly they have. The facts speak for
themselves. All you have to do is look at the premiums for these
specialists in States where there are caps on noneconomic damages and
compare them to premiums in States where there are not. Clearly it
makes an enormous difference.
Taking a look at California again, their underlying legislation,
which is commonly referred to as MICRA, is the model for the bill which
we hope to be able to proceed to. California has had very stable rates
over the years going back to 1976 when MICRA was adopted, going right
up to the present. If you look at the rest of the United States,
California has had a 182 percent increase in medical malpractice
liability insurance premiums over this quarter of a century period, but
if you compare that to the rest of the country, there has been a 573
percent increase. Any way you look at it, the California law obviously
has had a positive impact on making it possible for physicians to
afford their liability insurance and therefore continue to offer health
services for their people.
That takes us back to where I started yesterday. A year ago when the
underlying bill was offered as an amendment, or a portion of it was
offered as an amendment, we had a number of States in crisis. Today we
have more States in crisis. Wyoming just yesterday changed from a state
with problem signs to a state in crisis. Also, in the year since we
last debated this issue, my own State of Kentucky, which was a State
with problems a year ago, is now a State in crisis. We have to add both
states to the red State list.
Connecticut. A year ago Connecticut was a State in trouble. Today, it
is a State with a genuine crisis. So it will have to be added to the
crisis State list today.
North Carolina. A year ago North Carolina was a State with problem
signs. Today it is a State that is in crisis over this issue.
Arkansas. One year ago when we were considering legislation similar
to this, Arkansas was a State with problems. Today, Arkansas is a State
in crisis.
Missouri. A year ago, Missouri was in trouble. But today it is in
crisis.
Finally, Illinois would have to be added today as a State in crisis.
So let's take a look at the map, where we stand today. As I can count
them, there are only six States in America that are currently OK
according to the AMA; that is, physicians are not avoiding choosing
certain specialties or retiring early or closing their shops over the
cost of their medical malpractice premiums. We now have 19 red States.
Red States are States in crisis. I think we had 11 this time a year
ago. Now we are up to 19. Then the rest of America is yellow. That is,
States with problem signs. At the rate we are going, many of these
yellow States will become red States in the coming months if we do not
act to deal with this truly national problem.
I think the argument of States' rights occasionally makes sense, but
this is a national issue, affecting health care for all Americans. This
is really largely about the patients. Some people have described this
as sort of a titanic struggle with doctors and insurance companies on
one side and lawyers on the other. Frankly, I am not particularly
interested in that struggle. I am sure it exists in a number of
different ways. The real issue is whether or not patients are going to
be cared for, whether or not there is going to be a medical
professional within reasonable proximity of patients in order to
deliver a service all Americans are entitled to. That is no longer the
case in a significant part of our country.
In my State in eastern Kentucky we have had a number of horrendous
occurrences as a direct result of medical professionals not being
available because they went out of business. They simply could not
afford to pay their medical malpractice insurance premiums and still be
in business. So this is a national crisis.
Let me just say in closing, we are debating a motion to proceed.
Reasonable people can differ about how to do something about this
crisis, but I don't think there are many Senators coming out here,
saying this is not a crisis. It is a crisis. Even those who are
opposing the motion to proceed, I would expect most of them think we
have a major problem here. One of the advantages of voting for the
motion to proceed is to get us onto the bill so amendments can be
considered. I would not even rule out the possibility that by the time
we came to final passage of this legislation, it might look quite
different. I might not like that, but I am not sure where the votes are
unless we get onto the bill and have a chance to consider amendments
and options to deal with this measure about the national health care
crisis.
Two weeks ago we added a prescription drugs benefit to a reformation
of Medicare. The House has acted. A conference will unfold in the
coming weeks and we will on a bipartisan basis deal with one of the
major health care issues confronting senior citizens, that is how to
afford prescription drugs and whether or not they are going to have
choices under the Medicare program.
Now we need to turn our attention to another major health care
crisis, and that is the unavailability of health care in major portions
of the country simply because physicians can no longer afford to pay
their medical liability insurance premiums and still provide health
care for patients. That is why we call this the Patients First Act of
2003.
I hope tomorrow, late morning, when we have the vote on cloture on
the motion to proceed, that cloture will be invoked, that we will move
on to this legislation, consider the various suggestions that have been
made by Senators on both sides of the aisle as to how we ought to deal
with this crisis. But let's act. Let's act. Let's make an effort to
tackle one of America's great health care problems of the 21st century.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to address the underlying bill for no more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 17092]]
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would like to
amend that to be recognized after the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, rapid increases in the cost of medical
liability insurance are forcing many physicians to stop performing
high-risk procedures, limiting the kind of patients they will see,
moving to another State where the liability climate is more favorable,
or, simply, they take the option of early retirement. When this occurs,
who wins? Who benefits? No one. Everyone loses.
Twenty-six States, including my State of Nebraska, have instituted
some sort of cap on noneconomic damages. However, some States have had
their caps overturned by the courts and other States are barred by
their State constitutions from enacting a cap. Medical liability and
access to quality health care are national problems. Medical liability
reform is needed to help preserve the ability of health care providers
to obtain affordable malpractice insurance so we can remain in practice
and deal with the health care needs of America. At the same time, we
must ensure that victims of medical malpractice continue to have access
to the courts and jury awards.
This is not an either/or issue. S. 11, the Patients first Act of
2003, is a responsible solution. It is a balanced approach to
maintaining access to quality care while preserving the rights of both
patients and providers.
S. 11 does not cap actual damages. S. 11 caps non-economic damages
but defers to current or future state caps. It limits punitive damages
to two times actual damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater, but
does not preempt existing state caps. It does not preempt State law
with respect to compensatory or punitive damages, regardless of the
limit.
S. 11 limits attorney contingency fees so that awards go to victims,
not to trial lawyers.
No provisions in the House-passed bill or in S. 11 would limit awards
for actual damages.
This legislation is important to ensuring access to quality health
care for our citizens, and retaining our healthcare workforce.
As an example of what providers face and the impact on patients,
consider the fact that annual medical liability insurance premiums for
OB-GYNS range from a low of $12,000 a year in Nebraska, to a high of
$208,000 in certain areas of Dade and Broward Counties in Florida.
Women in rural areas have historically been particularly hard hit by
the loss of obstetric providers.
Practicing obstetrics is already economically marginal in rural areas
due to sparse population, low insurance reimbursement for pregnancy
services and growing managed care constraints. An increase in liability
insurance rates will force rural physicians to stop delivering babies.
This is happening now. With fewer obstetric providers, women's access
to early prenatal care will be reduced.
This is happening now.
Greater availability of prenatal care over the last several decades
has resulted in this country's lowest infant mortality rates ever.
Providers' ability to maintain this standard will be threatened
because the cost of insurance places a major additional strain on our
maternal health care system.
Dr. Daniel Rosenquist, family practitioner in Columbus, NE who has
been in practice 16 years, has delivered babies across Nebraska.
However, if Nebraska's medical liability cap is overturned, he may have
to give up that part of his practice. In the months before the cap was
finally upheld, Dr. Rosenquist had to tell his patients that he wasn't
sure if he would be able to continue seeing them.
Dr. Rosenquist is not alone. The Harris Interactive for Common Good
Poll of April 11, 2002 states that 432 percent of physicians said they
have considered leaving the medical profession because of changes
brought about by the threat of malpractice liability.
Because of a liability cap, Nebraska is able to recruit physicians
into rural areas by keeping medical malpractice insurance premiums at
the fifth lowest in the Nation. It is important to note that even with
a cap in place, medical liability premiums in Nebraska rose 36 percent
in 2002.
Dr. Christopher Kent, one of four neurosurgeons in Lincoln, NE, who
has come to view Nebraska as a great place to practice medicine,
initially came to Nebraska to practice because of its reasonable
medical liability structure.
If Nebraska's cap were to be overturned, he says he would have to
leave the State, probably within a year. One of his partners would also
leave Nebraska and another would retire. This is equivalent to losing
75 percent of the neurosurgeons in Lincoln, and 15 percent of the
neurosurgeons statewide. Dr. Kent and his colleagues have already begun
restricting their practice, and worry that they will have to restrict
care further if the cap is overturned.
According to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services'
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, States that have enacted
limits on non-economic damages in medical lawsuits have about 12
percent more physicians per capita than states without such caps.
Medical liability reform is about quality of care and access to care.
Caps on non-economic damages help keep premiums down, and keep
doctors in practice all over our State. S. 11 will provide security to
States like Nebraska facing the uncertainty of legal challenges to
existing caps, and will result in a faster, fairer, simpler medical
liability system that protects both patients and doctors.
The economic benefits of medical lability reform are substantial.
CBO estimates that if legislation such as S. 11 is signed into law,
Medicare, Medicaid and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs
would save $14.9 billion in Federal spending over the next 10 years.
State and local governments would save about $8.5 billion. State
spending for Medicaid would decrease by $2.5 billion over that period--
again putting that money where we need it the most, where health care
is most urgent.
The Joint Economic Committee in a May, 2003 report, estimates an
additional $16.7 billion will be saved over 10 years due to reductions
in the practice of defensive medicine. According to a July 2002 Health
and Human Services report, States with reasonable caps on noneconomic
damages saw premium increases of 12 to 15 percent in 2002 compared to
44 percent in States without caps on noneconomic damages.
Dr. Daniel Kessler, a professor at the Stanford Business School, and
Dr. Mark McClellan, a former Stanford University economist who is
currently FDA Commissioner, in a February 2000 study, looked at
spending cuts after tort reform, beyond claim payouts and insurer
expenses.
They concluded that States adopting direct reforms exhibited
reductions in hospital expenditures of 5 percent to 9 percent, but this
did not result in higher patient mortality rates or an increase in
serious medical complications.
If these savings were generalized to all medical spending, a $50
billion reduction in national health spending could be achieved through
such reforms, in addition to that sense of confidence that would be
increased across America because these dollars would be focused in
areas that need the health care the most--productive uses for $50
billion.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this responsible
legislation, S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003. I urge my
colleagues to give it serious consideration and support S. 11.
Thank you and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle and on the other side of this issue for coming to the
floor because I hope the tone we have set in this debate indicates that
regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, regardless of which
side of the bill you are on, we understand that we are facing a
national challenge.
[[Page 17093]]
There is entirely too much medical malpractice in our country today.
The best doctors concede that. However, the insurance that is being
charged to even good doctors is too unreasonable in many areas,
depending on the specialty and where they choose to live. Frankly,
there are a lot of people who will suffer if we don't do something
about that. Obviously, the doctors themselves who have dedicated their
lives to the medical profession want to see some solution to this. I do
as well. But the patients who are served by them are also looking for
us to do something constructive and positive to make certain that
quality health care is available across America.
I don't personally believe S. 11 is up to that challenge. I am not
even certain it is a step in the right direction. There has been
lengthy debate about whether or not putting a limitation on the amount
that can be awarded to a person who has been a victim of medical
malpractice is going to bring down malpractice insurance premiums.
This bill, S. 11, suggests that rather than giving that decision to a
jury--whether it is in Rhode Island or Illinois or Nebraska--that
decision on how much an injured patient should receive will be made by
a jury of 100 U.S. Senators. We will pass a bill that says: Regardless
of what has happened to you, what happens to your family as a result of
medical negligence and medical malpractice, you will be unable to
recover anything more than $250,000 for your pain and suffering. Oh,
yes, they will pay the medical bills. And if you have lost wages, those
will be paid, too. But when it comes to pain and suffering, regardless
of whether you are 6 years old, 60, or 96, there will be a limitation
of $250,000 which can come your way.
Now, $250,000 in the abstract sounds like a large sum of money--until
you sit down and consider the cases, the actual people who have been
affected by medical malpractice.
In a few moments, I am going to talk about a number of them, some of
whom I met for the first time today. When you hear their stories, I
hope those who are following the debate will step back for a second and
say: Wait a minute--as I have--is this right for the Senate, for those
of us elected from 50 States across the Nation, to decide in each and
every case what the maximum recovery will be for medical malpractice
injuries? I think the answer is clearly no. That is why I am
encouraging my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion, which is
a motion which tries to bring this bill before the Senate.
What I believe--and others, I think, share this belief--is that we
have a national challenge and a problem when it comes to medical
malpractice. But it is a problem that will not be resolved until we
deal with it responsibly and completely, until we look at all the
facets of the problem.
This bill says it comes down to one thing: Injured victims of medical
malpractice are recovering too much money for their injuries. If we can
limit the amount of money they recover, then the system is going to be
so much better.
I think that oversimplifies it. In fact, I think it really is an
abuse of the situation rather than an effort to rectify it. That is why
I am opposing it.
We had testimony a few weeks ago from the Bush administration, a
doctor from the Department of Health and Human Services, saying that
medical malpractice in America has reached epidemic proportions--
epidemic proportions. There are those who estimate that as many as
100,000 Americans lose their lives each year because of medical
malpractice--not because they are destined to die because of God's
choice but, rather, because someone has made a very serious and fatal
mistake in their medical treatment--100,000 a year.
We also have studies that have come out from Harvard University that
suggest that only 1 out of every 50 cases of medical malpractice ends
up in a lawyer's office with a claim against a doctor or hospital--1
out of 50. So I say to those who support this bill, if you do not look
at the underlying incidence of medical malpractice in this country,
simply limiting the amount that an injured person can recover is no
guarantee you will not face an avalanche of cases coming at you for
medical malpractice. We have to go to the underlying issues in how to
deal with it.
It is interesting to me, as well, how many elements are being
overlooked during the course of this debate. All the debate on the
floor has been about doctors: States that do not have doctors,
communities that do not have obstetricians to deliver babies, red maps
brought before us to show State after State where doctors are facing
problems.
But read this bill. This bill isn't just about doctors. This bill is
about protecting HMOs, managed care insurance companies, pharmaceutical
companies, medical device companies, and nursing homes. So in all of
this debate about the sad situations many doctors do face in America,
no one has come to the floor to justify why, within this bill, there is
protection for these special interests: HMOs, managed care insurance
companies, which many times make decisions which can be as lethal and
fatal as any decision made by any doctor.
I think most Americans know of what I am speaking. When an HMO that
you are a part of or a managed care insurance company that your family
is a part of makes a decision as to whether or not they will pay for a
diagnostic test, a laboratory procedure, your hospitalization, or a
surgery, when they decide how many days you can stay in the hospital,
they are, in fact, dictating medical care in the name of profitability.
They want to make more money. They would like to keep you out of the
hospital as much as possible, reduce your costs as much as possible,
and they make medical decisions.
It is interesting that today a report came out. It is a report that
was published by Health Affairs, and those who prepared it are people
from the American Medical Association based in Chicago: Matthew Wynia,
Jonathan VanGeest, Deborah Cummins, and Ira Wilson. This report is
entitled ``Do Physicians Not Offer Useful Services Because Of Coverage
Restrictions?''
They surveyed doctors across America and asked them the question: How
often have you decided not to offer a useful service to a patient
because of health plan rules?
I have talked to doctors who have told me many times that is
happening more often than they would like to admit.
Let me show you a chart which tells you what they found in asking
doctors across America that question. They were asked this question:
How often have you, as a doctor, decided not to offer a useful service
to a patient because of health plan rules, insurance rules? In this
case, ``very often,'' 2 percent; ``often,'' 6 percent; ``sometimes,''
23 percent; ``rarely,'' 27 percent. Even if you take the ``very
often,'' ``often,'' and ``sometimes,'' you have 31 percent of the
cases. Almost a third of the time doctors are saying they are making
decisions not to provide a useful service to a patient because the
health insurance company tells them they will not pay for it and they
cannot do it.
Now, that isn't part of this debate. No one has brought into this
conversation the question as to whether or not HMOs, in the way they
are treating doctors, are having some impact on medical malpractice and
injuries to patients. No. What we are doing for HMOs is not holding
them accountable but, rather, saying we are going to give them even
more privileges under law. We are going to insulate them from the
liability of these bad decisions. So the insurance companies,
particularly the HMOs, are running rampant across the Senate when it
comes to malpractice instead of being held accountable, as they should
be, for their restrictions on good doctors making sound medical
decisions.
This is another question asked of these doctors in this Health
Affairs study that came out today: If ``sometimes'' or ``more often''
you decide not to offer a useful service because the insurance company
tells you you can't, are you doing so more often, less often, or about
as often as you were 5 years ago? Most of them say unchanged: 55
percent. But 35 percent say ``more often.''
[[Page 17094]]
So you have doctors who are increasingly finding insurance companies
making decisions on what you, your mother and father, your wife or
husband or child is going to receive in terms of medical care. Is that
the answer to this issue, that we are going to say that HMOs will make
these decisions, and when they are wrong, and people are injured, and
these poor people then turn to a court and ask for some compensation
for their injury, they will be limited not only in what they can
recover from the doctor or the hospital but even the HMO insurance
company? That is what this bill says. That is what this bill is
designed to do: to insulate from liability even HMO insurance companies
which are responsible for more and more doctors making medical
decisions which they believe, based on their training and experience,
are not the right decisions for their patients. I do not think that is
fair. I do not think it treats people as they should be treated.
Let me mention a couple other items. We have a nursing shortage in
America. It worries me. I am reaching an age when I am thinking about
the day when I want to punch a button at a hospital or some other place
to call a nurse and hope that someone shows up. But the likelihood that
is going to occur is diminishing because we have a nursing shortage,
and it is a serious shortage.
As America's population ages, we need more nurses to take care of us
in convalescent homes and nursing homes and hospitals and other places.
Sadly, those nurses are not as plentiful as they once were.
Let me tell you about a report from the Journal of the American
Medical Association that relates to the issue of malpractice and the
shortage of nurses. This is a report from October of 2002 from the
Journal of the American Medical Association. They published the results
of a study that, for the first time, showed that the number of patients
who die in the hospital increases when nurses are assigned to care for
too many patients. An estimated 20,000 people die each year in
hospitals from medical mistakes attributed to nurses caring for more
patients than they can handle.
This accounts for 20 percent of the nearly 100,000 deaths annually
from medical mistakes. While a link between nurse staffing and quality
of care seems like common sense, many hospitals downplayed the link
until the study was published.
This is a troubling report as well. I read from a book entitled ``The
Wall of Silence,'' written by Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Singh. This
is a quote from the book:
Experienced nurses as well as newly-minted nurses are
leaving patient care at the bedside at a time when other job
opportunities exist. Their knowledge and skills are valued in
pharmaceutical companies, managed care organizations and
information technology firms. How many are leaving? It is
hard to say precisely. The Federal Government's Bureau of
Health Professions issued a report showing that about 50,000
fewer nurses were using their licenses in 2000, as compared
with 1996.
As our population ages, as the demand for nurses increases, the
number of nurses in America diminishes. We have seen that when there
are fewer nurses in a hospital, there is more likelihood of medical
mistakes, medical malpractice, and medical injuries. Has that even been
mentioned in the course of this debate? Has anyone talked about the
HMOs and their impact on medical practice? Has anyone talked about the
shortage of nurses and the fact that it is leading to more medical
mistakes, leading to more lawsuits filed against doctors and hospitals.
Instead what we have had in this debate is a strict debate, limited to
the question of how much injured parties can recover once they face
medical malpractice, once the injuries have occurred.
I would like to introduce in the debate now some real-life stories
about people who have been victims of medical malpractice. As I
mentioned earlier, some of them were kind enough to join Senator
Lindsey Graham and myself earlier this morning when we held a press
conference and introduced our version of a bill which we think is a
more reasonable approach to dealing with the medical malpractice
challenge we face in America.
The first person is Colin Gourley. Colin is on your left as you view
this picture here in the striped shirt. This is his twin brother
Connor. Nine-year-old Colin Gourley, from the State of Nebraska,
suffered a terrible complication at birth as a result of a doctor's
negligence. Colin has cerebral palsy. He cannot walk. He could not
speak until he was 5 years old. He has irregular brain waves and the
amount of time he has spent in a wheelchair has affected his bone
growth. He has had five different surgeries, and he needs to sleep in a
cast every night to prevent further orthopedic problems. His twin
brother Connor survived birth without any injury.
A jury ruled that Colin was a victim of medical negligence. They
decided that because of that medical negligence the Gourley family was
entitled to receive $5.6 million. That was what was needed to
compensate him for his medical care and for the lifetime of suffering
and problems which he will face. Last month, the Nebraska Supreme Court
upheld a Nebraska law that severely cut this jury verdict to about one-
fourth of the award. As a result, Colin will have to rely on the State
of Nebraska and the Federal Government for assistance for the rest of
his life.
The jury understood what the case was worth. The jury got to meet
Colin, his brother, his two sisters, and mom and dad. The jury heard
what happened that led to this terrible medical malpractice, and the
jury decided in fairness that he and his family were entitled to $5.6
million. Yet the law came in and said: I am sorry. We have to limit
you--a law similar to the one we are considering in the Senate this
evening, a law which will say no jury in Nebraska nor Illinois nor
North Carolina is going to make that decision. This decision will be
made by a jury of 100 United States Senators, and we will decide, in
the case of Colin, that no matter what his life may be, whether it is
5, 10, 20, 50, or 80 years, the maximum amount we will pay for his pain
and suffering is $250,000.
What may have sounded like a large amount of money at the beginning
of this conversation, as we understand as we consider each and every
case, becomes an amount which is hardly adequate to take care of what
Colin is going to face, as well as his family.
Let me introduce you now to Kim Jones. This is a picture taken before
Kim's medical malpractice. As you can see, she is a lovely, proud
mother from King County, WA. She was 30 years old and she remains
severely brain damaged and in a comatose state today after undergoing
routine tubal ligation surgery following childbirth at the Washington
State Medical Center. After the operation, the hospital staff failed to
notice that Kim had stopped breathing since her vital monitors had been
improperly removed. Though successfully resuscitated, Kim suffered
multiple seizures and was given seizure control medication that
actually worsened her condition. She was later taken by helicopter to
another medical facility.
Today Kim is unable to control her bodily functions. She has no
discernable mental function and is being cared for at a convalescent
center. Kim's father filed a lawsuit against the hospital and the
anesthesiologist. The case is still pending.
Kim is standing there at a better time before the medical injury with
her daughter. Now she is in a nursing home or convalescent home for the
rest of her natural life. What is it worth? After the medical bills are
paid, after her lost income is paid, what is it worth to her, to her
daughter, to her parents? According to this bill, we know exactly what
it is worth. It is worth no more than $250,000 for the pain and
suffering she will endure for the rest of her life.
Now let me introduce you to a young lady who made quite an impact on
us this morning. She told her terrible story. This is Sherry Keller
from Conyers, GA. Sherry is shown in her wheelchair. That is where she
was today when she came to speak to us. She stood up and said: I am
from Conyers, GA, and I am a registered Republican. I want to make that
clear.
[[Page 17095]]
I said: We have Republicans and Democrats and Independents. Then she
told her story.
Sherry Keller received a complete hysterectomy. Her surgeon relied
upon staples rather than sutures to hold her incision closed. Upon
having the staples removed, Sherry's incision began to bleed. The
surgeon began cleansing the wound. Unfortunately, the incision opened.
I won't go into the graphic details. But the doctor in that situation--
this happened at the doctor's office--apparently panicked and left her
alone in the room for 35 minutes when the doctor went to call a wound
specialist. She left her lying on an examination table. The doctor
continued to see other patients while the specialist was on the way and
left Sherry in that examining room for 35 minutes. Sherry went into
shock from loss of blood, lost consciousness, and fell off the exam
table. There was no one with her. Her head hit the counter as she fell.
She came to but in the process damaged her spinal cord and rendered her
an incomplete quadriplegic. She dragged herself out in that condition
into the hallway to get the attention of a nurse or doctor to come to
her aid. The doctor called for an ambulance but gave directions that
she should be transported only. She, the doctor, left instructions that
a doctor would go to the emergency room to dress the wound later.
Sherry was then left in the emergency room for 2\1/2\ hours waiting
for a doctor to treat her wound. As a result of that fall in the
office, Sherry will never walk again. As she was not employed outside
the home, she has no lost income for her injury. Her damages were
virtually all medical bills and pain and suffering. Here she is, a
woman, some 35 years of age, who faces a lifetime in a wheelchair now
because of malpractice.
This law we are considering would pay her medical bills but say that
the total amount of compensation for her for the pain and suffering she
and her family will go through is limited to $250,000. Some Senators as
jurors have decided that in her case $250,000 is adequate, thank you.
I think a jury has a right to consider that case. A jury has a right
to consider whether that doctor is guilty of malpractice and whether
this woman and her family are entitled to more than $250,000. The fact
that she was at home raising her children, because of this bill, will
be used against her. She has no job where she earns a paycheck, but she
has a real job as far as America is concerned; she was raising her
family.
And now look at this situation. This bill will actually penalize her
for being a stay-at-home mother with her family. For a Senate that is
supposed to be dedicated to family values, it is hard to understand how
Sherry's case tells that story.
The next person I would like you to meet is Evelyn Babb of Tyler, TX.
This case is similar to many you may have read about. She is a bright,
happy-looking person in this picture. She needed arthroscopic surgery
on her right knee for a torn lateral meniscus. Her doctor marked her
right knee to be operated on with an X. However, the hospital staff
negligently prepared her left knee for surgery. Without verifying
whether the staff had properly prepared the patient, the doctor
proceeded to operate on the knee which the staff had prepared. He began
performing the partial lateral meniscectomy before he realized he was
operating on the wrong knee. The staff then prepared the other knee,
and the doctor performed the operation as previously planned.
Due to the unnecessary surgery on the one knee, Mrs. Babb's recovery
was considerably longer and more painful than it would have been. She
has severe pain and swelling in her left knee and a lingering
infection. She continues to suffer from pain, has difficulty walking,
and has a markedly decreased range of motion in her knee.
As an elderly woman of 75, Mrs. Babb will suffer no loss of income,
however, and there will be few, if any, additional medical expenses
because there is nothing that could be done to improve her condition.
Virtually all of the damages she could recover for this obvious
malpractice would relate to the pain and suffering she would endure.
This bill has decided how much her case is worth: no more than
$250,000, period.
When you look at that situation, a person who is retired, with no
active income, and with limited medical bills, but a serious medical
outcome, it is an indication of the unfairness of this underlying bill.
This case I will tell you about now involves Heather Lewinsky from
Pittsburgh, PA. Seventeen-year-old Heather Lewinsky's face remains
scarred for life after a Pittsburgh plastic surgeon performed radical
surgery to correct a skin disorder near the left corner of her mouth
when she was 8 years old.
The doctor claimed to have done this procedure on children many times
before when, in fact, neither he nor any doctor in the United States
had ever done the surgery to treat a condition such as Heather's.
Following the operation, Heather was left with horrific facial scarring
and a terrible stroke-like tugging at the corner of her mouth.
The doctor attempted to fix the problem with two additional
surgeries, which made it even worse, forcing her to undergo 10 more
operations with other doctors between the third and tenth grades.
The pain, swelling, and recuperation with each procedure were
excruciating. Heather and her family filed a lawsuit against the doctor
who only paid a small fraction of the jury verdict because he had
insufficient insurance coverage.
This is an indication of a young lady who is scarred for the rest of
her life. What is permanent disfigurement worth if it is the result of
medical malpractice? A point will be reached when no more surgeries
will be indicated; they won't add much to her improvement. She may not
have lost wages, but she is scarred for life. As far as this bill is
concerned, permanent disfigurement because of medical malpractice is
worth $250,000, not one penny more.
The last case I want to talk to you about is a case that involves
Alan Cronin of California. In the year 2000, Alan Cronin, then 42 years
old, went into the hospital for a routine hernia surgery. Alan was
married with three children at the time--two of them still at home. He
goes in for a routine hernia surgery. After the surgery, two doctors
failed to diagnose an acute infection following the routine hernia
repair. The doctors treated him as though he had the flu rather than
inspecting the surgery site. He became septic and suffered toxic shock.
Once the doctors finally opened the surgery site, the pus and sepsis
were so overwhelming that they told Alan's family that he had a 98-
percent chance of dying. Gangrene had set in and all of Alan's limbs
were amputated. When he awoke from his coma, he no longer had arms or
legs.
Alan was a customer service representative for a medical equipment
manufacturer. Workers' compensation paid for all of his medical bills,
including future expenses. He also had a private disability policy that
was used as an offset against future economic damages.
In speaking with Alan about the cap on noneconomic damages, he says
that there are so many things that you don't think of as necessities,
and $250,000 could not begin to cover those expenses. Alan, 42 years
old, has had the amputation of his arms and legs from medical
malpractice. How much is the suffering and pain that he will endure in
the next 30, 40 years of his life worth? We know in the Senate. It is
worth $250,000 and not one penny more.
Incidentally, there is another provision in the bill. Because Alan
had the foresight to work for a company that provided him with health
insurance that covered some of his medical bills after the medical
malpractice, and because he also had a private disability policy that
will help him with some of his expenses as he tries to struggle through
rehabilitation and rebuilding his life, that information, according to
the bill, should be brought up in the trial. As a former trial lawyer,
I can tell you it is being brought out so as to encourage the jury to
diminish any award they are going to give to Alan Cronin. Because he
had the foresight to
[[Page 17096]]
pay for health insurance and a private disability policy, he would be
penalized in a court of law by the disclosure of this insurance and
this disability policy.
That isn't done today in any court in America, but it would be done
under this bill. S. 11 has decided that is a fair way to deal with
medical malpractice. I think most Americans would disagree. What they
believe is, if you put a cap or limit on the recovery of a person who
is a victim of medical malpractice, the malpractice insurance premiums
may come down. They hope if they come down, the threat to the lifestyle
and future careers of doctors is going to be diminished. Yet when you
look at the studies--the Weiss study, for example--you find the
opposite is true.
States with limitations on what can be recovered in court had a
higher percentage increase in malpractice premiums between 1991 to 2001
than States without caps. So not only is this proposal in S. 11
fundamentally unfair, it is totally ineffective. What we are doing is
seeing, frankly, this battle between the White House and the people who
are gearing up for some Presidential campaign and the American trial
lawyers. That is what this is about. It is not about malpractice
premiums, bringing them down. It is not about the incidence of
malpractice and reducing it. Frankly, it is about a political battle
which should be secondary to the more important issues before us.
S. 11, as it has been brought to us today, is a bill against which I
have led the fight. I am sorry I have to do it in one respect, but I am
proud to do it in another. I am sorry because this should not be the
bill we are considering. We ought to be coming before the American
people with a bill that addresses this problem in its entirety and in a
fair way. We ought to bring into this conversation medical providers
across America. We should sit down and have an honest and open
conversation about how to reduce medical injuries and medical errors.
That would be good for everyone. I am sure doctors could tell us ways
to do that.
Let me give you an example of what we have tried to do in the past.
We decided at one point that we would create a national registry to try
to find out how often we have these incidents of problems. With that
national data bank, we would say to hospitals that before you hire a
doctor on your staff, you can check to see whether he has had his
license suspended or has been sued successfully for malpractice. In the
1980s, we established that--my colleague, Ron Wyden from Oregon, was
then a Congressman who proposed the legislation. He thought if this
data bank were present, we could find the limited number of doctors who
are most responsible for malpractice and make certain that they either
change their ways or get out of the practice of medicine. It was
certainly a good idea.
Sadly, there haven't been many people who have used it. Consider this
fact:
The data bank is an effective information tool only if
hospitals and other health organizations actually report
adverse actions involving a health care professional. Federal
law requires this information to be reported. But hospitals
are not complying. Since the data bank was established, more
than 60 percent of hospitals have never reported any adverse
action [against a doctor that occurred on the premises.] It
was expected that hospitals would report more than 1,000
disciplinary actions every month, yet fewer than 1,000 are
reported in a year.
Managed care organizations, which are protected by this bill from
liability--the HMOs and managed care organizations which, again,
receive preferred treatment by the Senate under this bill--are not
doing much better.
From September 1, 1990, to September 30, 1999, [the managed
care organizations in America] reported only 715 adverse
events to the data bank. Eighty-four percent of them have
never reported any adverse action. The investigative arm of
the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the
Office of the Inspector General, notes that ``with close to
100 million individuals enrolled in [managed care
organizations and HMOs] and hundreds of thousands of
physicians and dentists associated with them, fewer than a
thousand adverse action reports over nearly a decade of
service, for all practical purposes, are reported.
So the efforts we put in place to track medical malpractice, to try
to weed out the bad actors, to try to take the doctors away who perform
some of these acts of malpractice have been in vain.
Hospitals, HMOs, managed care organizations, have refused to report
the bad actors. Yet our answer on how to deal with that situation is S.
11. We are going to limit the amount of money victims can recover. Is
this totally upside down?
Should we not start with the premise that we want to limit the amount
of malpractice itself and medical error in America and then follow
through to the next and obvious question: When doctors are going to buy
insurance, how can we help them secure reasonably priced malpractice
insurance policies? That, of course, would mean bringing in the
malpractice insurance companies and reinsurance companies.
Incidentally, there is one thing I said yesterday that we are going
to look into. It was my understanding from reports we received that
there were five reinsurance companies available to U.S. insurers. A
call today to the Illinois State Medical Society said they work with 9
or 10. I want to make sure the record is corrected and reflects the
fact that at least we are trying to come to the right number of
reinsurance companies. Regardless of whether it is 5 or 50, the
reinsurance companies have to be part of this conversation as to how we
are going to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and
hospitals across America.
The third point, and equally important, and I speak to this one as a
former trial lawyer myself, is that the legal profession has to be part
of this conversation. We have to say those lawyers who would consider
filing a frivolous lawsuit are going to face severe penalties. They
will have to pay compensation of cost and fees associated with those
cases, and if, in fact, they are found to have done it repeatedly, we
can prohibit them from that field of practice completely.
I add, based on my personal experience, it would take an absolute
fool as a lawyer to entertain a medical malpractice case that really
did not have a chance of success and that could be considered
frivolous. Those cases in my State of Illinois are extremely expensive.
You start with a certification by a doctor that you actually have a
justifiable cause of action before you file your complaint. An
important consideration in taking these cases up is whether or not you
can move them forward to recover for the plaintiff who is injured. If
you do not think you have a chance, you have to tell that sad news to
the client who sits in your office, and I have done that.
Frankly, you have to honestly tell many people who are seriously
injured: I do not think you have a case on which you can recover.
We have to bring together, if we are serious about medical
malpractice, the doctors who can speak for their profession, nurses who
can help us understand how we can bring more medical professionals to
the job to reduce the likelihood of medical injuries, HMO insurance
companies that have to be told they can no longer dictate sound medical
practice, where doctors are told what they have to do regardless of
whether they think it is right professionally. We have to bring in the
insurance companies to make certain the rates they charge are
reasonable, and lawyers have to be brought in as well so they are
involved in responsible conduct which is focused more than anything
else on recovery for the patient or claimant involved. That is what
this is about.
The idea that by limiting recovery for the victims we have talked
about here is going to solve the problem just will not work.
Let me use this chart as an illustration as well. Here are two States
in the Midwest: One I am very familiar with, my State of Illinois, and
a neighboring State, Michigan. They are comparable States in makeup of
the population in rural areas and urban areas. They are big States by
most standards.
Michigan has caps and limitations on how much a person can recover in
court. Illinois does not. Here we take a
[[Page 17097]]
look at the professional liability insurance that is being paid in
these two States as of October of last year. We will see in the State
of Michigan, OB/GYNs on average are paying more than in the State of
Illinois that does not have caps. With surgery, it is the same story.
With internal medicine, it is the same story. Michigan, with caps, has
higher medical malpractice insurance rates than the State of Illinois
without caps.
The belief that in passing this bill and establishing caps across
America we are going to bring down malpractice insurance premiums I do
not think is a reasonable conclusion, which is borne out by the
evidence presented here, and this comes from an analysis of the medical
liability monitor data, the same monitor data used by both sides of the
debate.
I understand the Senator from Utah is here and would like to speak. I
close at this point by saying what I said at the outset, and I repeat
today, I value very much the medical profession. They have meant so
much to me and my family. I have entrusted the care of my greatest
treasures on Earth--my wife and children--to great doctors, and I thank
God they were there when we needed them.
I want them to continue in practice. I want them to feel good about
what they do for a living. I do not want them looking over the
shoulders at lawyers who are filing frivolous lawsuits. I do not want
them facing 35-percent increases in malpractice premiums they cannot
cope with, that they cannot pass on to patients, that force them to
make decisions that, frankly, are not in the best interest of good
medicine.
Today, during the course of our press conference with these victims
of medical malpractice, one of the staff in the back of the room
fainted. When he fainted, we stopped everything and somebody said: Call
a doctor. How many times have we heard that said? We say it because we
all know in those dire emergency situations and in everyday situations,
we need the medical profession.
I said at the outset of this debate, and I repeat, I stand ready to
sit down with anyone in good faith who wants to deal with the medical
malpractice crisis facing America. Let us deal with this in its
entirety and in an honest fashion. Let us ask everyone to make a
sacrifice--the doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies--and
then I think we can come up with a bill that is worthy of the Senate.
For us to deliberately limit the amount of money available to these
victims with tragic stories, which I have brought to the Senate today,
is fundamentally unfair. It is as unfair to those victims as those
malpractice premiums are unfair to many of the doctors who are paying
them today.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak about the medical
liability and medical crisis threatening our great Nation. Over the
years, I have pressed for legislation to protect our health care
delivery system from the ravages of an out-of-control medical liability
system.
Many times we have come close to enacting legislation, and a giant
opportunity stands before us today. I hope we do not let it slip
through our fingers once more.
I remember as a young lawyer in the early days of my practice in
Pittsburgh, PA, the law basically was, if you met the standard of
practice in the community, there was no case because everybody knew
that medical science is not an exact science. Once they adopted the
doctrine of informed consent in its various forms, it meant that every
case goes to the jury, regardless; every case that has a bad result,
even though the doctor did everything in his or her power to effectuate
a decent result. And we have had this medical liability catastrophe
upon our hands ever since.
I can remember as a defense lawyer, my advice to some doctors was
that they needed to do everything they possibly could to make sure
there was absolutely no way they overlooked anything with regard to any
person's complaint. If a person came in to them with a common cold,
they could no longer say: Take two aspirin every 6 hours, drink all the
liquids you can, and in 7 days you will be better. Or: Don't do
anything and in 7 days you will be better. No, they have to give
vascular and respiratory examinations, blood tests, et cetera. As a
result, what used to be a $5 bill in those days, or at most $15 or $20,
is far more today. Of course, I believe unnecessary defensive medicine
such as that has driven our country to its knees from a medical
liability standpoint.
Today, defensive medicine increases health care costs by $60 to $108
billion per year according to the Department of Health and Human
Services report of last year.
As I have noted previously, out-of-control medical liability
litigation is needlessly increasing the cost and decreasing the quality
of health care for every American. It is preventing patients from
accessing high-quality health care or, in some cases, any care at all
because doctors are being driven out of practice.
I was pleased that President Bush announced his desire to address
medical liability legislation reform last summer when he spoke of the
need for reform in his State of the Union Address and when he called on
us to pass meaningful medical liability reform legislation in this
Congress. I am pleased that our majority leader, Dr. Frist, has brought
the Patients First Act forward to be debated today.
Our colleagues, Senator Ensign from Nevada, who introduced this bill,
and Senator McConnell from Kentucky, deserve special recognition and
thanks for their work on this bill as well.
Of course, this was not the first time we have addressed this issue.
As many of us will recall, we passed medical litigation relief language
with the Commonsense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act in 1995.
Unfortunately, it was stripped from that bill in conference.
I am sorely disappointed that in the ensuing 8 years we have not
addressed this problem. As a result, the problem has continued to
fester like an infection that will not heal. Worse yet, this infection
is spreading to all parts of our country.
This map which has been utilized throughout this debate, and I think
properly so, with data supplied by the American Medical Association,
shows the States that currently are experiencing a medical liability
crisis and those that are showing signs of a developing crisis. The 19
red States are crisis States. Nineteen of the 50 States are crisis
States. The 26 yellow States are showing problem signs. Only 5 States
are currently OK. The red ones are in crisis. The yellow ones are about
to be in crisis. The white States are currently OK generally because
they have passed medical liability litigation reform legislation like
S. 11.
To contrast this for my colleagues, I must note that on a map with
last year's data, only 12 States were in crisis. In March, it was up to
18. Now it is 19. The problem is growing and it reaches from coast to
coast.
There are very unfortunate consequences to this crisis--doctors
forced to quit practicing, trauma centers closing, babies being born by
the roadside, and, yes, people dying. These are all due to out-of-
control litigation and soaring medical liability insurance premiums.
The crisis is particularly acute in the farming and ranching
communities of rural America where obstetricians and family
practitioners, some of whom have been delivering babies for 25 years,
are quitting their obstetrical practice. As a result, there is an
increased shortage of obstetricians in the rural west, including in my
home State of Utah.
Studies by both the Utah Medical Association and the Utah chapter of
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists underscore the
problem. According to the Utah Medical Association:
50.5 percent of family practitioners in Utah have already
given up obstetrical services or never practiced obstetrics.
Of the remaining 49.5 percent who still deliver babies, 32.7
percent say they plan to stop providing OB services within
the next decade. Most plan to stop within the next five
years.
[[Page 17098]]
The Utah study examined the causes of the crisis also:
Professional liability concerns were given as the chief
contributing factor in the decision to discontinue
obstetrical services. Such concerns include the cost of
liability insurance premiums, the hassles and costs involved
in defending against obstetrical lawsuits and a general fear
of being sued in today's litigious environment.
Although many blame out-of-control litigation, others believe that
the downturn in the economy caused the crisis. In an attempt to
identify the cause, in February Senator Gregg and I held a joint
hearing of the HELP and Judiciary Committees. We heard from a lawyer
who believes the downturn in the economy and problems with State
insurance regulations are responsible. But, in addition, we heard from
the Texas State insurance commissioner and from the president of
Physician Insurance Association of America, representing provider-owned
or operated insurance companies that provide insurance for the majority
of American doctors.
One reason they do is not because the insurance companies are so
awful. It is because the insurance companies will not handle this type
of coverage any more. The reason they will not is because of the
exposures they are facing. So they have turned now to provider-owner
and operated insurance companies.
These gentlemen face this crisis and its consequences every day.
Their data and their studies, as well as those from the Department of
Health and Human Services, show that increasingly frequent frivolous
lawsuits and skyrocketing awards are responsible for rapidly rising
premiums.
Have the recent downturns in the economy and the stock market
affected medical liability premiums? Possibly. But this does not appear
to be a major cause of the current crisis.
Look at this chart. This is a chart showing how insurance companies
that offer medical liability coverage allocate their assets. As this
chart shows, between 1997 and the year 2001, insurance companies
invested conservatively, primarily in bonds--that is corporate in red,
Government in green, which is the middle line, and municipal bonds in
purple. A minority of funds, only about 10 percent, happens to be
invested in equities, which is shown in the yellow.
This conservative investment strategy minimizes the effect that
changes in the stock market have on insurance premiums. In fact, there
is good evidence that increasing medical liability awards are
responsible for increasing premium costs.
This pie chart with data from the Physicians Insurance Association of
America shows the outcome of medical liability cases. The area in the
orange, almost 68 percent of the pie, represents medical liability
cases that were dropped or dismissed. In other words, a vast majority
of cases are frivolous to begin with. In those cases, the plaintiff
received no award because no harm was found. Yet these frivolous
lawsuits cost money, an average of at least $25,000 per case, and those
costs increase the costs of medical liability insurance.
This next chart shows the growth in median--that is the blue line and
the average in red--medical liability claim payments between 1989 and
the year 2001. Prior to 1995, median and average claim payments
increased readily, as we can see. But the rate of growth for both
increased dramatically after 1995.
Finally, this next chart shows the growth in million dollar ``mega
verdicts'' claim payments equal to or greater than $1 million between
1985 and 2001.
In 1985, less than 1 percent of all awards exceeded $1 million. In
2001, over 8 percent of awards were $1 million or higher. The data is
very clear. A high percentage of medical liability claims are
frivolous. Average and median claim payments are increasing rapidly and
the percentage of mega awards, those greater than $1 million, increased
dramatically as shown on this particular chart.
It seems clear to me that out-of-control medical liability litigation
is driving the increase in premiums, not the economy and not a problem
with the insurance industry which some would try to make it. It is not
just the doctors but all Americans who are paying the price. This is a
national problem and one that requires a national solution.
In my letter of March 12 to Budget Committee Chairman Nickles and
Ranking Democrat Conrad, I emphasized the important implications of
medical liability litigation on the Federal budget. In that letter, I
wrote:
The Federal Government pays directly for health care for
members of the armed forces, veterans, and patients served in
the Indian Health Service. The Federal Government provides
reimbursement for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services'
March 3, 2003, report . . . the Federal Government spends
$33.7 billion-$56.2 billion per year for malpractice coverage
and the costs of defensive medicine.
That is $33.7 billion to $56.2 billion a year just for malpractice
coverage in these areas of Federal Government medicine.
That report states:
reasonable limits on noneconomic damages would reduce the
amount of taxpayers' money the Federal Government spends by
$28.1 billion to $50.6 billion per year.
Now I continued to write:
In my view, Federal legislation that would decrease costly
frivolous medical liability lawsuits and limit awards for
noneconomic damages is necessary, not only to ensure patient
access to health care, but to curb increasing Federal health
care costs. Because of the substantial and important
budgetary implications, particularly to the Medicare and
Medicaid Programs, we request that the budget resolution
include language calling for medical liability legislation
reform.
I am pleased to report the budget resolution we passed in the Senate
recognized the tremendous impact of medical liability costs. The budget
resolution included $11.3 billion in savings over 10 years as a result
of medical liability reform based on CBO calculation. The Medicare
Program alone would save $7.9 billion while Medicaid would save $2.9
billion. The remaining savings would occur in the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program and the Department of Defense.
What if we had that money to help with the poor? It would certainly
do a lot of good, more good than is being done by spending it on
medical liability.
But it is not only the Federal Government that is affected. Medical
liability litigation directly and dramatically increases health care
costs for all Americans.
What is more, skyrocketing medical litigation costs increase health
care costs indirectly by changing the way doctors practice medicine. In
an effort to avoid frivolous suits, doctors often feel compelled to
perform diagnostic tests that are costly and unnecessary. This
defensive medicine is wasteful. Unfortunately, for doctors, it has
become a necessity.
I hate to admit it, but I am partly responsible for that myself
because, knowing that many doctors are going to be sued unnecessarily
and improperly, I advised them to do what they can to protect
themselves. Consequently, this defensive medicine is leading to a lot
of unnecessary defensive medicine. And they have to do it or they face
unnecessary litigation.
According to a recent Harris poll, fear of being sued has led 79
percent of doctors to order more tests than are medically needed; 74
percent refer patients to specialists more often than necessary; 51
percent recommend invasive procedures that they thought were
unnecessary; 41 percent prescribe more medications, including
antibiotics, that they did not think were necessary.
Defensive medicine increases health care costs. But the real problem
inherent in the current medical liability system and the resulting
process of defensive medicine is that it also puts Americans at risk.
Every test and every treatment poses a risk to the patient. Every
unnecessary test, procedure, potentially puts a patient in harm's way.
According to the Harris poll, 76 percent of the physicians are
concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide
quality care for their patients.
That brings us to the main question. What can we do to address this
crisis
[[Page 17099]]
today? The answer is, plenty. There are excellent examples of what
works. The March 2003 Department of Health and Human Services report
describes how reasonable reforms in some States have reduced health
care costs and improved access to, and the quality of, care. According
to this report, over the last 2 years the States with limits of
$250,000 or $300,000 on noneconomic damages premiums have increased an
average of 18 percent compared to 45 percent in States without such
limits.
In 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform
Act, MICRA. Again, I will refer to this chart. This graph shows that
MICRA slowed the rate of increase in medical liability premiums
dramatically, and it did so without affecting negatively the quality of
health care received by the State's residents.
The red on the chart is States that have gone up 573 percent from
1976 to the year 2000. In California they have increased by only 182
percent. As a result of MICRA, California has saved billions of dollars
in health care costs, and Federal taxpayers have saved billions of
dollars in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.
The March 2003 report goes on to state:
A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non-
economic damages such as California has had in effect for 25
years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9% without
``substantial effects on mortality or medical
complications.'' With national health care expenditures
currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion if this reform were
adopted nationally, it would save $70-$126 billion in health
care costs per year.
Now, in our joint HELP and Judiciary Committee hearings in February,
we heard from those who believe insurance reform is a cure for this
crisis. These individuals believe the Federal Government rather than
the States should regulate insurance. Those who advocate Federal
insurance regulation apparently believe the States and the State
insurance commissioners are not able to accomplish this alone. They
suggest that insurance companies are colluding to increase premiums. In
all honesty, some of them are getting out of the business because of
the risks and exposure they face.
There has been little, if any, evidence during or after our hearing
to support these allegations. In fact, we heard that the State
insurance commissioners monitor and regulate insurance business
practices very closely. The State laws are based on the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners model rating laws that include
the following language:
No insurer or advisory organization shall attempt to
monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person to
monopolize an insurance market or engage in a boycott . . .
of an insurance market.
And:
No insurer . . . shall make any arrangements with any other
insurer . . . which has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
restraining trade or lessening competition in the business of
insurance.
Moreover, insurance companies are precluded from increasing premiums
to make up for past losses. It seems to me insurance reforms that some
have proposed not only miss the mark badly, they would do nothing to
address the cause of the crisis and would prevent State insurance
commissioners from performing their jobs.
I have to say I came away from the hearing convinced, and I remain
convinced, that out-of-control medical litigation is the major cause of
the crisis and we have to do something to stop it. The current medical
litigation system represents and resembles a lottery more than a
justice system. This system harms patients in many ways. All Americans
deserve the access to care, the cost savings, and the legal protections
that States such as California provide their residents. This problem
has reached crisis proportions, and it is high time we end it.
The task before us is to design a system that protects both the
patient and the provider. S. 11, the Patient First Act of 2003, which I
am proud to cosponsor, includes provisions that have been shown to work
that are fair to all concerned. So S. 11 would encourage speedy
resolution of claims by providing a reasonable statute of limitations.
The bill provides for unlimited awards for economic damages, and it
limits awards for noneconomic damages to $250,000.
Moreover, S. 11 does not preempt State limits on awards for damages,
noneconomic or otherwise, even if the State limits are higher than
those imposed by S. 11. The Patient First Act limits attorney's fees,
thereby reducing the costs of medical liability litigation and
channeling award money to where it belongs, the injured patient.
Normally I am against that, limiting the attorney fees, but in this
particular case we have to do something. Women are going to be without
obstetricians. Many people are going to be without surgeons and many
will be without specialists. Young people are not going to go into the
profession. Young outstanding geniuses who would make great doctors do
not want to go into the profession.
In addition, S. 11 provides for evidence of collateral source
payments to be introduced in any health care lawsuit. Juries would be
made aware of existing health insurance or other sources that
compensate individuals for injuries. No longer would Americans
compensate an individual twice for the same injury.
While there is much to commend S. 11, one provision we should
consider adding is the carefully crafted catastrophic exception to the
limit on awards for noneconomic damages. A carefully worded
catastrophic exception can provide that individuals who have
particularly severe injuries as a result of extremely egregious acts of
negligence receive an award for noneconomic damages that would be
greater than the limit. Nine States have included such a provision in
their statutes.
Having said that, I must say that S. 11 is a very good bill and I
believe that it will accomplish our primary goal of ensuring that
Americans have access to health care.
What I like most about the ``Patients First Act'' is that it is true
to its name.
The bill puts the patient first.
Not the doctor.
Certainly not the lawyer.
You see, it is the patient who is threatened the most by the medical
liability litigation crisis.
It is the patient who eventually pays for the increased health care
costs and it is the patient that suffers most when he or she cannot
access needed care.
The medical liability litigation crisis threatens the economic health
of our country and the personal health of every American. It is like a
festering wound, spreading like an infection throughout the country. It
is time that we cured this infection by treating it with a proven
remedy. S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003 is the proven remedy
Americans need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this very important legislation.
Madam President, I began these remarks by stating that, as someone
who had experience in this field, I have witnessed an unfortunate
transition; a transition from the days when the standard of practice in
the community was the rule in most communities, which seemed to me to
be a fair rule, to a rule of the doctrine of informed consent, which
means the doctor has to so inform the patient that the patient knows
all of the risks involved. Well, the patient would have to go to
medical school to know all of the risks and it would take so much of
the doctor's time to advise a patient of those risks that none of us
could afford it.
There are always risks in surgery and there are always risks in a
number of clinical procedures. Consequently, because no doctor can ever
really meet those standards, every one of those cases go to trial. In
this country, jurors don't realize by giving outrageous awards that are
not justified in these medical liability cases, they are basically
spreading that cost to everybody in society.
If we do not act, babies will not be delivered with the utmost care
in the future. Americans will not have access to trauma care. Americans
will not have access to the top surgeons.
And if we do not act, unnecessary and costly defensive medicine will
continue. I have to say, I have witnessed
[[Page 17100]]
the increased use of costly CAT scans and MRIs in cases where patients
could very easily have been treated at a very low cost in comparison.
You can go right on down the line in almost everything else. It is
getting so that young people in this country cannot afford to have
children because it costs so much, and it is all driven by this medical
liability situation. I think that is pathetic. I think it is pathetic
for anybody to stand on the floor and say this is not a problem of
tremendous concern and, literally, say that it is the insurer's fault.
That just is not the case. In all honesty, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out what the problem is. I hate to say it, being a
lawyer and having been a trial lawyer. The problem is caused by many in
our profession who are bringing these frivolous suits. I have to tell
you that I have seen lawyers bring frivolous medical liability suits
for one reason and that is because it costs between $50,000 and
$100,000 to defend those suits. Many of these insurance companies,
rather than take the risk of a runaway jury or a forum shopping
situation, even within in a state, will pay the defense costs to get
out of the case even though the case has no merit.
Settling 20 of these frivolous cases per year, makes a pretty good
living for an attorney, just forcing the insurance companies to pay
defense costs because the insurance company doesn't want to take the
risk of a runaway jury verdict in a runaway community.
I think what jurors need to know is that in many respects, by
allowing outrageous verdicts in some of these cases where there has
been no negligence, they are basically running this system right into
the ground. That is what has happened.
As I say, I would have a catastrophic provision in this bill if I
could, that basically would take care of particularly egregious, gross
negligence type cases. There are reasons for bringing litigation from
time to time. There are good reasons to weed out those doctors who
should not be in the operating room, those doctors who really are
incompetent, those doctors who do not do what is right.
But those are the exceptions, not the rule. We are finding that far
too many good doctors are leaving the profession because they cannot
stand this intolerable situation anymore. The country cannot stand it,
either.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this legislation, S. 11, is not a
serious attempt to address a significant problem being faced by
physicians in some States. It is the product of a party caucus rather
than a bipartisan deliberation of a Senate committee. It was designed
to score political points, not to achieve a bipartisan consensus which
is needed to enact major legislation. For that reason, it does not
deserve to be taken seriously by the Senate.
We must reject the simplistic and ineffective responses proposed by
those who contend that the only way to help doctors is to further hurt
seriously injured patients.
Unfortunately, as we saw in the Patients' Bill of Rights debate, the
Bush administration and congressional Republicans are again advocating
a policy which will benefit neither doctors nor patients, only
insurance companies. Caps on compensatory damages and other extreme
tort reforms are not only unfair to the victims of malpractice, they do
not result in a reduction of malpractice insurance premiums. Not only
does this legislation fail to do what it claims but it would do many
things that its authors are attempting to conceal.
In reality, this legislation is designed to shield the entire health
care industry from basic accountability for the care it provides. While
those across the aisle like to talk about doctors, the real
beneficiaries will be the insurance companies and large health care
corporations. This amendment would enrich them at the expense of the
most seriously injured patients, men and women and children whose
entire lives have been devastated by medical neglect and corporate
abuse.
This proposal would shield HMOs that refuse to provide needed care,
drug companies whose medicine has toxic side effects, and manufacturers
of defective medical equipment.
In the last 2 years, the entire Nation has been focused on the need
for greater corporate accountability. This legislation does just the
reverse. It would drastically limit the financial responsibility of the
entire health care industry to compensate injured patients for the harm
that they have suffered. When will the Republican Party start worrying
about the injured patients and stop trying to shield big business from
the consequences of its wrongdoing? Less accountability will never lead
to better health care.
According to professor Sara Rosenbaum, a nationally respected expert
on health care law at the George Washington University School of Public
Health:
This measure is so vast in scope that it reaches every
conceivable health care claim against every health care
corporation or manufacturer of health care products . . . In
this sense the measure extends far beyond its popular billing
as one related to the crisis facing physicians and other
medical professionals in individual practice.
In testimony on the companion bill to S. 11 before the House Commerce
Committee, she stated that the bill was written so broadly that it
would shield health care companies from claims as varied as billing
fraud, providing tainted blood to patients, fixing the prices of drugs,
deliberately overcharging Medicare or Medicaid for health services,
making defective implants and violating nursing home safety rules. This
legislation is attempting to use the sympathetic family doctor as a
Trojan horse concealing an enormous array of special legal privileges
for every corporation which makes a health care product, provides a
health care service, or insures the payment of a medical bill. Every
provision of this bill is carefully designed to take existing rights
away from those who have been harmed by medical neglect and corporate
greed.
This legislation would deprive seriously injured patients of the
right to recover fair compensation for their injuries by placing
arbitrary caps on compensation for noneconomic loss in all of these
cases. These caps only serve to hurt those patients who have suffered
the most severe, life-altering injuries and who have proven their cases
in court.
They are the paralyzed, the brain-injured, and the blinded. They are
the ones who have lost limbs, organs, reproductive capacity, and in
some cases even years of life. These are life-altering conditions which
deprive a person of the ability to engage in many of the normal
activities of day to day living. It would be terribly wrong to take
their rights away. The Bush administration talks about deterring
frivolous cases, but caps by their nature apply only to the most
serious cases which have been proven in court.
A person with a severe injury is not made whole merely by receiving
reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Noneconomic damages
compensate victims for the very real, though not easily quantifiable,
loss in quality of life that results from a serious, permanent injury.
It is absurd to suggest that $250,000 is fair compensation for a person
paralyzed for life.
Caps are totally arbitrary. They do not adjust the amount of the
compensation ceiling with either the seriousness of the injury, or with
the length of years that the victim must endure the resulting
disability. Someone with a less serious injury can be fully compensated
without reaching the cap. However, a patient with severe, permanent
injuries is prevented by the cap from receiving full compensation for
their more serious injuries. Is it fair to apply the same limit on
compensation to a person who is confined to a wheelchair for life that
is applied to someone with a temporary leg injury?
Caps discriminate against younger victims. A young person with a
severe injury such as paralysis must endure it for many more years than
an older person with the same injury. Yet that young person is
prohibited from receiving greater compensation for the many more years
he will be disabled. Is that fair?
[[Page 17101]]
Caps on noneconomic damages discriminate against women, children,
minorities, and low-income workers. These groups do not receive large
economic damages attributable to lost earning capacity. Women who are
homeowners and caregivers for their families sustain no lost wages when
they are injured, so they only receive minimal economic damages.
Noneconomic damages are particularly important to these vulnerable
populations.
In addition to imposing caps, this legislation would place other
major restrictions on seriously injured patients seeking to recover
fair compensation. At every stage of the judicial process, it would
change long-established judicial rules to disadvantage patients and
shield defendants from the consequences of their actions.
It would abolish joint and several liability noneconomic damages.
This means the most seriously injured people may never receive all of
the compensation that the court has awarded to them. Under the
amendment, health care providers whose misconduct contributed to the
patient's injuries will be able to escape responsibility for paying
full compensation to that patient.
The bias in the legislation could not be clearer. It would preempt
State laws that allow fair trdatment for injured patients, but would
allow State laws to be enacted which contained greater restrictions on
patients' rights than the proposed federal law. This one-way preemption
contained in Section 11(b) shows how result-oriented the legislation
really is. It is not about fairness or balance. It is about protecting
defendants.
The amendment preempts State statutes of limitation, cutting back the
time allowed by many States for a patient to file suit against the
health care provider who injured him. Under the legislation, the
statute of limitations can expire before the injured patient even knows
that it was malpractice which caused his or her injury.
It places severe limitations on when an injured patient can receive
punitive damages, and how much punitive damages the victim can recover.
Under the bill, punitive damages can only be awarded if the defendant
acted ``with malicious intent to injure'' or ``deliberately failed to
avoid unnecessary injury.''
This is far more restrictive than current law. It prohibits punitive
damages for '`reckless'' and ``wanton'' misconduct, which the
overwhelming majority of States allow. In the very small number of
cases where punitive damages would still be allowed, it would cap them
at twice the amount of economic damages, no matter how egregious the
defendant's conduct and no matter how large its assets.
It imposes unprecedented limits on the amount of the contingent fee
which a client and his or her attorney can agree to. This will make it
more difficult for injured patients to retain the attorney of their
choice in cases that involve complex legal issues. It can have the
effect of denying them their day in court. Again the provision is one-
sided, because it places no limit on how much the health care provider
can spend defending the case.
If we were to arbitrarily restrict the rights of seriously inured
patients as the sponsors of this legislation propose, what benefits
would result? Certainly less accountability for health care providers
will never improve the quality of health care. It will not even result
in less costly care. The cost of medical malpractice premiums
constitutes less than two-thirds of 1 percent--66 percent--of the
Nation's health care expenditures each year. For example, in 2001,
health care costs totaled $1.42 trillion, while the total cost of all
medical malpractice insurance premiums was $7.3 billion. Malpractice
premiums are not the cause of the high rate of medical inflation.
This chart clearly reflects that we spend $1.42 trillion a year in
total personal health care expenditures. It is a very large amount per
individual. If we are ever able to get the cost of health care per
individual down to a reasonable amount there would be real savings. But
that isn't what this is about. This is about $7.3 billion, and that
amounts to just one-half of 1 percent of all medical costs. Medical
malpractice premiums do not contribute to the overall rise. We ought to
address the cost of health care. That isn't what this bill is about.
Over the last 15 years, medical costs increased by 113 percent. The
total amount spent on medical malpractice insurance rose just 52
percent over that period, less than half the rate of inflation for
health care services. The increase is rising at virtually one-half of
what other health care services are rising.
The White House and other supporters of caps have argued that
restricting an injured patient's right to recover fair compensation
will reduce malpractice premiums. But there is scant evidence to
support their claim. In fact, there is substantial evidence to refute
it.
In the past year, there have been dramatic increases in the cost of
medical malpractice insurance in States that already have damage caps
and other restrictive tort reforms on the statute books, as well as in
States that do not. No substantial increase in the number or size of
malpractice judgments has suddenly occurred which would justify the
enormous increase in premiums which many doctors are being forced to
pay.
Comprehensive national studies show that the medical malpractice
premiums are not significantly lower on average in States that have
enacted damage caps and other restrictions on patient rights than in
States without these restrictions. Insurance companies are merely
pocketing the dollars which patients no longer receive when ``tort
reform'' is enacted.
Let's look at the facts. Approximately half of the States have a cap
on medical malpractice damages. Most have had those statutes for a
substantial number of years. The other half of the States do not have a
cap on malpractice damages. The best evidence of whether such caps
affect the cost of malpractice insurance is to compare the rates in
those two groups of States.
Based on data from the Medical Liability Monitor on all 50 States,
the average liability premium in 2002 for doctors practicing in States
without caps on malpractice damages was $31,926, virtually the same as
the average premium for doctors practicing in States with caps, which
was $30,521.
There are many reasons why insurance rates vary substantially from
State to State. This data demonstrates that it is not a State's tort
reform laws which determine the rates. Caps do not make a significant
difference in the malpractice premiums which doctors pay. This is borne
out by a comparison of premium levels for a range of medical
specialties.
The average liability premium in 2002 for doctors practicing internal
medicine was less--2.8 percent--for doctors in States without caps on
malpractice damages--$9,552--than in States with caps on damages--
$9,820. Internists actually pay more for malpractice insurance in the
States that have caps.
The average liability premium in 2002 for general surgeons was almost
identical for doctors in States without caps--$33,016--than States with
caps--$33,157. Surgeons are paying the same regardless of the State's
tort laws.
The average liability premium for OB/GYN physicians in 2002 in States
without caps--$53,163--exceeded the rate for doctors in States with
caps--$48,586--by less than 10 percent, a relatively small difference.
Shown on this chart are the figures for: internal medicine, general
surgery, OB/GYN, and the physicians in States without caps on damages
and the physicians in States with caps on damages. A fair reading of
that would indicate there is virtually little that would reflect itself
in lower malpractice insurance rates for those States with caps.
This evidence clearly demonstrates that capping malpractice damages
does not benefit the doctors it purports to help. Their rates remain
virtually the same. It only helps the insurance companies earn even
bigger profits. As Business Week Magazine concluded after reviewing the
data ``the statistical case for caps is flimsy.'' That is from their
March 3, 2003 issue.
Since malpractice premiums are not significantly effected by the
imposition
[[Page 17102]]
of caps on recovery, it stands to reason that the availability of
physicians does not differ between States that have caps and States
that do not. AMA data shows that there are 233 physicians per 100,000
residents in States that do not have medical malpractice caps and 223
physicians per 100,000 residents in States with caps. Looking at the
particularly high cost speciality of obstetrics and gynecology, States
without caps have 29 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women while States with caps
have 27.4 OB/GYNs per 100,000 women. Clearly there is no correlation.
If a Federal cap on noneconomic compensatory damages were to pass, it
would sacrifice fair compensation for injured patients in a vain
attempt to reduce medical malpractice premiums. Doctors will not get
the relief they are seeking. Only the insurance companies, which
created the recent market instability, will benefit.
A National Association of Insurance Commissioners study shows that in
2000, total insurance industry profits as a percentage of premiums for
medical malpractice insurance was nearly twice as high--13.6 percent--
as overall casualty and property insurance profits--7.9 percent. Do we
understand that now? This is the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners. Their study showed, in the year 2000, that the insurance
industry profits as a percentage of premiums for medical malpractice
insurance was twice as high as casualty and property insurance profits.
The profits from the premiums for medical malpractice insurance were
twice as high. This is the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners study.
In fact, malpractice was a very lucrative line of insurance for the
industry throughout the 1990s. Recent premium increases have been an
attempt to maintain the high profit margins despite sharply declining
investment earnings. That is what is at the root cause here.
Insurance industry practices are responsible for the sudden, dramatic
premium increases which have occurred in some States in the past 2
years. The explanation for these premium spikes can be found not in
legislative halls or in courtrooms, but in the boardrooms of the
insurance companies themselves.
There have been substantial increases in the last 2 years in a number
of insurance lines, not just medical malpractice. Insurers make much of
their money from investment income. Interest earned on premium dollars
is particularly important in medical malpractice insurance because
there is a much longer period of time between receipt of the premium
and payment of the claim than in most lines of casualty insurance.
The industry creates a ``malpractice crisis'' whenever its
investments do poorly. The combination of a sharp decline in the equity
markets and record low interest rates in the last 2 years is the reason
for the sharp increase in medical malpractice insurance premiums. What
we are witnessing is not new. The industry has engaged in this pattern
of behavior repeatedly over the last 30 years. When ``tort reform
laws'' are enacted, the insurance companies pocket the resulting
savings to bolster their profits.
Last month, Weiss Ratings, Inc., a nationally recognized financial
analyst, conducted an in-depth examination of the impact of capping
damages in medical malpractice cases. This is a nationally recognized
financial analyst. Their conclusions sharply contradict the assumptions
on which this legislation is based. Weiss found capping damages does
reduce the amount of money that malpractice insurance companies pay out
to injured patients. However, those savings are not--those savings are
not--passed on to doctors in lower premiums. That is the conclusion.
This is what the Weiss report, issued on June 3 of this year, states:
Since the insurers in the states with caps reaped the
benefit of lower medical malpractice payouts, one would
expect that they would reduce the premiums they charged
doctors.
At the very minimum, they should have been able to slow down the
premium increases. Surprisingly, the data show they did precisely the
opposite. Between 1991 and 2002, the Weiss analysis shows that premiums
rose by substantially more in the States with damage caps than in the
States without caps. The 12-year increase in the median annual premium
was 48.2 percent in the States that had the caps, and only 35.9 percent
in the States that had no caps. In the words of the report:
On average, doctors in states with caps actually suffered a
significantly larger increase than doctors in states without
caps. . . . In short, the results clearly invalidate the
expectations of caps proponents.
There it is. Those States with the caps, 48.2 percent median premium
increase; States without caps, 35.9 percent. That is from the study by
Weiss Rating, Inc. It is not a study that is made up by those of us who
are expressing opposition.
Doctors, especially those in high-risk specialties, whose malpractice
premiums have increased dramatically over the past 2 years, do deserve
premium relief. That relief will only come as a result of tougher
regulation on the insurance industry.
When insurance companies lose money on their investments, they should
not be able to recover those losses from the doctors they insure.
Unfortunately, that is what is happening.
Doctors and patients are both victims of the insurance industry.
Excess profits from the boom years should be used to keep premiums
stable when investment earnings drop. However, the insurance industry
will never do that voluntarily. Only by recognizing the real problem
can we begin to structure an effective solution that will bring an end
to unreasonably high medical practice premiums.
I conclude with a quotation from the analysis of medical malpractice
premiums by Weiss Ratings, Inc. Weiss Ratings, as I said, is not
speaking from the perspective of a trial lawyer or a patient advocate,
but as a hard-nosed financial analyst that has studied the facts of
malpractice insurance ratings. Here are their recommendations to us
based on those facts:
First, legislators must immediately put on hold all
proposals involving non-economic damage caps until convincing
evidence can be produced to demonstrate a true benefit to
doctors in the form of reduced med mal costs. Right now,
consumers are being asked to sacrifice not only large damage
claims, but also critical leverage to help regulate the
medical profession--all with the stated goal that it will end
the med mal crisis for doctors. However, the data indicate
that similar state legislation has merely produced the worst
of both worlds: The sacrifice by consumers plus a
continuing--and even worsening--crisis for doctors. Neither
party derived any benefit whatsoever from the caps.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I also reference a really excellent article in U.S. News
and World Report from June 30 that shows on a chart what has been
happening with premiums going from $2.9 billion to $4.9 billion and, on
the other hand, points out insurers' payments after the jury verdict
was $147 billion in 1993 and in the year 2001, $172 billion--so
basically a fairly flat line across almost a 10-year period, a dramatic
increase in the premiums and virtually flat in terms of the payments.
I am glad to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Massachusetts would yield for a
question, I would ask him, since he has been our leader in the Senate
on the issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights to ensure that patients
across America have their rights against HMOs and managed care
companies--I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, is he aware that
despite the copious debate on the floor about the crisis facing
physicians across America, S. 11 provides a limitation on liability not
just for doctors and hospitals but also for HMO insurance companies,
managed care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers
of medical devices?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly right. It is not only limited to
those groups the Senator has cited, but there is a strong belief that
it would also apply protection for billing fraud, tainted blood to
patients, fixing of prices of drugs, deliberately overcharging Medicare
and Medicaid for
[[Page 17103]]
health services, as well as making defective implants, and violating
nursing home safety standards.
We don't hear much from those who are supporting this about why all
of these various groups need this kind of protection. It is a catch
all, not dealing with what was stated by many of those who were
speaking in favor. This is a catch all for anything to do in any way,
under any pretense, with the health care industry.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator from Massachusetts another question
through the Chair. There is a section in this bill I would like to call
to his attention, section 13. I would like to read it to the Senator
and ask him to respond, since he has been the sponsor of a Patients'
Bill of Rights, so that once and for all HMOs and managed care
companies will be held responsible and accountable for medical
decisions they make that injure patients. I ask the Senator if he would
respond and tell the Senate on the record what it means to include in
S. 11 a section 13, with the following language--sense of Congress:
It is the sense of Congress that a health insurer should be
liable for damages for harm caused when it makes a decision
as to what care is medically necessary and appropriate.
I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, does this sense of Congress
language guarantee that those who are harmed by health insurers who
make bad decisions about diagnostic procedures, stays in the hospital,
necessary surgery--is this language some refuge and comfort for them
that finally now they will have their day in court and now, with this
sense of Congress, they can hold these health insurance companies
accountable?
Mr. KENNEDY. It really insults the intelligence of the average
family, and the average family is far too bright and smart not to
understand what this says and what it does not. As implicated in the
Senator's question, this is a sense of the Senate of something we
should be doing by legislation which we have attempted to do with the
Patients' Bill of Rights.
This sense of the Senate is meaningless. It isn't even worth the
paper it is written on, because of all the other provisions included in
the legislation which the Senator has spoken to so effectively during
the course of the debate.
This is sort of a catch all, a ``make them feel good,'' section, for
some to be able to say: Look, they have language in here that it is the
sense we all feel this way. But, of course, it says this in a piece of
legislation which will effectively undermine the protections for
working families, for their parents, and for their children.
We have many things that can be done to provide help to some of those
who have the particular specialties which need attention, but the idea
that you have these two lines of a sense of the Senate to effectively
say: We have done all of these bad things, and we have put them in law,
but we want a sense of the Senate to make you feel good and show that
we are actually protecting the average family in this country--as the
Senator well knows, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Mr. DURBIN. If I may ask one last question of the Senator?
Mr. KENNEDY. If I may just add, as the Senator remembers--I hope the
American people do--we had weeks of debate on the floor on the
Patients' Bill of Rights. As the Senator remembers, what underlined
that whole debate was that we ought to put the well-being and the
health care interests of the patients of this country ahead of the
bottom line of the HMOs. This was a debate in which the American people
really participated. It was sidetracked because the administration
refused to allow States to make the ultimate decision about
compensation for individuals. That was in the final compromise which
this administration refused.
So for all those who want to talk about States rights issues on this
and the States know best--all those who make that argument--they
somehow miss the importance of the real protections for people.
Mr. DURBIN. My last question to the Senator: If this sense of the
Congress is not worth the paper it is written on, as the Senator has
said, is it fair to conclude that since the HMOs and managed care
companies prevailed before when the Senator from Massachusetts offered
his Patients' Bill of Rights to protect individuals from insurance
companies making medical decisions, is it fair to conclude that if S.
11 were enacted as written, limiting the liability of these HMO and
insurance companies, these companies would win again, that we would
reward them again for bad conduct, despite the sense of the Senate,
sense of Congress, section 13 of this bill?
Mr. KENNEDY. I think what you could say is that this is the anti-Bill
of Rights for the American consumer because it goes in just the
opposite way. Rather than guaranteeing protections, it undermines
whatever protections are out there. This is a battle we have been
fighting over and over again in recent years, making sure the most
basic protections for our consumers and families in the health care
area are not undermined.
As the Senator has pointed out, this is going in the opposite
direction.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a few of the items
just laid out in the Senate and try to point out what I think are
glaring inaccuracies.
First of all, the Weiss report we have heard so much about from the
last two speakers uses numbers from the Medical Liability Monitor. The
Medical Liability Monitor just provides the numbers. They are not a
group that is pro tort reform or anti tort reform. This is what the
editor, Barbara Dillard, says about the numbers that the other side of
the aisle is using to somehow skew what the premiums are doing in those
States that have enacted tort reform. Let me read some of the most
salient parts:
The Weiss ratings analysis of medical malpractice caps
cites the Medical Liability Monitor as the source of data
Weiss uses to calculate ``average'' and ``medium'' premiums
for physicians during the last 12 years. While we are an
independent news publication and take no position on tort
reform, or other proposals to improve the medical liability
climate, we feel it is necessary to comment on the use of our
statistics because some readers have expressed concern. The
median and averages in the Weiss report are not the numbers
we report in our annual rate surveys. Weiss may have taken
our numbers, the amounts and increases of premiums paid by
doctors State by State, and used them to arrive at their
statistics. But it is not possible from the report to say
definitely how our numbers have been used. It is our view
that it is impossible to calculate a valid ``average''
premium for physicians, or for physicians in a particular
State or territory, and we state that clearly in the
executive summary of our rate survey.
But the editor of the Medical Liability Monitor goes further. She
advised the leader's office that:
It is misleading to use median premiums compiled with data
from the Medical Liability Monitor to demonstrate the effect
of noneconomic damage limits on liability rates.
This is exactly what Weiss does. That is the report they have been
quoting here. The report uses median annual premiums compiled with data
from the Medical Liability Monitor to try to demonstrate the effect of
noneconomic damage limits on liability rates. Not only is this wrong,
it downright misleads the public.
Let me refer to some of the other issues they were talking about.
Half of the States have enacted medical liability reform. My State did
that a year ago. It has caps. If you look at my State, as far as the
numbers, it would look like it hasn't worked. It takes a minimum of
probably 8, 10, 12, or 15 years to go through the courts to find out
whether the caps are going to be upheld. If the insurance companies are
unsure whether the caps are going to be upheld or not, there is no
predictability there because they can reach way back--once it is held
unconstitutional, they can go back and try those cases and get those
awards.
That is why in California it took so long--from 1975 until the mid-
1980s--to find out whether the law was going to work. Colorado and
California have now had their laws in place long enough to stabilize
rates. Let's look at those two States, in major cities, compared to
other cities around the country.
[[Page 17104]]
Here are Los Angeles and Denver. We will start with the general
surgery. It is almost $37,000 in Los Angeles for the medical liability
premiums for the year; that is for a general surgeon. In Denver, it is
around $34,500. New York is about $51,000. Las Vegas was $70,000. It is
a lot higher this year in Las Vegas. In Chicago, it is $68,000. In
Miami, it is $174,000. The cities in the gray on the chart are States
without medical liability reform. The two in the white have had medical
liability reform in place long enough for them to have predictability.
This whole debate isn't about hurting patients; it is about helping
them to have access to quality care. In my State, we had a level I
trauma center close for 10 days because of a crisis, where the
specialists who were treating patients there could not afford the
medical liability insurance anymore. So they had to say: We cannot come
in there and practice because we cannot afford the insurance. The
Governor of our State, within a week, called a special session of the
legislature. They enacted, in a bipartisan way, caps. Unfortunately,
like a lot of the caps in the country--and they use a lot of these
statistics--they are similar to the caps in my State where they have
loopholes that you can drive a truck through, which makes the
legislation pretty much, as far as a court of law is concerned,
ineffective. That is why there is a move in my State to close those
huge loopholes down to where just the most serious cases actually have
unlimited pain and suffering type of awards.
In our State, the way they reopened the level I trauma center in that
special session of the legislature--not only did they enact a $350,000
cap for the general population but for the level I trauma center they
put it under the State. Guess what. Our State has $50,000 caps total--
economic, pain and suffering, medical, the whole thing. That is the
only way they could get the level I trauma center back open. Why did
they do it? They knew there was a crisis. People had died, and more
would die if they didn't reopen the trauma center.
Well, how bad does it have to get in the U.S. for us to say there is
a crisis? When will the other side realize how bad the situation is in
America? We are losing specialists. People are leaving the practice of
medicine--especially those specialties and subspecialties in which we
already have a shortage in many areas; and new people are not going
into these areas because they see the writing on the wall. They see it
is going to be too expensive for them to go out and practice.
I have a good friend from Las Vegas, Dr. Spoon. We were talking a
couple months ago. One of his favorite things to do in his practice--he
is an obstetrician--is to deliver babies, especially those high-risk
pregnancies. He got so much enjoyment from bringing them to the point
where they were successful. His insurance company made him stop
performing high-risk deliveries, and they also cut him down from 250 or
300 deliveries a year, and he can deliver no more than 125 babies a
year.
Southern Nevada is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the
country. Yet we are losing OB/GYNs and new ones are not coming in. So
what happens in that area is women are having serious trouble locating
OB/GYNs to deliver their babies.
I want to try to talk a little bit about the bill and what it really
does do and try to clear up some of these issues. First, to go back to
premiums. It was said that in places such as California premiums and
caps on economic damages--caps on pain and suffering don't work.
According to the CBO, they do work. H.R. 5, which is virtually
identical to the bill we have today, would significantly lower premiums
for medical malpractice insurance from what they would otherwise be
under current law. Premiums for medical malpractice insurance
ultimately would be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what they
would be under current law.
The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan, and everybody is
supposed to respect the numbers they put out around here. They
certainly don't have any pro or con as far as tort reform is concerned.
There are others such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services that say States with limits of $250,000 or $350,000 on
noneconomic damages have average combined highest premium increases of
12 to 15 percent--that is average combined highest premium increases--
compared to 44 percent in States without caps on noneconomic damages.
The Joint Economic Committee of the Congress says that tort reform
will reduce overall spending on health care savings by between $67
billion and $106 billion over the next 10 years.
I wish to talk a little bit about what kinds of economic damages.
That has been criticized. We don't cap economic damages. What can you
get in economic damages under this bill? You can get all lost wages and
benefits. Lost earning capacity. They say it hurts children. You get a
child who gets hurt because of malpractice and you can calculate what
that child would have had over the next 60, 70 years.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ENSIGN. They may not have the education to know what their total
potential was but it is 60 or 70 years' worth of earnings they can get
in economic damages. That can be significant. I will freely admit it is
not what Barry Bonds would get if he got hurt, or LaBron James, the new
basketball player. They would obviously get a lot more money because
they have the potential of making so much more money. But this child
would still get a significant amount.
Let me go through these points, and then I will yield for a question.
All medical expenses would be covered under this bill: long-term
care, assisted living devices, child care, household services, lost
time, special medical damages, value of care, counsel, advice, aid,
comfort, counsel for children, parents, and spouses. All of those are
possible under economic damages in this bill.
The final point I wish to make is this: Does this capping hurt
patients? We just have to look at Colorado and California and ask: Are
there people out there being hurt? I submit there are a lot more people
being hurt and going to be hurt in States such as Nevada where the
doctors are leaving, where the doctor will not be in that emergency
room or will not be able to deliver a baby, especially in those high-
risk pregnancies.
This one case in Florida is a very good example. I actually met this
gentleman. He is a physician himself. He was not performing duties as a
physician at this time, he was a parent of an injured child. His name
is Dr. Frank Shwarin. His 4-year-old child in Naples, FL, fell and hit
his head on the side of the swimming pool. This was in July of 2002.
The father is named Frank and Craig is the son. He rushed him to the
nearest hospital only to find that none of the neurosurgeons on call
would treat patients under 18 years of age. Why? Because they could not
get medical liability coverage to treat, even in an emergency
situation, a pediatric neurosurgery case. They had to medevac his son a
couple hours away. Fortunately, because the father is a doctor, he was
able to keep his son alive during that time.
A woman testified before the Senate that when the level I trauma
center crisis happened in my State, her father died when that trauma
center was closed because he had to be sent to another emergency room,
and an emergency room is not a trauma center. They do not have the kind
of expertise to treat severe trauma. As a result, her father died.
We cannot guarantee he would not have died in the trauma center, but
we can guarantee he would have had the best possible care and the best
chance of living. That is what I believe this debate has come down to:
The system is out of balance now. It is not working. To correct this
imbalance, we have to start reining in some of these frivolous,
outrageous jury awards.
I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the sponsor of the legislation for
coming to the Chamber. I want to give him an opportunity to complete
his statement, and perhaps at the end of that
[[Page 17105]]
statement, if he and I can engage in dialog or debate, that would be
fair. I do not want to interrupt his train of thought during his
presentation.
Mr. ENSIGN. That would be fine. I have a couple other issues to go
through. There are a few other cases I would like to bring to the
attention of our colleagues.
First, because we need to put a real face on this issue--we need to
put a face on the patients, and I think it is legitimate to put a face
on the other way. I think it is legitimate to put a face on somebody
who has had a claim of malpractice and actually had malpractice
committed against them, and it is also fair to put faces on those
people who now are having trouble finding the kind of health care they
need.
This is a balancing act, there is no question about it. There is no
perfect answer to this situation. I wish there were. The fact is, the
current system is driving health care providers out of the practice of
medicine, hospitals are closing down, and we need to correct the
situation so that when we seek health care in an emergency situation or
in a nonemergency situation, we will have the kind of care we need.
A friend of mine in Las Vegas has Parkinson's disease and goes down
to Loma Linda--I told this story earlier today--to see his
subspecialist in neurology to treat this disease. He had some fairly
radical surgery where they actually separate parts of the brain. He has
had very good success with it. He had a specialist talked into moving
his practice to Las Vegas shortly before the medical malpractice crisis
hit in Las Vegas. Once that hit the news, the guy said: Sorry, I live
in California where we have caps. I cannot go to Las Vegas and pay
$250,000 a year for my practice for medical liability coverage. I
cannot afford to do it. Why would I do that when I have a good practice
here, we have caps, and it is working well in California?
He wanted to move to Las Vegas. He was ready to go with his family.
He liked the quality of life in Las Vegas. He did not go simply because
he cannot afford to take that kind of economic hit. So people in Las
Vegas have to drive down there.
Most of the time those are not emergency cases, but for those cases
that are an emergency, it is just a shame.
People say this is a State issue. I would counter that this is the
United States of America, and we are supposed to be able to live where
we want to live, and now we are saying to people: No, you cannot go
there because of medical liability premiums, you cannot afford to open
up your practice because of medical liability premiums. People should
be able to find the kind of health care they need wherever in the
United States and live the quality of life and obtain the best health
care they can possibly get based on what is available in the area. I do
not think outrageous premiums should be the limiting factor.
Let me close with this point, Mr. President. Earlier there was debate
about punitive damages and that we are protecting big companies. Under
this bill, we do protect companies that make medical devices if they
have followed FDA regulations. In other words, the manufacturer would
not be liable for punitive damages if it satisfied FDA's rigorous
approval process and if the harm to the patient did not result from the
company's violation of an FDA regulation. If they played by the rules
that the Government set down, we protect them in this bill from
noneconomic--we do not protect them from economic or from medical
expenses. But if they violate the FDA rules, then they are not
protected. I think that is fairly reasonable. That is why we think this
bill is a reasonable compromise, is a reasonable approach to solving
what I believe is an out-of-control system.
I will be happy to yield for questions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the sponsor of the legislation. I
would like to ask him this question. Virtually every example the
Senator has given, every compelling example he has given for this
legislation involves doctors paying malpractice premiums. Yet as he has
written this legislation, it goes far beyond providing limitation of
liability for doctors. It includes limitation of liability for HMOs,
managed care, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers,
and nursing homes.
Can the Senator from Nevada explain to me why he has not come before
us and argued on behalf of HMOs and why their exposure to liability for
wrongdoing is a source of concern and leads to, he thinks, the need for
legislation?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we know we live in a litigious society. We
are sue happy today. Everything is somebody else's fault, and we
immediately go to court. Because of the nature of our courts, it is
easier to settle. When we settle, it drives up the cost for all of us.
A lot of the cases never make it because it is too expensive to take
the case all the way to court.
A lot of companies especially are self-insured for certain amounts of
money. It is easier for them to calculate the cost of going to court,
and what happens in the long run is that all of us pay for that in
higher premiums. When we have higher premiums, it is pretty simple. We
end up with a situation where employers cannot afford it. A lot of
small employers especially are dropping their health insurance coverage
and we are ending up with 41 million uninsured in this country and a
big part of that is the cost, not only of the premiums to doctors but
just the whole cost of defensive medicine that we have to practice
today because of the fear of being sued.
Mr. DURBIN. So if the Senator from Nevada will yield for another
question, through the Chair, is the Senator from Nevada going to bring
for us then more evidence, as he has when it comes to doctors, as to
the insurance crisis facing drug companies in America, which as I
understand are the most profitable corporations in America with an
average annual return of 18 percent on capital, about 6 times the rate
of return of the Fortune 500? Is he going to tell us about the
liability exposure of HMOs that really necessitate this protection
which he is building into his proposed law, S. 11? Is he going to tell
us about the medical device corporations that have made faulty products
which are causing problems across America and how their exposure and
liability necessitate this need to limit their accountability and cap
the recovery of innocent people who are victims of their misconduct?
Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator would vote for us to go forward with the
bill tomorrow when we have a cloture vote, we will have a lot of time
to debate this. We can amend it and go forward with this debate. So I
hope he will join us in voting for cloture because I do have a lot of
evidence to justify the various provisions in the bill.
The bottom line is we all know that today it costs around $900
million to bring a single new drug to the market. I am not here to
defend the pharmaceutical companies or any other company.
Mr. DURBIN. That is what the bill of the Senator does.
Mr. ENSIGN. No. What I am here to say is we have a problem with our
health care system today and we need to fix it. If we can go forward
with this bill, if there are amendments the Senator thinks can improve
this bill, let's at least move to it so that we can amend it, put the
amendments forward, and have a healthy debate. We can take a week, or
whatever it takes, to do that so that we can go forward and try to fix
some of the glaring problems. If the Senator thinks there are some
problems with the bill, let's bring forth amendments and try to fix it.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, I am
curious. What the Senator has just suggested is a good basis for
establishing what we might even call a Senate committee where we could
have Members of the Senate come together, consider evidence, and offer
amendments before the bill comes to the floor. If I am not mistaken,
the Senate bill already provides for committees. Why is it that this
bill, of such consequence, should not go through a Senate committee
system so that the very aspects that we have just discussed can be
openly debated and amended and come up with a work product that might
be of real value to this country?
Mr. ENSIGN. I say to my friend and colleague that it is obvious why.
We
[[Page 17106]]
could not get a bill to the floor. The Senator knows that and everybody
here knows that. It is just like last year when the Senator was in the
majority, there were at least two bills that I remember, the Energy
bill, as, well as the prescription drug bill, that were brought to the
floor that were not brought through committee. They were brought
directly to the floor by the majority leader at the time. It is not a
common procedure, but it is a procedure that has to be done every once
in a while to bring up important legislation that cannot go through
committee and my colleagues know cannot get through committee.
The way the Senate works is so different than the House, and the
Senator knows that. We both served in the House of Representatives. The
House of Representatives does almost all their work in the committee.
We can do a lot of our work on the floor and produce a pretty darn good
product by bringing it to the floor, amending the bill on the floor,
and that is what I think we should do.
Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask the Senator from Nevada, the sponsor of
this legislation, another question, he has spoken about his own home
State of Nevada and the problems they have faced. In the last 2 days,
there has been a lot of discussion on the Senate floor about the
medical malpractice crisis in this country that involves an increasing
incidence of medical malpractice. In fact, the Bush administration says
it has reached epidemic proportions.
I ask the Senator from Nevada, what in his bill, S. 11, would deal
with the problem in his home State of Nevada, reported by Business Week
on March 3 of this year, in which they reported that in his home State
of Nevada, which adopted a $350,000 cap on recovery last year, it was
discovered that two doctors in his State were responsible for $14
million of the $22 million in claims awarded in Nevada in 1 year? What
in this legislation would make certain that those doctors, guilty of
malpractice, would be held accountable for their wrongdoing and would
be removed from practice if, in fact, they are not meeting the
standards of professional conduct?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that it is a great
point. I practiced veterinary medicine and I understand how
professional boards work. I understand that with professional boards
there is a self-policing that is assumed. It is supposed to happen with
lawyers. It is supposed to happen with accountants. It is supposed to
happen with veterinarians. It is supposed to happen with physicians.
The big problem today with professional boards is they are afraid to do
something with somebody's license because if they do, they can be held
personally liable. That happens time and time again.
All of the professional boards go through this; that as badly as they
would love to jerk somebody's license, unless it is so clear and the
evidence is so outrageous of what they have done to deserve their
license being jerked, it just does not happen. Frankly, it should
happen more. There are incompetent doctors. There are incompetent
lawyers. There are incompetent veterinarians. More of them should have
their license jerked in that case, and I wish they were empowered a
little more and maybe protected a little more to do that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Dr. Ensign, we appreciate his leadership on
this matter and know that he is a professional himself, and he is
familiar with these liability issues. The Senator talked about two
doctors in Nevada being responsible for $14 million of the $22 million
in punitive damages. I guess what I want to ask the Senator is that in
this way we operate with punitive damages, is not the real truth that
when two doctors get hit with big verdicts that the premiums from all
the innocent doctors in Nevada go up? It is not just the bad doctor who
pays--it is supposed to punish him--but the insurance company pays it,
does it not, and then they pay for that by raising the premiums on
everybody else?
Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator from Alabama brings up a very true point, but
also the Senator from Illinois is correct in that we do need to do a
better job of policing the physicians. They need to do a much better
job of that. That is why I brought up the point of the boards. The
point is, though, if we vote for cloture tomorrow, maybe we can work
this out. Maybe we can come up with something that could be addressed,
or at least give suggestive language to the States to be able to work
this out. It is so clear that if we can invoke cloture--for the general
public, that means that we can proceed to the bill. The vote tomorrow
is just whether we can proceed to the bill. All of this is just pre-
debate on whether we are going to proceed to a bill that is so critical
to the future health care in this country.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator is exactly correct. I certainly agree, as a
Federal prosecutor--and I prosecuted some physicians and other
professionals in the medical business for bad behavior, but the odd
thing about the way our tort system works, people think the doctor who
gets sued is being punished, but really the doctor has insurance which
he is required to have in order to practice in a hospital--virtually
everybody has to have some, no matter how much it costs--and they do
not end up being punished. Every physician in the community is
punished, are they not? Is that not an odd thing that we are dealing
with in current law?
Mr. ENSIGN. I do not know if the Senator can see this chart--maybe we
can have that chart turned just slightly so the Senator from Alabama
can see it, but it brings up the exact point. The States that have
capped noneconomic damages in the white, California and Colorado,
represented by Los Angeles and Denver, in those States let's go down to
the OB/GYNs, $54,000 in Los Angeles for the annual premiums for the
medical liability insurance, $30,000 in Denver. Go over to New York; it
is almost $90,000; in Las Vegas, $108,000. I guarantee that number in
Las Vegas is old because friends of mine who are OB/GYNs say they are
paying anywhere from $130,000 to $150,000 a year. Chicago, $102,000 and
Miami is over $200,000 a year. The cities in gray, representing the
states in gray, have no tort reform that has been on the books. Nevada
has it but it has not been on the books long enough. It will take 6, 8,
10 years. Los Angeles and Denver have had their laws on the books long
enough to work.
Because they have enacted what we want to do today, we see these
premiums.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will share my thoughts. I believe this bill is a good
way to go about at the present time dealing with what is a health care
crisis in America--the surging costs of insurance and liability. I wish
we were not in the Senate having to deal with it. I have some great
friends in the tort business, good lawyers, and they have learned over
the years how to utilize the system to maximize verdicts and maximize
recoveries. They have been successful.
Things have gotten out of sync. They need to be brought into sync. We
can do it a number of different ways. We can do it State by State. The
truth is over half of the medical care in hospitals in America today,
and a very large percentage of what doctors do every day, is paid for
by the Federal Government in Medicaid. It is our tax money. We are
paying it. Part of the need they have for higher pay and higher
reimbursement rates is because of the malpractice insurance they must
pay.
Caps on damages have worked. Last week I was in the small town of
Russellville in Alabama where I practiced law for a year or so. It is
pretty far off the beaten path. A bright young doctor gave me a couple
of ideas about reforming medical care unrelated to this issue. He told
me he had come from California. His premiums in Alabama were
substantially higher, and growing each year, than his colleagues he
left in California. He did not expect that.
[[Page 17107]]
We have little or no caps. We have some caps in Alabama, but not the
kind in California.
I talked to a physician friend of mine, a wonderful person I go to
church with, Dr. Conrad Pierce, former president of the OB/GYN
Association. And he talked about the $100,000 liability premiums that
OBs pay. He said, Jeff, you can get by in a city if you are delivering
a couple hundred babies a year, but if you deliver 50 or 100 babies,
this is $1,000 per delivery. It represents your health care premium.
That is a big deal.
Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield, is the Senator aware that, for
instance, in Las Vegas, they are limiting the number of babies they are
allowed to deliver to 125. What your friend was talking about is right,
they used to deliver 250 to 300. Now they limit how many they can
deliver.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is the result we are dealing with. All kinds of
factors are occurring that are impacting adversely health care as a
result of the premiums.
As my friend pointed out, in some rural areas you only deliver 50 or
60. It is not precisely how many babies delivered by a doctor that
determines the premiums paid. You pay a basic premium if you deliver
any at all. So the low numbers drive out physicians in rural areas who
do not deliver that many babies.
It is a big deal. We have seen medical malpractice insurance jump by
81 percent over the past 2 years alone. It has driven people out of
business.
The Physicians Insurance Association of America shows a fourfold
increase from the period of 1991 to 2002 in the percentage of jury
awards that exceed $1 million. We have a fourfold increase in the
percentage of jury awards that exceed $1 million. Some say the reason
these premiums have gone up is because insurance reserves are not
producing the returns they used to produce. I don't think it is
disputed that we have a substantial increase in the large verdicts
around the country. That does drive the market.
In West Virginia, Charleston Area Medical Center lost its Level I
Trauma Center status, leaving West Virginia University Ruby Memorial
Hospital as the only Level I Trauma Center in the State. The inability
of this facility to find neurosurgeons and orthopedists created a
situation in which critically injured patients had to be medevac'ed out
of the State.
Open the newspaper and you will read of similar crises in
Pennsylvania, Nevada, Mississippi, and other areas. Rural areas are hit
hardest by the increasing costs. This places additional burdens on
those who can least afford it.
In my home State, I was in the town of Atmore, not too far from where
I grew up. The Atmore Community Hospital was forced to close its
obstetrics unit because it could not afford the 282 percent increase in
malpractice insurance from $23,000 to $88,000. When you deliver a
limited number of children, $88,000 is a substantial cost against you.
Now expectant mothers must travel either to the hospital in Brewton, 30
miles away, or to Mobile or Pensacola, FL, an hour away, eliminating
availability of health care.
Another rising crisis in my State has been brought to my attention
involving the nursing home industry. It was a stunning statistic. At
the request of the American Health Care Association, Aon Risk
Consultants conducted an actuarial analysis that found there was a
substantial increase in premiums, an extraordinary increase from 1995
to 2002 for nursing homes, meaning that the cost for settling and
defending malpractice claims increased from $320 a bed in a nursing
home to $4,410 per bed, over a tenfold increase in the insurance
premiums paid. This was first brought to my attention by an individual
I know in my hometown of Mobile who shared those numbers with me. It is
consistent with his personal experience. I was shocked. We are looking
at $4,000 per-bed cost annually for liability insurance per nursing
home bed. That is very significant.
I hope as we go forward we can move beyond obstruction and a
filibuster to be able to offer amendments, if people think they can
make it better, that we can do things that would be realistic and
effective. I think we can do that. This bill has a good core right now.
I intend to support it and I intend to vote for it and I intend to vote
to move it up for debate.
The odd thing about malpractice in America today and the lawsuits
that get filed are, as I suggested to my able friend from Nevada,
Senator Ensign, we think we are punishing doctors who make a mistake
and we sue them for punitive damages. This historically was not a big
part of litigation in America, but in the last 20 or 30 years punitive
damages have become a staple in litigation. If a doctor makes a
mistake, they sue him for the mistake, they sue him for the
compensation, damages, pain and suffering of the patient, and they
invariably add it was done recklessly, wantonly, or without due regard
of care and that he is, therefore, responsible for punitive damages.
Those punitive damages are added on to it as a punishment to that
doctor. But already the doctor in the basic recovery is above the
deductible he had on his insurance policy. He has already paid that out
of his pocket. So whether it is $1 million or $10 million or $500,000
in punitive damages, that is paid for by the insurance system that we
set up. And who pays into that insurance system? All the doctors in the
community.
I absolutely agree with Senator Ensign that we need tighter controls
on physicians by the medical associations, just as I believe--and have
believed for a long time--we need tighter controls by the legal
professional community, of which I have been a part. We do not do
enough there.
But, regardless of that, you are still going to have negligence. You
are still going to have these kinds of recoveries. If not capped, they
continue to shift the payment from the person who did wrong to the
innocent doctors and physicians out there who will all see their
premiums increase substantially.
I have visited hospitals in my State on a regular basis. I visited
probably 30 hospitals in the last 3 or 4 years. I ask them about how
their liability insurance premiums are doing. They tell me they tripled
in the last several years, invariably--more than double consistently,
they tell me, over the last 3 or 4 years. Each one is somewhat
different but the premiums have gone up at an extraordinary rate.
I think this Congress, faced with a demand for improving health care
and health care delivery to more people, and at the same time trying to
do so with contained cost, ought to look at one aspect of the medical
system that produces little or no benefit and that is the amount of
money paid out through this system.
Yes, I do believe that lawsuits make some physicians more careful. I
do think it has led to the altering of practices for better health
care. I do not believe all lawsuits are bad. I do not believe all
recoveries are bad. I think it is good sometimes if physicians get hit
and popped and sent a message. I think the embarrassment of the lawsuit
itself has a substantial impact on this physician and other physicians
in the community. But whether the recovery is $500,000 in punitive
damages, $250,000 or $2 million is not the point. That physician is not
really going to be paying it. The other physicians in the community
will be paying it.
I think we will get the same impact in terms of improving health care
if we allow lawsuits to go forward but we don't allow them to turn into
jackpot justice where one patient, one victim, one injured patient who
sues gets $10 million and another one gets $500,000 or zero for
virtually the same circumstance. Too often that has happened. This is
not a systematic way we are dealing with malpractice in America. And
who is paying for it? John Q. Citizen, the Federal Government, in terms
of Medicare and Medicaid moneys we send out.
I think we can do better. I think this bill is a step in the right
direction. My friend from Illinois is a skilled lawyer. There is no
doubt in my mind his remarks on this bill will represent the best
comments that can be made in opposition to it. But overall I think it
is a net plus. It is the right step to take. We are going to need to do
something
[[Page 17108]]
about these costs. I do not believe the benefits in improved health
care are anything like the costs that are being incurred by physicians.
They do not consider the amount of care being denied American citizens
as a result of physicians choosing another course.
Finally, I read in the newspaper about Dr. Sumpter Blackman from
Camden, AL, a small town I grew up in of not much more than 1,000
people with a small hospital with about 20-some-odd beds. Dr. Blackman
is the main physician there.
It was reported that he may have to give up his practice; that he
could not get insurance. One of the companies had changed and he was
not able to get other insurance. The rates were extraordinarily high.
He was wondering whether or not he should stay in the business.
I could say to the Members of this Senate, with no doubt, if you took
a poll of the people in Camden, AL, and the environs and asked who was
the most important person in that community to them, Dr. Sumpter
Blackman would win that hands down.
He was my mother's physician. He takes care of people there. He knows
them. He is an excellent physician. He is talking about retiring early
as a result of lawsuits. I think this has gone beyond just talk and
debate and big insurance companies and rich companies and poor victims
and doctors. I think it is a health care issue. We cannot afford to
lose people such as Dr. Sumpter Blackman from the medical profession.
He has saved the lives of thousands in his long career there in Camden,
AL, and there are a lot more like him. They are thinking maybe this
business just isn't worth it; I put aside some money and maybe I will
just go off somewhere and do something else and not have to worry about
this and worry about getting insurance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his
kind words. He and I disagree on many issues but respect one another
very much. I am sure there will be an issue somewhere along the way on
which we agree. We are both waiting, and after 6 or 7 years the day may
come. We will announce it.
Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I think we do agree we need
to work to improve our legal system to make it the best we possibly
can. How do we do that? Sometimes we disagree but I respect the Senator
from Illinois and his skill.
Mr. DURBIN. I consider that a rhetorical question but I respect the
Senator from Alabama.
Let me say there was a statement made earlier by the sponsor of this
legislation that tells the whole story. When he came to illustrate the
savings in malpractice premiums from States with caps and States
without caps, he said to us, I think the Congressional Record will
reflect what I am about to say is accurate, that the reason he only
chose Los Angeles and Denver to illustrate that States with caps lower
malpractice premiums was because it takes a long period of time for the
caps to be reflected in the premiums charged to doctors. In his words,
he said 8 to 12 to 15 years before premiums come down.
I think perhaps he may be right. Perhaps he may not be right. Over a
period of 8 to 15 years it is hard to measure what is going to have an
impact on malpractice premiums. It could be the investment success of
the insurance company as much as a cap or any other thing. But it tells
an important part of the story. If we are facing a medical malpractice
insurance crisis today in America, what is being proposed, limiting the
recovery of medical malpractice victims, putting a cap on the amount of
money they can take home from a lawsuit, is, in fact, not going to
provide relief to doctors or hospitals facing these high premiums
today. In fact, it may be 8, 10, 12, or 15 years, according to Senator
Ensign, the sponsor of this legislation. I think that should give pause
to every Senator who believes they can vote for this legislation, see
it enacted, go home to doctors in their community and say we have met
our obligation. I do not think that is a fact.
There is another side of the story here that is worth at least
pointing to. When I asked the Senator from Nevada why he included more
than just doctors in this bill, more than just hospitals in this bill,
why did he go on to include health care organizations such as insurance
companies, HMOs, managed care organizations, why did he include
pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, nursing homes,
why are all of them being brought into the debate if our concern is
whether or not there will be enough doctors around to deliver babies,
he basically said we are trying to reduce the cost to the health care
system. I assume if you limited recovery to zero dollars, you could
reduce it even more. This bill limits it to $250,000 in noneconomic
losses. He gave an illustration of the fact that economic losses
include lost wages. Then he went on to say that if a child were injured
and would be unable to be employed, for example for the rest of his
life, they would have to try to make some calculation as to the lost
wages.
I might remind my friend from Nevada that his bill requires objective
verifiable losses. How do you calculate that for a 6-year-old boy, such
as the one I talked about yesterday, who will literally have no work
life, no work experience the rest of his life on Earth? How do you
calculate that in objective verifiable ways, as to his future lost
wages?
The importance of that, of course, is that is only one of two things
he can be compensated for--medical losses as well as loss of income. So
the calculation is very difficult under the exact language of the bill
written by the Senator from Nevada.
I take exception to a comment made during the course of this debate
by my friend from Alabama. He has made this comment before. He referred
to what he called ``jackpot justice.'' He referred to verdicts that
really are of little or no benefit, as he said, to society.
I suggest to him that we have statistics. Virtually both sides
inundated the record with statistics. But these come from the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners. Here is what they tell us.
The number of new medical malpractice claims declined by 4 percent
between 1995 and 2000. During that 5-year period of time, new medical
malpractice claims declined by 4 percent.
If we were talking about a proliferation of claims or lawsuits, the
record suggests it is not the number. But, of course, some will argue
how much is being awarded to those that are being filed. I would
concede that the general awards have gone up. It reflects a number of
things. It reflects inflation in medical care, and the cost of medical
care. Everybody knows that is a fact. The cost of prescription drugs,
the cost of doctors' care, and the costs of hospitals have all gone up.
That is reflected when a verdict or an award is given to someone who
has been injured. You would expect under normal circumstances for a
person who is aggrieved or injured by medical malpractice on a year-to-
year basis to see that award going up, understandably so. But how about
the big awards, ones over $1 million?
According to Business Week, and their March 3, 2003, issue, which I
quoted earlier--Business Week is hardly a liberal publication--in 2001
there were only 895 out of 16,676 payouts exceeding $1 million, about 1
percent. That is up from 506 in 1996.
In a 5-year period of time, the number of awards over $1 million went
from 506 to 895.
From the debate on the floor you would conclude that the number was
much larger.
I take exception especially to a reference to these awards and
settlements in larger numbers as ``jackpot justice.''
I will not bring out the photographs. But earlier I mentioned some of
the people who have been victims of medical malpractice.
Heather Lewinsky of Pittsburgh, PA, a 17-year-old who has gone
through a series of plastic surgeries and will be deformed and scarred
for the rest of her life by medical malpractice--would a verdict in her
case be a jackpot? I don't think so.
[[Page 17109]]
Evelyn Babb, a 75-year-old woman from Tyler, TX, went in for a simple
knee surgery and the surgeon operated on the wrong knee. As a result,
this 75-year-old lady lost her mobility and will be suffering with pain
for the rest of her natural life. Would a verdict in her case be
``jackpot justice''?
Sherry Keller from Conyers, GA, a graphic case which I talked about
earlier, a lady who went into her doctor's office after a hysterectomy
and had a terrible situation where her womb was reopened because of
bleeding and she went into shock--the doctor left her alone in the
room, she fell off the examination table striking her head as she fell
to the floor, eventually leading to a situation of being a
quadriplegic. If she received an award, this mother and homemaker, of
$500,000, has she hit the jackpot?
I don't think so.
Colin Gouley from Nebraska came with his family to see us today. This
little 9-year-old boy, whose life has been compromised dramatically,
will have a difficult time doing things we pray that every child can
do, such as read, write, engage in conversation, walk, and run. He will
never have that chance. A jury in Nebraska thought that his damages
from malpractice committed against him was worth more than $5 million.
So did Colin Gouley hit the jackpot with a $5 million verdict if he has
a lifetime of being in a wheelchair because of medical malpractice? Is
this ``jackpot justice''?
Kim Jones, 30 years old, went in for a simple tubal ligation and
ended up in a comatose state in a nursing home for the rest of her
life. Is an award in her case a jackpot? Did she hit it big if they
gave her enough money for someone to care for her the rest of her life?
Frankly, she will never be able to care for her daughter again.
Or Alan Cronin, 42 years of age, who went into a hospital in
California for a routine hernia surgery and ended up with an infection
so serious that it lead to gangrene in all of his limbs and amputation
of both arms and legs--Alan Cronin, would he be the winner of a jackpot
if those who were responsible for his losing his arms and his legs had
to pay and compensate him not only for his medical bills and lost wages
but also for his pain and suffering?
That is the part of the calculation which those who bring the bill to
the floor have not spoken of. They talked about the challenges facing
doctors. We conceded that. In some areas of the country, malpractice
insurance is too high. Don't overlook what this bill does. It closes
the door and removes the jury from the decision about fair compensation
for people who have been injured through no fault of their own.
That is why I think those who are pushing this bill will probably be
unsuccessful tomorrow. People on this side of the aisle, and
Republicans as well, believe this bill, S. 11, goes too far. This is
excessive. This is not setting out to simply solve the problem. This is
setting out to make a political point--that we are going to go after
those who would be so bold as to file a lawsuit.
In the pages of this bill, you will see a limitation on what
attorneys can be paid if they represent one of these clients or one of
these patients I have mentioned--people who have lost their limbs,
people who are no longer able to function as normal human beings. If
they go to hire a lawyer to represent them in a case of malpractice,
this law will restrict how much their lawyer can be paid.
If you believe in justice, wouldn't you also argue that those who
defend the doctors and defend the hospitals should have their
attorney's fees limited as well? Wouldn't that be fair? Isn't that
justice with a blindfold? No. The blindfold is raised on one side. It
is a wink and a nod to the defense industry representing the doctors
and the hospitals. But when it comes to these poor people with limited
economic resources fighting for compensation for injuries that are no
fault of their own, this bill limits the amount of money that can be
paid to those lawyers.
I will tell you that without the contingency fee system, most of
these poor people I have described today will never ever have their day
in court. No attorney will be able to represent them.
Do you recall not too many months ago that sad story in North
Carolina, I believe at a major university, where there was supposed to
be a heart-lung transplant and they mistakenly brought the wrong blood
and tissue type organs to be transplanted and a mistake was made? It
was clearly not the mistake of the family or the little girl who was
involved. Discovering this error, they tried to implant an additional
set of organs--heart and lung--to save her after this serious mistake
was made.
I can tell you that this little girl, who sadly died because of that
malpractice, would have recovered little or nothing for that wrongful
death under this legislation.
Where do you point to in terms of lost wages for a little girl who
died during the course of the surgery? Where is the pain and suffering
in a wrongful death lawsuit? Yet that is what it comes down to.
Those sponsors of this bill are prepared to close the courthouse door
and say that for her family, they do not have the opportunity to get a
lawyer because the contingency fee is limited, and once they have that
lawyer there is little or nothing they can recover despite clear
evidence of medical malpractice.
That isn't fair. It isn't American. It isn't just. We are talking
about rewarding people who have been seriously and egregiously injured.
I hope my colleagues will join me tomorrow in voting against the
motion for cloture. We should not proceed to this bill. This bill
should proceed to a committee. It should go to a committee for a long
period of study of compromise, of amendment, of a good-faith effort on
both sides involving the medical profession, and the insurance industry
which gets a windfall from this bill, as they do virtually every bill
that comes through here, as well as the legal profession; and a bill
that will end up in a resolution of the problems facing our doctors and
medical providers whom we value very much, but I don't believe they
would stand behind such a product that is so fundamentally unfair.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
A TRIBUTE TO ROZ WYMAN
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago today a young and
dynamic woman was elected as a member of the Los Angeles City Council.
She was just 22 years old, making her the youngest council member in
the city's history.
The fact that such a record has been held for so long is in itself
remarkable. But then again, we are talking about a truly remarkable
woman, Rosalind Wyman.
For many years now, Roz has worked tirelessly, for her family and
friends, for the city she loves, for the State of California, for the
Democratic Party, and for women everywhere.
There is a wonderful photo of Roz when she was only 2 years old,
smiling up at a portrait of Franklin Roosevelt. Her mother, Sarah, was
a precinct captain for FDR's first Presidential campaign, running the
operation out of the family's drugstore on 9th Street and Western
Avenue in Los Angeles.
Roz's father, Oscar, worried that such a partisan stance would cost
them customers, but Sarah believed that electing Roosevelt was much
more important.
[[Page 17110]]
Small wonder, then, that Roz developed a deep and abiding passion for
political activism and the Democratic Party. Her first campaign was
working on behalf of Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, in her ill-
fated 1950 Senate race against Richard Nixon, when he unfairly
portrayed her as ``the Pink Lady.''
Then, 2 years later, Roz made history by becoming the youngest person
ever elected to the L.A. City Council, and only its second woman
member. She went on to serve in that body for the next 12 years, on the
finance and budget committees, and eventually becoming president pro-
tempore.
As another woman who entered California politics in the 1950s, I can
assure you that it was quite a different world back then. It was still
very much a male club. In both Los Angeles and San Francisco, one was
hard-pressed to find a women's bathroom anywhere near the chambers.
Something else Roz inherited from her mother was a love for baseball.
In fact, there is nowhere that Roz Wyman would rather be than at Dodger
Stadium, at the home plate corner of the Dodger dugout, where she has
had her seats for over 40 years now.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Dodgers would not have come to
Los Angeles without the vision, fortitude, and sheer determination of
Roz Wyman. Just ask Tommy Lasorda, who said: ``What this lady did for
baseball in this city, they should erect a monument to her.''
Today, it is hard to believe how polarizing the effort was to bring
the Dodgers from Brooklyn in the late 1950s. Yet Roz, believing that a
professional sports team was just what L.A. needed to cement its image
as a major American city, braved death threats and earned many
political enemies in order to see this come about.
One year after coming to L.A., however, the Dodgers went on to win
the World Series, as they did again in 1963, 1965, 1981, and 1988,
along with three National League Championships in the 1970s. No one
today could imagine the city without one of baseball's greatest
franchises.
One of the other defining moments in the modern history of Los
Angeles, which placed the city firmly on the map as one of America's
premier cities, was when it hosted the Democratic Convention in 1960.
And here, too, Roz Wyman played a vital, even pivotal role. She was
an ardent Kennedy supporter, having supported him in 1956, in his
unsuccessful bid for the Vice Presidential nomination.
She understood the natural connection between Hollywood and
Washington, and before many others recognized Kennedy's enormous
charisma and appeal, along with the growing importance of television to
electoral politics.
And with her late husband, Eugene, who served as chairman of the
California Democratic Party, they proved to be extraordinarily
effective fundraisers and campaigners. They were responsible for
enlisting the likes of Frank Sinatra to sing by the swimming pool, as
Kennedy worked his political magic with the delegates.
It is easy to forget that back then, party conventions were not the
largely scripted events that they are today. There was real drama--
nothing was inevitable--and delegates could change their vote at the
last minute.
Such was Roz's influence with the Kennedy campaign, that she was able
to convince Robert Kennedy to change the venue for JFK's fabled ``New
Frontier'' speech from the Sports Arena to the grander Memorial
Coliseum next door.
She went on, 8 years later, to work closely on Robert Kennedy's bid
for the White House, which ended so tragically in Los Angeles.
During the 1970s, both with her husband Gene and after his unexpected
passing, Roz was a highly effective advocate for the Democratic Party,
raising awareness on a wide array of issues.
I first met Roz when I was mayor of San Francisco and she served as
convention chair and chief executive officer of the 1984 Democratic
National Convention, the first woman--Democrat or Republican--ever
selected to run a Presidential Convention. In that position she oversaw
the entire planning and management of the convention and its $13
million budget.
We soon became close friends, forming a bond that has grown ever
stronger over the years. She was already a living legend, already a
star of our party, and she did an absolutely stellar job, not just for
the Democratic Party but for the city of San Francisco.
President Clinton recognized Roz's contribution, back in 2000, when
he said: ``She reminds me of my ties to my roots. Her loyalty to our
party and our candidates is something I hope I can emulate for the rest
of my life.''
I share President Clinton's sentiments--and I, too, hope that I can
emulate Roz Wyman. A pioneering force in American politics, she is my
Field Marshall, my trusted adviser, and most importantly to me, my very
dear friend.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2003
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate
crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced
the Local Law Enforcement Act, a bill that would add new categories to
current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is
unacceptable in our society.
I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in Tulsa, OK.
On September 11, 2001, a 29-year-old Pakistani was hospitalized after
he was badly beaten and kicked by three men. The racially motivated
attack happened outside of a service station as the victim was visiting
a friend who worked there. The victim suffered a broken jaw and lost
several teeth during the attack. He was hospitalized for several days
in a Tulsa hospital.
I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I
believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we
can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
HONORING STUDENT RECIPIENTS OF GATES MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today it is my great
honor to recognize three outstanding Nebraska students who recently
were named Gates Millennium Scholars by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Scholarship Foundation.
David Sanchez-Aparicio, from Oaxaca, Mexico, is the son of Benito and
Juana Sanchez. Since he was a child, David's scholastic interest has
been in computer technology. While a student at Lincoln High School in
Lincoln, NE, David took part in the Information Technology Focus
Program, specializing in computer programming, networking, and
multimedia production. David played tennis and ran track, focusing on
the 800-meter race. David also spent his time working at BryanLGH
Medical Center in the cafeteria. In addition to rigorous coursework and
extracurricular activities, David, whose mother passed away 2 years
ago, has spent much of his high school career helping his father care
for his younger siblings. David's teachers note that he is a quiet, yet
diligent student who is dedicated to his studies and his family. David
will attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the fall where he
plans to major in computer engineering.
Codah Gatewood, 18, is the youngest of three children and a member of
the Navaho, Omaha, and Santee Sioux tribes. His parents are Edison
Gatewood and Belva Gatewood. Since he was a young boy, Codah's primary
academic interest has been architecture. As a child, he would create
intricate buildings with Legos; at Lincoln High School, he learned to
use computer-aided-design, CAD, in technical design and architecture
classes before tackling advanced architecture and engineering. Codah
won an academic letter during his senior year of study for his mastery
in pre-calculus, differentiated physics, advanced architecture,
[[Page 17111]]
and applied economics. In his free time, Codah volunteers at the Indian
Center of Lincoln, assisting in powwows and dinners. He also likes to
experiment with mobile electronics on his car, frequently updating his
own website with his success in modifications. Codah's teachers
describe him as a self-reliant and high-ranking scholar. For his
commitment to academic excellence, Codah has also earned a University
of Nebraska Davis Scholarship, awarded to the most academically
talented racial minority students. He will attend the university this
fall.
Huong Le, 18, came to Lincoln from Long An, Vietnam, 11 years ago
with her parents, Vinh Le and Luong Nguyen, and sisters and brother.
Long An is a small province in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam. Huong
spoke very little English when she arrived in Lincoln, but began to
master the language while a student at Everett Elementary School. Huong
was nominated for the Gates scholarship by her Lincoln High School
chemistry teacher, who taught her a rigorous advanced chemistry course
and saw promise in her passion for science. The following summer, Huong
participated in a sophisticated research project, coordinated by the
University of Nebraska, involving organic and biochemical processes of
insects. While at Lincoln High School, she also played tennis for 4
years and was a member of the Asian Caucus, Upward Bound, and Youth
Leadership Lincoln. Huong has also volunteered at the Lincoln Buddhist
Temple, Lincoln Action Program and United Way. Huong plans to take
English composition and calculus classes as part of the Summer of
Promising Scholars Program. Huong will pursue a degree in pharmacy from
the University of Nebraska.
The Gates Millennium Scholarships aim to reduce the financial
barriers for African-American, Hispanic, Native and Asian-Pacific
students with high academic and leadership promise. They also increase
representation of minority students in the targeted disciplines. The
Gates Foundation will pay for the students to attend any college with
any undergraduate major, and for a graduate education in mathematics,
science, engineering, education, or library science.
I am proud to represent these promising young students who are
dedicated to excellence in the classroom and in the community. I am
confident that these talented leaders will excel at the University of
Nebraska and beyond. The city of Lincoln and the State of Nebraska are
fortunate to have these three students as part of their
community.
____________________
HONORING THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise
today to honor the Light of the World Christian Church of Indianapolis.
This congregation, under the leadership of Bishop T. Garrott Benjamin
Jr., is opening a new worship facility this weekend. The 3,000-member
congregation has come together to raise the funds necessary for a truly
impressive church. The new facility will feature a congregation hall
capable of seating 1,200, a chapel for weddings and funerals, and amply
space for classrooms and offices. But what I would most like to
recognize is the persistence and dedication demonstrated in achieving
this goal by Bishop Benjamin and the benefit he has provided our
community as a result.
In addition to providing spiritual guidance, the church provides
numerous family services including the well-known Respect Academy that
emphasizes teaching children self-respect as well as respect for
others. The church's programs and services affect nearly 2,000 young
people each year. The influence the church has on the lives of the
children at such an important time in their lives is invaluable.
Bishop Benjamin, now in his 34th year as pastor, has made his
struggles in life the mission and driving force behind many of the
youth programs offered at the Light of the World Christian Church. At
the age of 5 Bishop Benjamin was abandoned by his parents and was
raised entirely by his grandmother. He says it was his own experience
that made him so distinctly aware of the value of a nurturing spirit in
a young child's life and that has made him so proud of the youth
programs sponsored by his church.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Light of the
World Christian Church for nearly 140 years of service to the
Indianapolis community. I know that my colleagues will join with me in
congratulating the congregation, and especially Bishop Benjamin, for
their accomplishments and in wishing them continued success as they
enter a new and promising future.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF E.W. KELLEY
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise
today to honor the life of my friend, E.W. Kelley, who passed away on
July 4, 2003, after a long-fought battle with prostate cancer. Mr.
Kelley was known around the world for his philanthropy and generosity,
yet remained a modest man who never sought the fame that came with his
great gifts.
Among his many projects, Mr. Kelley helped found the Jerusalem YMCA
to help foster peaceful coexistence and even friendship among the
city's residents. He was also a past-president of the Boy Scouts of
America Council and was involved with the United Way. In 1997, he
donated more than $23 million to Indiana University's School of
Business, where he had graduated nearly 60 years before.
Born in 1917, Estel Wood Kelley grew up near Sharpsville, IN, before
attending Indiana University's School of Business. Mr. Kelley made a
name for himself in business marketing, creatively introducing America
to countless products that have become integral parts of domestic life
today. In 1961, he became the youngest vice president ever at General
Foods, and in 1967 was named ``Marketer of the Year'' by Advertising
Age magazine. However, it is his philanthropic work and the numerous
lives he touched through it, for which he will be remembered best.
E.W. Kelley served as a shining example for business executives
everywhere, humbly giving back to hometown institutions and
international organizations alike in order to improve the lives of
those around him and those he would never meet. His legacy of giving
will continue through his many scholarship awards, including the Kelley
Scholarship Program at Indiana University, which provides full tuition
to 15 business undergraduate students each year. Mr. Kelley eschewed
any special attention connected with his gifts, saying that the reason
he donated to causes like Indiana University was simply ``to give back
to society what society helped me get.''
The sense of loss to all those who knew E.W. Kelley and were affected
by his generosity in Indiana, the Nation, and throughout the world is
tremendous. He is survived by his wife, Wilma Lippert Kelley, and their
children, E.W. Kelley II, Wayne L. Kelley and K. Kelley Germaine.
It is my sad duty to enter the name of my friend Estel Wood Kelley
into the Congressional Record.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CAROL COTTRILL, TINA SLUSHER, AND ROBERT SALLEY
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to
three of Kentucky's finest physicians. Drs. Carol Cottrill, Tina
Slusher, and Robert Salley are exemplars in the field of medicine
because they spend several months of each year providing medical care
to children in developing and underprivileged countries.
Drs. Cottrill, Slusher, and Salley performed an implantation of a new
mechanical heart valve for a young girl from the village of Eku,
Nigeria. Dr. Slusher first examined Sussana Olesenekwu in a 168-bed
Baptist hospital near her village in Nigeria. Upon realizing the
gravity of Olesenekwu's heart condition, Dr. Slusher worked with
urgency to find a U.S. hospital and surgeon willing to do the surgery
quickly and for free. Dr. Cottrill, a children's heart specialist, and
Dr. Salley, a heart surgeon, joined Dr.
[[Page 17112]]
Slusher in donating their time and skill to perform a surgery largely
unavailable in Nigeria. Dr. Cottrill is even allowing Olesenekwu to
recover in her home. Aided by Medtronic, which contributed the
mechanical heart valve, and St. Joseph's Hospital, which incurred the
remaining costs, these exceptional doctors saved Olesenekwu's life.
Open-heart surgery is almost nonexistent in Nigeria. Though the
country has a population of approximately 130 million, it has just one
facility that performs only a few surgeries each year. In Nigeria the
surgery would cost $3,000 to $4,000, and most families earn less than
$10.00 a week. Drs. Cottrill, Slusher, and Salley's altruistic and
selfless donations of time and skill are unparalleled.
Drs. Cottrill and Salley both live and practice in Lexington, KY, and
Dr. Slusher is a native of Bell County, KY. Their commitment to
improving the lives of those less fortunate are an inspiration to many.
Their contributions have truly made the world a better place. Drs.
Cottrill, Slusher, and Salley are tributes to Kentucky. They are
Kentucky at its finest. I thank the Senate for allowing me to recognize
Dr. Carol Cottrill, Dr. Tina Slusher, and Dr. Robert Salley and voice
their praises.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAJOR ROBERTA KEARNEY CHANG
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great
American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our
country for over 20 years in the Army Medical Service Corps: MAJ
Roberta Kearney Chang. As a resident of Bellevue, WA, MAJ Chang began
her career at Fort Benning, GA, home of the Army's infantry, as a
medical platoon leader. There, she earned the coveted Parachutist Wings
and Expert Field Medical Badge. Following in her father's footsteps,
the late First Lieutenant Robert M. Kearney, United States Army,
Retired, she quickly rose through the ranks and served at Army bases
throughout the world.
MAJ Chang had two overseas tours, one in Honduras, Central America,
and one in the Republic of Korea. In Honduras, she participated in
humanitarian missions to provide aid and medical care to the people of
this country. In Korea, she successfully completed two consecutive
company commands for the 121st Evacuation Hospital and Headquarters,
18th Medical Command. MAJ Chang was handpicked to become an instructor
at the U.S. Army Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, TX. In
this capacity she taught health care administration subjects to over
5,000 officers annually. MAJ Chang also served as the senior patient
administrator for the Command Surgeon, United States Army Reserve
Personnel Command. She counseled and assisted hundreds of reservists
that were injured as a result of service in Operation Desert Storm. Her
knowledge of the intricacies of the physical disability system for both
the active duty and reserve component soldiers is unsurpassed, and she
is considered an expert trainer in these areas. She served as a health
care operations officer and the head of communications and customer
service at the TRICARE Mid-Atlantic, Lead Agent Office Norfolk, VA for
final assignment TRICARE Mid-Atlantic serves over 1 million military
beneficiaries.
In each assignment, MAJ Chang excelled and met every challenge, and
was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. Her
talent for teaching and mentoring personnel, as well as her creativity
and skill in management, were instrumental in providing army medicine
the fine cadre of hospital administrators serving today. Above all, she
is a stellar officer and leader who always put the welfare of her staff
and patients first. MAJ Chang is a committed health care professional,
and is an active member of the American College of Healthcare
Executives and the American Health Information Management Association.
MAJ Chang always went the extra mile to serve her country and her
fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the United
States Army, the Department of Defense, and the United States of
America. I extend my deepest appreciation to MAJ Roberta Kearney Chang
on behalf a grateful Nation for her over 20 years of dedicated military
service. Congratulations, MAJ Chang, and let me be the one of the first
to welcome you home to Washington State.
____________________
DICK KNIPFING's 40TH ANNIVERSARY IN NEW MEXICO BROADCASTING
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a friend
and public servant of New Mexico, Dick Knipfing of Albuquerque.
A few years ago, a New Mexico research company conducted a statewide
poll on the popularity of certain well-known people. My name was one of
the most recognized, but I wasn't No. 1. The person best known and best
liked by New Mexicans was Dick Knipfing.
He is not a politician. He has never been Governor, Senator, mayor,
or on any city council. Dick is something more special to everyday
citizens--he has been a nightly guest in their living rooms for 40
years.
In July 1963, Dick started as a reporter for the CBS affiliate in
Albuquerque. He did it all. He shot and edited his own film, wrote his
own scripts, and got to know some of the most influential people in New
Mexico. Eventually, Dick became an anchor. Over the course of his
career, he moved to the ABC affiliate, then to the NBC station, and
back to ABC. This month, he celebrates his 40th anniversary in
broadcast journalism at channel 13, the CBS station where it all
started.
Since Dick returned to Channel 13, a station whose news had been in
the ratings cellar, the station rapidly shot into head-to-head
competition with other New Mexico news channels. There is one big
reason--Dick Knipfing.
New Mexicans trust Dick as a veteran newsman. He is respected by his
colleagues. He has been inducted into the Silver Circle Society by the
National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, one of the
organization's highest honors for a television journalist.
Dick Knipfing is revered by viewers because they easily discern that
he is devoted to bringing them a comprehensive and accurate look at the
day's major news events. Viewers have welcomed him into their homes,
either as a reporter or anchor, because he has shown them that he cares
very deeply for New Mexico and its people. Dick, and his wonderful
wife, Charlene, have made Albuquerque and New Mexico their home, and
integrated themselves into activities to make it a better place to
live.
Like tens of thousands of New Mexicans, my wife Nancy and I have
grown accustomed to Dick's face and his voice. As he marks his 40th
anniversary in broadcast journalism, we hope there will be 40 more
years of Dick Knipfing to represent the best in broadcasting.
____________________
GREATER MIDWEST AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the
creation of the Greater Midwest Affiliate of the American Heart
Association. This new affiliate which was founded on July 1, 2003,
covers seven States, including my State of Michigan.
Heart disease is still the No. 1 killer in America. The American
Heart Association is the second largest funding source for research and
prevention of heart disease behind only the Federal Government. Its
mission is to reduce disability and death from cardiovascular diseases
and stroke. To this end, they work within local communities to educate
people on prevention and identification of heart disease.
The merger which creates the Greater Midwest Affiliate strengthens
the potential for positively influencing the health and welfare of
Americans by advancing groundbreaking medical research and spreading
lifesaving education on heart disease to people of all ages. I am sure
my colleagues join me
[[Page 17113]]
in applauding the Greater Midwest Affiliate of the American Heart
Association as they renew a commitment to create healthier communities
and make stronger, longer lives possible for more Americans.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE 21ST ANNUAL METRO DETROIT YOUTH DAY
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize an
important event that will soon be held in my home State of Michigan. On
July 9, 2003, community residents, business owners, and area youth will
gather at Belle Isle to celebrate the 21st Annual Metro Detroit Youth
Day.
Metro Detroit Youth Day was founded to improve relations between
youth and other community members in the metropolitan Detroit area.
Before its creation 20 years ago, a series of altercations had occurred
between Detroit area youth and several grocery store owners. Since that
time, Youth Day has provided an opportunity for all community members
to work and play together and has drastically reduced the level of
violence in the area. Youth Day includes games, meetings with
celebrities, motivational speakers, sports events, and a wide variety
of other activities designed to promote unity within the Detroit
community.
I am pleased to recognize Metro Detroit Youth Day as an example of a
proactive community effort that has promoted positive change. I am sure
that my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting this event and in
wishing Metro Detroit Youth Day continued success in the
future.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF MARQUETTE COUNTY
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize an
outstanding county in my home State of Michigan for receiving a
prestigious community recognition award. Marquette County, which is
located in the beautiful upper peninsula of Michigan, was recently
named an All-America City by the National Civic League.
The National Civic League has presented the All-America City Award
annually for the last 54 years. The award recognizes outstanding
communities such as Marquette for their excellence in combining
grassroots efforts with local government and businesses' community
programs to address critical local issues. This year Marquette County
was selected in recognition of its efforts to increase access to health
care, create a countywide nonmotorized trail system, and build support
for at-risk youth in the community.
Marquette County was one of only 10 communities nationwide to be
awarded the distinction of All-America City. The selection was made out
of a pool of more than 700 applicants and 30 finalists. A 10-person
jury comprised of nationally recognized public and civic affairs
experts evaluated Marquette County based on a 10 category model
developed by the National Civic League. Criteria include significant
evidence of results which have improved the community within the last 3
years, extent of public participation, evidence of collaboration
between multiple jurisdictions, and creative usage of available
resources.
In addition to being an active and caring community, Marquette County
includes some of the nation's most beautiful beaches, waterfalls, and
wildlife. Thousands of tourists each year are attracted by the
breathtaking scenery and numerous outdoor leisure activities such as
golf, skiing, canoeing, hiking, and fishing.
I take great pride in congratulating Marquette County for the award
of All-America City. This award is well deserved and is a source of
pride for everyone in my home State of Michigan. I know my Senate
colleagues will join me in saluting Marquette County and wishing its
citizens continued success in the years to come.
____________________
NEBRASKA'S TOM ALLAN
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, Tom Allan wasn't born
in Nebraska, but that didn't stop him from falling in love with my
State or from making the entire State feel like part of his family. Tom
traveled the highways and byways for over 40 years, seeing the beauty
of Nebraska, making friends, and sharing his experiences through his
often humorous and always insightful news articles. When he passed away
recently there were Nebraskans in every city, town, and village that
mourned him and fondly remembered their favorite Tom Allan stories.
Tom Allan was born in Scotland and moved to Nebraska when he was only
9 years old. After graduating from high school and Ottawa College he
served his Nation honorably in World War II with tours in the
Philippines and Alaska. He retired as a major in the Nebraska National
Guard.
He began working for the Omaha World Herald in 1947 and became the
paper's roving reporter in 1959. He traveled more than a million miles
and wore out 20 cars while filing stories from every community in the
State. He covered the occasional big news story, but Tom Allan
specialized in simple stories that touched the heart. For readers in
Omaha, Tom brought to life the unique people and small towns that can't
be found on a map.
Tom Allan outran tornados, trekked through the Amazon jungle, and
even stood in for a U.S. Ambassador in Finland. He covered the State
fair with such regularity that he was honored with ``Tom Allan Day'' at
the Nebraska State Fair in 1997. His humor and humility were clear when
he wrote, ``I'd rather they'd just given me a fat-hog blue ribbon and
let it go at that.''
In that same column Tom described his job as the privilege of
discovering what is over the next hill and who is around the next bend
in the road along the byways of Nebraska. On behalf of all Nebraskans,
I would like to thank Tom Allan for the privilege of his company and
for the wonderful stories he shared with all Nebraskans for over 50
years. We will always remember his love for the State of Nebraska, and
we are grateful that through his stories he taught us about Nebraska
and helped us understand ourselves.
Tom Allan passed away on June 27, 2003.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAGDALENA RIDGE OBSERVATORY
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Office
of Naval Research for the successful design review to begin development
of the next great astronomical telescope. The Navy is the preeminent
authority in the areas of Precise Time and Astrometry, and distributes
Earth Orientation parameters and other Astronomical Data required for
accurate navigation and fundamental astronomy. Now they are managing an
international team to build the Magdalena Ridge Observatory, MRO, on a
10,000 foot mountain in central New Mexico. The Navy, along with the
Air Force, Army, and a consortium of universities from the United
States and the United Kingdom, will break ground on October 20 this
year.
This month, the prestigious scientific journal, Physics Today,
published a superbly written article that explains the MRO. The project
will create a unique array of mirrors that can take pictures of bright
celestial objects with a resolution equivalent to a huge telescope
measuring 400 meters in diameter.
I ask that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.
The article follows.
New Mexico Plans Optical Interferometer and Fast-Slewing Telescope
How does a minor university land a major observatory? In
New Mexico Tech's case, it helped that the university has
access to a high, dark site, that the Magdalena Ridge
Observatory (MRO) will have national security applications,
and that the project has allies in Congress.
``We had a coalition of universities looking for an
observatory,'' says Van Romero, vice president for research
at New Mexico Tech (officially the New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology), which has around 1800 students and
110 faculty members. New Mexico Tech and its partners--New
Mexico State University, New Mexico Highlands University, and
the University of Puerto Rico--learned that the US Army's
neighboring White Sands Missile Range wanted better
[[Page 17114]]
missile tracking capability and the Air Force Research
Laboratory in Albuquerque was interested in developing
adaptive optics. ``We seemed to have a critical mass--
universities, along with more than one military user,'' says
Romero. Representative Joe Skeen and Senator Pete Domenici,
both New Mexico Republicans, supported creating the MRO
because the potential for education outreach, adaptive optics
research, and world-class astronomy ``all came together in a
happy confluence of ideas,'' says Stephen Traver, a
legislative fellow in Domenici's office who used to work for
the now retired Skeen. Domenici led the way in winning a
congressional markup for the $48 million observatory.
The observatory's future home is on a ridge in the
Magdalena mountains near Socorro, about 130 kilometers south
of Albuquerque. Besides the clear skies and roughly 3200-
meter-high perch, the site's advantages include that it is
near both White Sands and New Mexico Tech, it has room for
the observatory to expand, and it has a road and other
infrastructure already serving ecological and atmospheric
studies and the university's lightning lab (see box).
The MRO will consist of an optical-infrared interferometer
with eight to ten 1.4-meter telescopes in a reconfigurable Y-
shaped array up to 400 meters long plus a single 2.4-meter
telescope. Groundbreaking is scheduled for 20 October.
stars and scuds
The MRO array will have a large number of bigger elements
distributed over a wider range of baselines than any other
optical interferometer in the works, says Chris Haniff, whose
University of Cambridge group is involved in the project.
MRO's angular resolution, he adds, ``will be a factor of a
hundred higher than the Hubble Space Telescope. That means
that for any class of astronomical object, you can see more
detail.''
``One of the exciting things we think we will be able to do
is to look at the central engines of active galactic
nuclei,'' says David Westpfahl, project scientist for the MRO
interferometer. ``All the models have a massive object at the
center, such as a black hole, and an accretion disk and polar
outflow, but the detailed shape and arrangement of these
things are still being worked on. We hope to be able to
resolve several of these objects and decide among the
models.'' The MRO interferometer will also be used to deduce
the relative rotational axes of stars in clusters, which
could shed light on the importance of turbulence in star
formation, and to study other aspects of star birth, as well
as star aging and planet formation.
Fast slewing is the special feature of MRO's single
telescope. It will be able to zip to a particular part of the
sky at 10 deg. per second. The slewing was initially
incorporated to accommodate the US Army. The MRO offers a
good look at target missiles fired from Fort Wingate in
western New Mexico, says Tomas C. Chavez, chief of test
technology at White Sands. ``We could collect phenomenology
data during the target's boost and coast phases to help home
in on the target with an interceptor.'' Adds Romero, ``This
is a match made in heaven. The army wants to use [the
telescope] during the day and early morning, we want to use
it at night.'' The 2.4-meter mirror was donated by the air
force. Originally intended for classified space-based
research, it has hardware added to keep it from sagging in
Earth's gravitational field.
Astronomers will take advantage of the fast slewing, too.
``One big use of the telescope will be `alert response to
transient astrophysical phenomema,''' says project scientist
Eileen Ryan. ``An example would be to find the optical
counterpart of gamma-ray bursts.'' For that, the telescope
would automatically interrupt other observations when it
receives signals from Swift, a satellite NASA is supposed to
launch in December. The MRO telescope, Ryan adds, will be
bigger and will slew faster than other ground-based
telescopes currently hunting for GRBs (see Physics Today,
July 2002, pages 24 and 25). Mostly, though, the 2.4-meter
telescope will be devoted to studying ``small Solar system
bodies--asteriods, comets, and Kuiper Belt objects,'' says
Ryan. ``We want to use the telescope to ask how fast
asteroids are spinning. How big are they? What are their
shapes?
possible with pork
What with the MRO being funded directly by Congress, the
project often gets labeled as pork. Says Romero, ``Without
this type of funding, we would not be able to build it. But
we think this is a facility that funding agencies like NASA
and NSF will take the opportunity to fund research at.'' And,
unusual for a federally funded project, New Mexico Tech and
its partners will foot the running costs, estimated at $2
million a year. If all goes as planned, the single telescope
would see first light in 2005, and the interferometer could
be up and running a couple years laters.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-3008. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report that provides
the aggregate number, locations, activities, and lengths of
assignment for all temporary and permanent U.S. military
personnel and U.S. individual civilians retained as
contractors involved in the antinarcotics campaign in
Colombia, relative to Plan Colombia; to the Committee on
Appropriations.
EC-3009. A communication from the Secretary of Defense,
transmitting, the report of a retirement; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-3010. A communication from the Staff Director, Office of
Regulatory and Management Services, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Land Uses; Revenue Producing Visitor Services
in Alaska'' (RIN0596-AB57) received on June 25, 2003; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3011. A communication from Director, Office of Surface
Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``West Virginia Regulatory
Program'' (WV-097-FOR) received on June 24, 2003; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-3012. A communication from the Staff Director, Office of
Regulatory and Management Services, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, a rule entitled
``Forest Land Enhancement Program'' (RIN0596-AB95) received
on June 25, 2003; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-3013. A communication from Staff Director, Office of
Regulatory and Management Services, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, a rule entitled
``Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest
System Projects and Activities'' (RIN0596-AB89) received on
June 25, 2003; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
EC-3014. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Update of Rev. Proc. 96-30'' (Rev. Proc. 2003-48) received
on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3015. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Business Purpose Under Section 355--Fit & Focus--Capital
Allocation Purpose'' (Rev. Rul. 2003-75) received on June 24,
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3016. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Assumption of Partner Liabilities'' (RIN1545-BB83) received
on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3017. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``2003 Section 43 Inflation Adjustment'' (Notice 2003-43)
received on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3018. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``2003 Marginal Production Rates'' (Notice 2003-44) received
on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3019. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Applicable Federal Rates--July 2003'' (Rev. Rul. 2003-71)
received on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3020. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Guidance Regarding Election Under Section 953(d)'' (Rev.
Proc. 2003-47) received on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-3021. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``CRP Cost-Share Payments'' (Rev. Rul. 2003-59) received on
June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page 17115]]
EC-3022. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Compliance Initiative for Nonresident Aliens and Foreign
Corporations'' (Notice 2003-38) received on June 24, 2003; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-3023. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revenue Ruling: Mass Obsolete Ruling'' (Rev. Rul. 2003-67)
received on June 24, 2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3024. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Annual Report Concerning the Pre-Filing Agreement of the
Large and Mid-Size Business Division for the Calendar Year
2002'' (Ann. 2003-43, 2003-26) received on June 24, 2003; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-3025. A communication from Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Correction to Rev. Rul. 2003-50 -- BLS Department Store
Indexes for March 2003'' (Ann. 2003-44) received on June 24,
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3026. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator,
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Child Support Enforcement Program
Federal Tax Offset'' (45 CFR Part 303) received June 25,
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3027. A communication from the Chief, Regulations
Branch, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a rule entitled ``Confidentiality of
Commercial Information'' (RIN1515-AD29) received on June 24,
2003; to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 1370. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
provide for disclosure of credit-scoring information by
creditors and consumer reporting agencies; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
S. 1371. A bill to permit a special amortization deduction
for intangible assets acquired from eligible small businesses
to take account of the actual economic useful life of such
assets and to encourage growth in industries for which
intangible assets are an important source of revenue; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1372. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds
provided under subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1373. A bill to authorize and direct the Secretary of
Commerce, through an independent commission within the
Department of Commerce, to protect consumers by regulating
the interstate sale of insurance, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Graham of South
Carolina):
S. 1374. A bill to provide health care professionals with
immediate relief from increased medical malpractice insurance
costs and to deal with the root causes of the current medical
malpractice insurance crisis; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1375. A bill to provide for the reauthorization of
programs administered by the Small Business Administration,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1376. A bill to include the Department of Energy and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission as employers for the purposes
of whistleblower protection; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1377. A bill to authorize a Native American language
demonstration program at the University of New Mexico at
Albuquerque, in consortium with the Linguistic Institute for
Native Americans; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1378. A bill to transfer to the Secretary of the
Interior authority to revise the Missouri River Master Water
Control Manual; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 11
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald) was added as a cosponsor of S. 11, a bill to protect
patients' access to quality and affordable health care by reducing the
effects of excessive liability costs.
S. 184
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 184, a bill to
amend section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding
the Federal Pell Grant maximum amount.
S. 253
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 253, a bill to amend
title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former
law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed handguns.
S. 296
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. 296, a bill to require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress regarding the requirements
applicable to the inscription of veterans' names on the memorial wall
of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
S. 333
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 333, a bill to promote
elder justice, and for other purposes.
S. 346
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 346, a bill to amend the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act to establish a governmentwide
policy requiring competition in certain executive agency procurements.
S. 518
At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
were added as cosponsors of S. 518, a bill to increase the supply of
pancreatic islet cells for research, to provide better coordination of
Federal efforts and information on islet cell transplantation, and to
collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an
experimental procedure to a standard therapy.
S. 560
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 560, a bill to impose
tariff-rate quotas on certain casein and milk protein concentrates.
S. 569
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 569, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare outpatient
rehabilitation therapy caps.
S. 661
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 661, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion from
gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.
S. 736
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the names of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) were added
as cosponsors of S. 736, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to
strengthen enforcement of provisions relating to animal fighting, and
for other purposes.
S. 764
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 764, a bill to extend
the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.
S. 847
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
[[Page 17116]]
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 847, a bill to amend
title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit States the option to
provide Medicaid coverage for low income individuals infected with HIV.
S. 894
At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) were added as cosponsors of S. 894, a
bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in
commemoration of the 230th Anniversary of the United States Marine
Corps, and to support construction of the Marine Corps Heritage Center.
S. 982
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Pryor) were added as cosponsors of S. 982, a bill to halt Syrian
support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its
development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in
the Middle East, and for other purposes.
S. 1001
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1001, a bill to make the
protection of women and children who are affected by a complex
humanitarian emergency a priority of the United States Government, and
for other purposes.
S. 1120
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1120, a bill to establish an
Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, and for other purposes.
S. 1172
At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1172, a bill to establish
grants to provide health services for improved nutrition, increased
physical activity, obesity prevention, and for other purposes.
S. 1177
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1177, a bill to ensure the
collection of all cigarette taxes, and for other purposes.
S. 1196
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1196, a bill to
eliminate the marriage penalty permanently in 2003.
S. 1245
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1245, a bill to provide
for homeland security grant coordination and simplification, and for
other purposes.
S. 1303
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1303, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act and otherwise revise the Medicare
Program to reform the method of paying for covered drugs, drug
administration services, and chemotherapy support services.
S. 1316
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1316, a bill to
treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from
real estate.
S. 1317
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1317, a bill to amend the
American Servicemember's Protection Act of 2002 to provide
clarification with respect to the eligibility of certain countries for
United States military assistance.
S. 1345
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1345, a bill
to extend the authorization for the ferry boat discretionary program,
and for other purposes.
S. 1368
At the request of Mr. Levin, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell),
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as cosponsors
of S. 1368, a bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of the Congress to Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
(posthumously) and his widow Coretta Scott King in recognition of their
contributions to the Nation on behalf of the civil rights movement.
S. CON. RES. 40
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 40, a
concurrent resolution designating August 7, 2003, as ``National Purple
Heart Recognition Day''.
S. RES. 140
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 140, a
resolution designating the week of August 10, 2003, as ``National
Health Center Week''.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1372. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under subpart
1 of part A of title I may be used; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with
Senator Ensign to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards
instructional services to teach low-income students.
Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the
country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of
low-income students, from preschool through high school.
It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since
its origin in 1965. And while it has always been Congresses intent for
Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services,
the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what
instructional services should entail.
This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as
States scramble to comply with the new and expanded Title I
accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.''
While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet
these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to
how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this
process as clear to States, as possible. In my own view, as it relates
to Title I, we haven't lived up to our end of the bargain.
During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to
get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate
version of the bill.
Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped
out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office,
GAO, to report on how States use their Title I funds was inserted.
In April, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to
submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small
amount--no more than 13 percent--of Title I funds on administration
that ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes
administrative, or indirect, expenditures'' the accounting office
couldn't precisely measure how much of their Title I funds were used
for administration.
[[Page 17117]]
Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the
States, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling
aspects of State priorities to complete the report.
You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should
be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--
became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing
conclusions in their report.
My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to
retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed
to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
My bill does two things: It defines Title I direct and indirect
instructional services and sets a standard for the amount of Title I
funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative
objectives of this program.
It ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve
academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency
may not use more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received. . . . for
indirect instructional services .''
By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on
administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted
from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic
services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the
remaining funds for the indirect costs of administering Title I
distribution.
The second component of my bill defines direct and indirect services
so that all States apply the same standards for Title I use nationwide.
Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and
other instructional personnel (including employee benefits);
intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student
achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school
day and year, including summer school; providing instructional services
to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten;
purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers,
and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional
equipment; professional development; developing and administering
curriculum, educational materials and assessments; transporting
students to assist them in improving academic achievement.
Examples of indirect services limited to no more than 10 percent of
Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering
the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance,
janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of
utility costs; and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences
or meetings, except for travel and attendance necessary for
professional development.
Current law on Title I is much too vague.
It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds
received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from
non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in
programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the
``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous.
The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document
that explains how Title I funds can be used.
Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically
prohibited: 1. Construction or acquisition of real property; and 2.
payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to
reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental
involvement'' meeting.
I believe we should give the Department, States and districts clearer
guidance in law.
My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe
that States must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental
purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.
Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without
providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional
service.
I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for
not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are
simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
What I am saying is that if Congress also intended for those funds to
educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure
that it happens.
It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding
accounts for a small percentage of total funding for elementary and
secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total
support for public schools.
That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic
instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged
children achieve success.
Schools must focus their general education budget to pay for expenses
that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and
retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement
for poor children.
It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of
education: to help students learn. This is one step toward that goal.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1372
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Title I Integrity Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received
under this subpart only for direct instructional services and
indirect instructional services.
``(2) Limitation on indirect instructional services.--A
local educational agency may not use more than 10 percent of
funds received under this subpart for indirect instructional
services.
``(b) Instructional Services.--
``(1) Direct instructional services.--In this section, the
term `direct instructional services' means--
``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and
corrective actions to improve student achievement;
``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the
normal school day and year, including during summer school;
``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional
personnel, including providing teachers and instructional
personnel with employee benefits;
``(D) the provision of instructional services to
prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the
transition to kindergarten;
``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as
books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment,
and wiring to support instructional equipment;
``(F) the development and administration of curricula,
educational materials, and assessments;
``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students
in improving academic achievement;
``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including
providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
``(I) the provision of professional development for
teachers and other instructional personnel.
``(2) Indirect instructional services.--In this section,
the term `indirect instructional services' includes--
``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance,
gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the
payment of utility costs;
``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at
conferences or other meetings;
``(C) the payment of legal services;
``(D) the payment of business services, including payroll,
purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
``(E) any other services determined appropriate by the
Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1375. A bill to provide for the reauthorization of programs
administered
[[Page 17118]]
by the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small
Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003,''
a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, and
its programs for the next three years. While reauthorization
legislation is a significant event, this year it is particularly
auspicious since we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
agency--a full half century of helping to create, assist, and guide
small businesses.
As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
I began developing this legislation just after assuming the leadership
of the Committee in January. The bill I introduce today is the product
of considerable effort and vetting, and I am very pleased to be joined
by the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Kerry, in this process.
Through his contributions and those of other Members of my Committee,
this is truly bipartisan bill.
Over the past several months, we have held a series of hearings and
roundtables to examine virtually every aspect of the SBA and the wide
array of programs and services it provides to the country's small
enterprises. As we started that process, we looked back on the SBA's
history to learn from its past in order to set a path for its future.
More than 50 years ago, congressional efforts began to focus on the
specific needs of small businesses--to create a ``level playing
field''--and to develop Federal small business assistance programs. One
of the objectives was to ensure that small businesses could develop
management and marketing skills to compete with big business for their
share of government contracts.
In May of 1953, the Small Business Act was introduced, and it became
law on July 30 of that year with President Eisenhower's signature.
Since 1953, Congress and the various administrations have responded to
the needs of small businesses by creating a fair but competitive
environment for those who choose entrepreneurship. The SBA has evolved
from a direct lender and provider of management assistance to a
nationwide delivery system of resources offering a complete menu of
small business tools, professional counseling assistance, business
education and training programs, Federal procurement opportunities, and
loan guaranty programs.
Today, the agency faces enormous challenges. Each year, there are 3
to 4 million new business start-ups--one in 25 adult Americans is
taking steps to start a business. One quarter of existing small
business owners intend to form another business. And, small businesses
account for approximately two-thirds of the net new jobs in our
country. So while the SBA has had a tremendous impact on the success of
small businesses over the past 50 years, it is critical that we ensure
the agency is well positioned to produce even better results in the
next 50 years.
My goal in developing this bill has been to ascertain what works
among SBA programs, why it works, and apply that approach to other
programs so there is more consistent success within the SBA portfolio
of products and services. In the end, I hope this bill will lead to a
renewed SBA, rededicated to improving the environment or leveling the
playing field for small business ownership in America.
While the particulars of this bill are extensive, I want to highlight
three of its most critical, key areas--
In terms of financing programs for small businesses, during this
reauthorization process, I have focused extensively on improving the
credit and venture capital resources that the SBA provides for small
enterprises. These programs--including the 7(a), 504, and Microloan
programs as well as the SBIC, New Markets Venture Capital, and Surety
Bond programs provide vital capital for America's small businesses. In
addition, looking just at the lending programs, they alone are
responsible for helping small businesses create and retain more than
1.3 million jobs in just the past 3 years!
That is why I held two Committee roundtables on these financing
programs so I could hear firsthand from small business, lenders, and
the SBA about ways these programs can increase access to capital for
small businesses. To start, we are proposing to continue the growth of
the financing programs through reasonable increases in their
authorization levels. The bill also increases the amount that small
businesses can borrow subject to the SBA's guarantee, so that the SBA's
loan sizes will keep pace with what it actually costs to start and
operate a small business in today's economy. And we make improvements
to the SBA's loan programs that will benefit fast-growing contributors
and vital elements of our economy including women-owned and veteran-
owned businesses and small business exporters.
Moreover, the bill addresses access to capital by helping SBA's
lending partners. A new initiative that holds great promise will allow
for the pooling of small business loans not guaranteed by the SBA. This
pilot program was recommended by participants at our roundtable on
April 30, 2003, and has been under consideration by the SBA. By pooling
these non-guaranteed loans together and offering them as securities on
the secondary market with a partial SBA guarantee on the pool, banks
will be able to free-up capital for additional small business lending.
As a result, they will be able to provide even greater resources for
small businesses struggling to secure the necessary capital to start
up, operate, and grow.
Similarly, the new National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will
allow qualified SBA lenders to be licensed on a nationwide basis.
Currently, Preferred Lenders must qualify in every region where they do
business, which is both cumbersome and costly. This initiative will
streamline that process for the premier lenders who qualify for a
nationwide license and enable them to provide capital more efficiently
and effectively to small businesses across the nation.
In addition, the bill includes a proposal by Senator Kerry to permit
non-profit child-care centers to qualify for 504 loans. I believe the
growing need for child care in this country warrants testing this idea
as a pilot program, even as I continue to have reservations about this
initiative's effect on the availability of loans under the 504 program
for other for-profit borrowers and the expansion of this loan program
to non-profit entities. Accordingly, we have limited the loan volume
under the pilot to 7 percent of the overall 504 loans to ensure that
this initiative does not bar qualifying for-profit businesses from
obtaining necessary financing.
Finally in the area of financing programs, we have also focused on
improving the SBA's procedures for overseeing lenders participating in
the credit programs. By improving this oversight, we can protect
against improper lending practices, produce a more consistent system
for lenders, and provide taxpayers with better protection of their tax
dollars.
In the area of entrepreneurial development, we set out to ensure that
the SBA's programs continue to provide the products and services
essential to small businesses, which in turn create a return on our
investment in these programs through successful business ownership and
job creation. Recognizing the tremendous accomplishments by women
entrepreneurs, I introduced the Women's Small Business Improvement Act
of 2003 (S. 1154) earlier this year to improve the SBA's Office of
Women's Business Ownership, the Women's Business Centers Program, the
National Women's Business Council, and the Interagency Committee on
Women's Business Enterprise. I have incorporated those provisions into
the bill before us in order to provide a universal approach to all of
SBA's sponsored programs and services for women.
A cornerstone of this effort involves making the Women's Business
Center Program a permanent program that will offer opportunities for
new centers and renewal grants for existing centers on a competitive
basis. By replacing the pilot Sustainability Program,
[[Page 17119]]
which expires at the end of the current fiscal year, with a fair and
balanced grant program, the bill will correct the funding constraints
that have plagued the program in 2003. The bill will also provide for
the creation of new centers and the continuation of current operating
centers through renewal grants. This structure will reward successful
centers with continuation funding and weed out failing centers to make
room for new ones with greater potential for serving the needs of
women-owned businesses.
The National Women's Business Council will also be given greater
control of its mission, and I am proposing the full funding of $1
million for each Fiscal Year for this program. The Interagency
Committee on Women's Business Enterprise will be reenergized by
providing interim leadership and a shared focus with the National
Women's Business Council, the Women's Business Centers, and the Office
of Women's Business Ownership. These programs hold great potential for
women-owned businesses, but they must be coordinated so that their
limited resources are dedicated to a focused goal.
In addition, the SBA's entrepreneurial development partners--the
Small Business Development Centers and the Service Corps of Retired
Executives--continue to provide quality training and free counseling
through almost 2,000 locations and are limited only by funding and
their geographic locations. Therefore, in addition to minor technical
changes in these programs, I propose that we increase the authorization
level for these programs to support the increased demand for their
services.
And we have included the Native American Small Business Development
Program in the bill. This initiative will provide entrepreneurial
assistance to Tribal Governments and Colleges, Small Business
Development Centers in Native American communities, and small
businesses located on or near Tribal Lands. Complementing the SBA's
Office of Native American Affairs, this initiative will strengthen the
SBA's efforts to help Native Americans start, operate and grow small
businesses.
Finally, one of the most serious problems facing small business is
their inability to participate fully in Federal contracts, on either a
prime or subcontract basis. In the last 10 years, contract bundling has
forced more than 50 percent of small businesses out of the Federal
marketplace. Steps clearly must be taken to ensure that small
businesses have the opportunity to compete for the business of the
nation's largest consumer--the Federal government.
President Bush recognizes the inequity that contract bundling
represents. He also understands the damage it does to both small
businesses and the Federal procurement process by denying the
government the benefits of more robust competition, small business
efficiencies, and small business innovations. He has spoken out against
this practice, and I applaud his commitment to addressing this problem.
To achieve that objective, the SBA reauthorization bill addresses the
practice of Federal contract bundling by limiting its use and giving
small businesses access to Federal contracts and a fair opportunity to
compete for them. By requiring studies to be done for all
consolidations worth more than $5 million for the Department of Defense
and $2 million for all other agencies, the bill also holds agencies to
a higher level of accountability than exists under current law.
Those who support the practice of bundling allege that denying small
businesses access to prime contracts can be offset by ensuring that
such firms receive more subcontracts from the large firms that are
awarded prime contracts. However, small businesses continue to
experience difficulties at the subcontract level as well. This bill
contains strong language that strengthens oversight and enforcement of
small business subcontracting plans to ensure small business
subcontractors are not neglected.
Furthermore, we have included provisions to encourage contracting
opportunities for women-owned businesses--one of the fastest growing
segments of the small business sector of our economy. Despite their
success, women-owned small businesses have testified before the Small
Business Committee about how difficult it is to do business with the
Federal Government. Three years ago Congress created a Procurement
Program for Women-Owned Small Business Concerns. That legislation
required the promulgation of regulations to help implement new small
business procurement set-asides for women-owned businesses.
The legislation, however, conditioned the regulations by first
requiring a study to be conducted to justify the disparate treatment of
women in various procurement instances. At the Small Business
Committee's roundtable on April 9, 2003, women-owned small businesses
expressed their frustration that it has taken so long to conduct the
study and implement the program. This bill directs the GAO to complete
that study by December 31, 2003 to ensure that the women's procurement
program is finally implemented.
Finally, the bill contains improvements to the HUBZone program, which
are intended, in part, to address the serious consequences that
military base closings pose for our local communities. Closing a
military base adversely affects the towns and communities surrounding
the installation due to loss of tax revenue, defense income, base
transition costs and clean-up costs.
Successful recovery from a base closing has been tied to public and
private reinvestment in these communities. While Congress has taken
action in the past to ease the transition for individuals and spur
reinvestment, this bill supports faster redevelopment by expanding the
HUBZone Program to include communities affected by base closures. It
provides an incentive, through Federal government contracts, for small
businesses to operate in these communities and to provide employment to
these military and civilian personnel.
This year's SBA reauthorization bill paves the way to a stronger SBA
able to meet the needs and concerns of the country's entrepreneurs. The
future of our country is inextricably tied to the future of small
business--and by enhancing the conditions that support small business,
we will ensure a more prosperous future for all. I urge all my
colleagues to support this important legislation on behalf of the
nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I join the
Committee's Chair, Senator Olympia Snowe in introducing a three-year
reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's programs.
These programs help small businesses, often called the engine of the
American economy, with access to capital, business advice and training
and Federal procurement opportunities. But before I speak more
specifically about the provisions of the bill, I would like to thank
Chair Snowe for working hand-in-hand with me on this, my third,
reauthorization of the Small Business Administration. Having worked
closely on two previous reauthorizations, and as a member of the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for over 18 years, I can tell
you that the SBA reauthorization process takes diligence and a strong
attention to detail. I want to commend Senator Snowe for taking the
initiative to draft legislation that makes such important and necessary
changes to the SBA during this reauthorization process and for showing
great leadership in her first seven months as Chair of the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Our bill will strengthen the SBA and dramatically improve the
agency's ability to deliver services to small businesses in every
state. It is based on a sound Committee record. In addition to holding
two hearings and three roundtables to specifically address SBA's
programs and related reauthorization issues, our Committee met and
[[Page 17120]]
spoke with numerous constituents, program directors and small business
advocates. It is through this correspondence, research and input that
our Committee has been able to prepare a comprehensive piece of
legislation that will likely serve the Small Business Administration
and the entire small-business community well past even the next
reauthorization period.
Over the past three years, as Chairman and Ranking Member of this
Committee, I have seen this administration reduce government funding
and transfer that money to the wealthy with tax cut after tax cut,
resulting in a significant loss of revenue for essential programs aimed
at fostering small businesses and the economic activity they bring
about. While many of us like to note that small businesses are the
engine of economic growth and should be bolstered by our government,
this administration has given small businesses more words than action.
The need for small business programs--for access to capital, for
training and counseling, for assistance in gaining access to the
Federal marketplace--runs counter cyclical to the economy. When the
economy is slumping, as it now is, small businesses and entrepreneurs
need the SBA even more. Our Committee has heard from the small-business
community that demand for training and assistance and access to capital
is up, yet this administration has proposed freezing funding for
virtually all SBA programs for six years. Their proposal includes no
adjustment for inflation or demand, despite SBA's own numbers that show
demand is up for its programs.
It is carrying out our legislative and oversight responsibilities
that Chair Snowe and I raised a number of concerns regarding the SBA's
reauthorization proposal and the overall management and direction of
many of the agency's programs through hearings, and roundtables and in
letters and phone calls to the administration. And after hearing from
the community and working with small business experts in the field,
Senator Snowe and I came to the conclusion that many of the proposals
put forth by the Small Business Administration would not help the
agency's programs but ultimately hinder them.
This administration and small businesses across this Nation will
find, however, that our prescription for small businesses in a flailing
economy is quite different. Our reauthorization legislation embraces
the programs that have worked for years, redirects those that have
struggled and sets the SBA and up for continued success.
Although banks have plenty of cash to lend, small businesses are
still having a problem getting access to credit. For the past few years
as the economy has fizzled, the Federal Reserve has reported that banks
have cut back on lending to small businesses, making it harder and more
expensive to get loans. And who has been there to pick up the slack?
The Small Business Administration and its lending partners.
Lending is up in SBA's largest lending program for working capital.
Lending is up in SBA's microloan program, which serves those with the
least access to capital through the private sector. And SBA's venture
capital programs account for a significant role--more than 50 percent--
in this country's investment in our fastest-growing small businesses.
Last year these loans pumped about $20 billion into the economy,
leveraged millions more from the private sector, fed the local tax base
as the Federal government cut back, and created at least 400,000 jobs.
As the Committee reviewed SBA's programs for reauthorization, these
facts figured largely into establishing the program levels. I thank our
Chair, Senator Snowe, for working with me to set the levels for SBA's
lending and venture capital programs at increasing levels for the next
three years. I am particularly pleased with the increased funding
levels for the microloan programs.
I disagree with the administration's proposals over the past few
years to cut back its investment in microloans and training assistance
to micro-entrepreneurs. And I disagree with the Adminstration's
contention that these borrowers are being served through the 7(a) loan
program. The small borrower in the microloan program is different than
the small borrower being served through the 7(a) loan program. Both are
important, but they are different, and one is not a substitute for the
other.
And who are these borrowers being served through the microloan
program? Thirty percent are African American. Eleven percent are
Hispanic. Thirty-seven percent are women. And anywhere from 30 to 40
percent go to small businesses in rural areas. Banks turn these
borrowers away, and yet the administration proposed cutting the
microloan program by 36 percent in its most recent budget. SBA needs to
fully fund these programs and put more resources into the office that
manages the program. Four people is not enough to manage 1,400 loans
and 180 grants.
Aside from setting the levels for each small business financial
assistance program, we made important program changes and started new
initiatives. In the 7(a) loan program, SBA's largest loan program,
which provides working capital to small businesses with long terms of
up to 25 years, we made permanent the reduction in the fees borrowers
and lenders pay. We are testing a proposal that allows the most
proficient 7(a) lenders in good standing to lend in every state.
Lenders have complained that applying for lending autonomy in each of
the 70 district office and branches is administratively burdensome,
both for them and for the Agency staff, and that some district offices
have taken advantage of the power to approve or disapprove lenders when
they apply for this special lending status.
I want to make clear while I want to avoid unnecessary paperwork and
eliminate reported abuses, I do not want the lenders to take this as
authority to quit working with the district directors. It is important
to have a local connection and for the SBA and the lenders to work
together to maximize service to the small businesses. For this purpose
I have included a provision which directs the SBA to consider the
recommendations and comments of any district directors and regional
administrators when reviewing a lender for national lending authority.
To increase the value of 7(a) loans sold in the secondary market, the
Committee has included a provision to allow SBA to pool and sell the
guaranteed portion of loans with varied rates. Currently SBA has the
authority to only sell those loans with identical rates. This should
create efficiencies in market and bring down borrowing costs for the
small business borrower. At Senator Snowe's request, in order to reach
more under-served small businesses, we have enhanced the Low-Doc
program, allowing lenders to use the simplified application form for
loans up to $250,000 from $100,000, making it the same as the SBA
Express program. We have also expanded the incentives for lenders to
provide financing to export small businesses, and proposed letting 7(a)
borrowers use a simplified size standard when determining if an
applicant is a small business.
To improve the 504 loan program, which makes long-term loans of up to
20 years to small, growing businesses to buy equipment and buildings,
we have also raised the debenture size to keep pace with the rising
cost of commercial real estate and equipment. We have brought the job
requirement standard up from $35,000 to $50,000 after ten or twelve
years. We have directed SBA to simplify the application and
documentation process of applying for and closing 504 loans, long a
goal of this Committee and made a priority based on the testimony of
one of our witnesses during the reauthorization process. We have
created two alternatives for 504 lenders to use when establishing a
loan loss reserve to cover potential losses.
I am particularly pleased that we have included S. 822, the Child
Care Lending Pilot Act in the reauthorization bill. It allows small,
non-profit childcare businesses access to 504 loans. I thank Senator
Snowe and my colleagues for agreeing to try this for three years,
similar to what we have done with the microloan program. And I thank
the trade association of 504
[[Page 17121]]
lenders, the National Association of Certified Development Companies,
and other 504 lenders for their endorsement of an input on the pilot.
The more research I've done, the more I've come to realize how
vitally important it is that we give non-profit day care providers the
same opportunities as for-profits to expand their businesses. Non-
profit day care centers are often the only child care suppliers
available in needy areas, from the most urban to the most rural. Giving
these businesses access to 504 loans for three years will allow us to
gauge whether this valuable loan program is the best way to aid these
valuable providers of care to our Nation's children. I have taken note
of states like Oregon, where 79 percent of day care providers are non-
profit, Michigan, where that number jumps to 86 percent, Iowa with 77
percent, my own State of Massachusetts with 90 percent, Ohio with 62
percent, and the list goes on and on. I've learned that in State after
State families are waiting for affordable day care; from more than one
thousand families on the waiting list in Nevada and Maine to more than
thirty thousand on the list in Texas. These parents are waiting for
quality day care they can afford, and making available affordable loans
to all licensed child care providers may increase access to care and
cut down those waiting lists.
I understand the concerns of those who are concerned about the
precedent of SBA lending to non-profits. And I agree it should not be
expanded to all industries. However, this is a very unique industry
that in many States is delivered mostly through non-profits, and the
only way to penetrate the market is to reach both for-profit and non-
profit. Further, non-profits are usually the providers that care for
the neediest kids. I have added provisions to ensure the underwriting
standards are just as tough, if not more so, as those applied to for-
profit centers. The loans must be personally guaranteed, the collateral
must be owned outright by the child care provider, and it must be able
to make its loan payments and cover normal operating expenses from the
revenue generated from its clients. With these protections, the loans
to non-profits should perform just as well as those made to for-
profits, and if there is a problem, the loans should be collateralized
sufficiently to cover the losses.
The bill defines a small, non-profit child care business to mean an
entity organized as a 501(c)(3), but not just any organization. It must
be a licensed child care provider; it must meet the size standard for a
small business; and it must provide care to infants, toddlers and pre-
kindergarten and older children after school. At Senator Snowe's
request, the pilot is limited to 7 percent allowed for pilots under
SBA's 7(a) guaranteed business loan program. I feel that the agreed
upon cap should allow for sufficient lending under the pilot to
adequately test whether lending to non-profit childcare providers is
effective in increasing access to affordable childcare, and whether it
protects the general 504 program, which is vital to the financing of
small businesses in this country.
The bill also includes a comprehensive study by the GAO to track and
monitor the impact of this program both on the industry and the
program. Last, I want to remind my colleagues that the 504 program is
funded entirely through fees and does not require appropriations.
Also included in this bill is S. 318, the Small Business Drought
Relief Act. This simply reinforces in legislation something which SBA
should already be doing. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought
victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose
income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and
ranchers are not the only small business owners whose livelihoods are
at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as
devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and
tackle shops. Sadly, at present these small businesses cannot get help
through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers
hate about government--bureaucracy.
The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its
lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a
disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that
drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this
legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought
disaster declarations in 36 states. That number had grown to 48 the
beginning of this year, demonstrating that problem had gotten worse and
even more small businesses were in need.
As I have said time and again, the SBA has the authority to help all
small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the
Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law
unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with
the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA
to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system,
and get help to small business drought victims that need it. I thank
Senator Bond for working with me on this when he was the Ranking Member
of the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, and I thank
Senator Snowe and her staff for all their help and support. While we
might have had a lot of rain recently in the Northeast, there are areas
like Lake Mead in Arizona where it is so dry that the water level is
down and small businesses are losing business and making expensive
changes to extend docks to reach the water.
In this bill are also provisions to shore up SBA's venture capital
programs--the Small Business Investment Company Debenture and
Participating Securities programs, and the New Markets Venture Capital
Program. We have balanced investment incentives with soundness issues
and allowed small businesses to receive more SBIC financing than
currently permissible if they also have a 504 or 7(a) loan. We have
improved the arrangement for distributing payments from successful
SBICs so that SBA and the investors are treated more fairly and the
taxpayers has more protection for realizing repayment on the
investments. We have put in place conforming amendments to make the New
Markets Venture Capital program work with the New Markets Tax Credit,
as Congress intended. We have clarified that new markets venture
capital companies have two years to raise their matching capital, as
Congress intended. The Committee has been troubled by the Agency's
interpretation of the NMVC statute which they viewed as permitting SBA
to choose how much time it can give conditionally approved NMVCs to
raise the private-sector matching money. The chosen time frames were
unreasonable and not what Congress intended.
We have also included many measures to strengthen SBA's oversight of
lenders, responding to findings by the General Accounting Office and
the Office of Inspector General. And we have reauthorized and clarified
the law for surety bond guarantees to help small businesses get
government contracts.
While no one would deny the importance access to capital plays in the
success of small businesses, as SBA Administration Hector Barreto and
past SBA Administrators have acknowledged time and again, debt is not
always the answer. In the SBA's FY 2004 budget request, there is
reference to information from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and
Dun & Bradstreet that indicates ``80 percent of new businesses
discontinue operation within five years because of lack of `knowledge'
of key business skills.'' Despite the recognized importance of such
assistance, the SBA's funding request for FY 2004 and its legislative
proposal to implement that request would freeze funding levels for
virtually all Agency programs, without even accounting for inflation,
for a six-year period. If enacted, that would severely hamstring this
nation's small businesses and their ability to effectively compete and
prosper in the national economy.
Cuts to or inadequate funding of the SBA's entrepreneurial
development programs are often attributed to vague and unfounded claims
of duplication. Such claims mistake a common mission of training and
counseling for duplication, ignoring the reality that
[[Page 17122]]
small businesses vary greatly, are often at very different stages of
development, and have many different needs. Just as it would be
ineffective to only have one type of loan or venture capital financing
structure for the 25 million small businesses in this country, it would
be futile to water down specialized management and training programs to
impose a one-size-fits-all approach.
I want to commend Chair Snowe for giving women entrepreneurs such a
prominent place in the reauthoziation process. Rarely do women
entrepreneurs get the recognition and attention they deserve for their
contributions to our economy: 18 million Americans would be without
jobs today if it weren't for these entrepreneurs who had the courage
and the vision to strike out of their own. During my tenure as a
member, Chair, and lead Democrat of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to increase and improve
the opportunities for enterprising entrepreneurial women in a variety
of ways, leading to greater earning power, financial independence and
asset accumulation--and I am glad that Senator Snowe is joining me in
this endeavor.
As Chair Snowe expressed when she introduced the Women's Small
Business Programs Improvement Act--and when Senator Snowe and I passed
the Women's Business Center's Preservation Act--protecting the
extremely effective and well-established Women's Business Center
network was a high priority in this reauthorization. For that reason,
we make permanent the Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot
Program by creating three-year ``renewal'' grants for those centers
with sustainability grants and four-year ``initial'' grants for new
centers; increase the program's authorization levels; and direct the
Office of Women's Business Ownership, OWBO, to make all Women's
Business Center grants at $150K and to consult with the associations of
Women's Business Centers when making improvements to the program. Other
changes to the Women's Business Center Program include streamlining the
data collection and the grant application and selection criteria,
protecting the privacy of Women's Business Council, WBC, clients, and
providing for a smooth transition from sustainability to the newly
established WBC program. Our legislation will not only secure the
future of the Women's Business Center Program, but it will connect all
SBA-related women's initiatives with a unified mission, similar
guidance and training. These changes were coupled with minor, yet
significant, changes to the National Women's Business Council, NWBC,
and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. Senator
Snowe and I included provisions to give the NWBC cosponsorship
authority, to allow more flexibility in the way the Council uses funds,
and to direct the Council to serve as a clearinghouse for historical
data. Each of these things will enable the Council to become a better
resource for the Administration, Congress and the entire small-business
community. To bolster the representation of women business owners in
the federal government, our bill re-establishes the Interagency
Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, directs the Deputy
Administrator of the SBA to serve as acting chairperson of the
Interagency Committee until a chairperson is appointed, establishes a
Policy Advisory Group to assist the Committee's chairperson in
developing policies and programs under this Act and creates three
subcommittees similar to those created under the National Women
Business Council.
This bill also supports and protects the Small Business Development
Center network, which has served 9 million small-business owners since
its inception more than 20 years ago. It should also be noted that in
2001, SBDCs helped small businesses create or retain over 80,000 jobs,
generate $3.9 billion in sales and obtain $2.7 billion in financing.
For every dollar spent on an SBDC, $2.09 in tax revenue was returned to
the Federal Government. Numbers aside, the nationwide network of SBDCs
provide important counseling services to small-business owners that are
unable to afford private consulting, many of whom are women and
minority clients. The SBDC program has grown to serve 1.25 million
small-business owners and entrepreneurs each year, and there are nearly
1,000 centers serving every State in Nation.
While this bill rejects the potentially detrimental changes proposed
by the SBA to the SBDC network, it does address concerns expressed by
the centers and small businesses. Included in our bill are increased
authorization levels to keep up with increased demand and a provision
to protect the privacy of the program's clients and a provision to help
SBDCs that have been adversely affected by poor economic conditions or
government downsizing.
Also, included in the entrepreneurial development section of our bill
is a provision to increase to $7 million annually the authorization
level for the Service Corps of Retired Executives, SCORE, which has
nearly 11,000 volunteers, and a technical change to allow SCORE to keep
its modest staff of fourteen employees.
I want to thank Senator Snowe for working with me to include, as
introduced, the Native American Small Business Development Act, which I
reintroduced earlier this year together with Senator Johnson and
Senator Smith to address the SBA's growing lack of commitment to the
Native American community. According to a report released by the U.S.
Census Bureau, the ``three year average poverty rate for American
Indians and Alaska Natives [from 1998-2000] was 25.9 percent; higher
than for any other race groups.'' With an unemployment rate well above
the national average and household income at just three-quarters of the
national average, Native American communities need a commitment from
the Federal government that we will help them, particularly during
these difficult economic times. To reaffirm this commitment, the
Johnson-Kerry-Smith bill provides Native Americans the resources they
need to take advantage of the opportunities of entrepreneurship.
The Native American Small Business Development Act, as included in
our reauthorization bill, will ensure that the SBA's programs to assist
Native American communities cannot be dissolved by making the SBA's
Office of Native American Affairs, ONAA, and its Assistant
Administrator permanent. Our legislation would also create a statutory
grant program, known as the Native American Development grant program,
to assist Native Americans. It would also establish two pilot programs
to try new means of assisting Native American communities and require
Native American communities to be consulted regarding the future of SBA
programs designed to assist them. In short, this legislation will
ensure that our Native American communities receive the adequate
assistance they need to help start and grow small businesses.
To address the growing business development needs of veterans,
Senator Snowe and I reauthorized the Advisory Committee on Veterans
Affairs, expanded veterans outreach grants from just service-disable
veterans, to veterans, reservists and service-disable veterans.
Further, we increase the funding for the Office of Veterans Business
Development to enable that office to better deal with the demand by
veterans for outreach and development services.
We continue to receive reports of the detrimental effects of the
Administration's policy of reduced staffing and resources for essential
programs aimed at allowing small businesses to thrive. Week after week,
the Federal Times reports on the decline in contracts being allocated
to small businesses, small businesses losing ground in the federal
marketplace, and most recently, on the awarding of more big contracts
with less oversight from Federal agencies. With agencies awarding
larger, more complex and more costly contracts with less staff
performing oversight, this nation's small businesses and its tax payers
are the ones shouldering the burden when small business goals continue
to be unmet. In addition to helping small businesses obtain access to
procurement opportunities, these goals
[[Page 17123]]
are meant to help the government benefit from the cost-savings and
innovations small business contractors can often provide.
Significant improvements to the on-going problem of contract
bundling, also called contract consolidation, are included in this
bill. The first provision creates a two-tiered approach to preventing
unnecessary contract consolidation. Civilian agencies will be required
to meet specific standards if they attempt to consolidate contracts
above $2 million and additional requirements for those contracts above
$5 million. The Department of Defense is required to meet two types of
similar requirements for contracts above $5 million and $7 million. The
bill also eliminates the use of the term ``contract bundling'' and
expands the definition of ``contract consolidation,'' closing a
loophole that has been widely used and has detrimentally affected small
businesses.
The second provision increases in the number of Procurement Center
Representatives (PCRs) stationed throughout the country. These
representatives advocate on behalf of small businesses in cases
directly affecting contracting, such as the bundling or consolidation
of contracts. In the bill, we have increased the number of PCRs to
ensure that every state and every major procurement center is allocated
at least one PCR. Meanwhile, we have also ensured that these PCRs are
not burdened with responsibilities that were previously the duties of
Breakout PCRs and Commercial Marketing Representatives. These two
improvements will dramatically increase the efficacy and efficiency of
all three positions and allow proper review of the approximately 40
percent of Federal contracts, nearly $90 billion, that are currently
not being reviewed by PCRs. This should increase small business's
access to Federal contract opportunities.
The bill would also create a reporting requirement for the
BusinessLINC program, which has been showing promise in creating real
teaming opportunities for small businesses in the private sector.
Although the Administration recommended elimination of the program, the
reports this Committee received regarding the overwhelming success of
the existing nine programs made it clear that the SBA did not have
sufficient information about BusinessLINC to make an informed decision
on its effectiveness. The Committee's bill would ensure that the SBA
offers the proper level of oversight and would foster the continued
success of the program. I would like to thank Senator Snowe for working
with me to find a compromise to preserve this successful program.
At each of this Committee's three Roundtables on Reauthorization and
the hearing on contract bundling, the small business community
reiterated the need for accountability for small business contracting
at the agency level. I applaud Senator Snowe on her efforts to ensure
that Federal agencies be held accountable for fully utilizing small
businesses and to allow a greater amount of Congressional oversight of
the implementation of agency procurement strategies. Provisions within
this bill will ensure that the heads of Federal agencies identify a
specific portion of their budget request that will be awarded to small
businesses in their strategic plan and their annual budget submission
to Congress; will hold senior executives and senior program managers
accountable in their annual performance evaluations for small business
utilization in Federal contract awards.
In addition to increasing opportunities for prime contracts, this
bill addresses another serious problem: small businesses have been
severely hamstrung by dishonest practices by some businesses that have
prime contracts with the Federal Government and receive preference over
other prime contractors due to their superior subcontracting plans.
Senator Snowe and I have worked closely to address the concerns of
small businesses regarding delays in payment, false reporting and the
use of ``bait and switch'' tactics by prime contractors.
This bill holds prime contractors responsible for the validity of
subcontracting data, requiring the CEO to certify to the accuracy of
the subcontracting report under penalty of law. It also expands the
penalties for falsifying data included in subcontracting reports to
match the $500,000 penalty for businesses that falsify their status as
a small and disadvantaged business. If one intentionally falsifies data
as a part of a subcontracting report to a Federal agency, he is
defrauding the United States government and will be punished to the
full extent of the law. I commend Senator Snowe for her diligence in
creating these strict penalties and her efforts to create a bipartisan
response to protect small businesses.
I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe and her able staff for all of their
hard work over the past several months. I also want to express my
gratitude to all members of the Committee and urge them and my other
Senate colleagues to support the Small Business Administration 50th
Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1376. A bill to include the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission as employers for the purposes of whistleblower
protection; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
providing greater protection for workers dealing with nuclear materials
and nuclear power. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today
with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.
Several weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee on problems facing the Yucca Mountain project.
I was extremely disappointed that two of the witnesses--both current
employees of the Department of Energy and one of its contractors--
failed to testify at the hearing.
It was clear to me that these people failed to appear before the
committee because they were concerned that their appearance could have
negative repercussions on their jobs. That is completely unacceptable.
So today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing legislation to expand
the whistleblower protections. The bill we are introducing does two
things.
First, the bill would expand whistleblower protection to all
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees and
their contractors' and subcontractors' employees.
Second, the bill would provide a process for whistleblowers to
utilize Federal courts if their cases are not addressed quickly by the
Department of Labor.
Our Democracy depends on the ability of citizens and their elected
representatives to make informed decisions. That means we need to know
the truth about the issues.
These changes are simple fixes that help ensure that Federal
employees and other people working for the Federal Government never
have to fear they will lose their jobs for simply telling the truth.
I hope the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1378. A bill to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior
authority to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thirteen years ago the Corps of Engineers
was given 6 months to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. The
Master Manual provides a framework for managing the flows on the
Missouri River.
But here we are, thirteen years later, and nothing has happened. So
today I am introducing legislation to take management away from the
Corps of Engineers and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation.
In my judgment, the Corps has failed miserably in its efforts to
revise the Master Manual. In the interim, the Corps has managed the
River in a way that benefits the downstream States at the expense of
the upstream States, despite the fact that the upstream States generate
ten times more economic activity from recreational use than the
downstream states generate from barge traffic.
[[Page 17124]]
And this mismanagement has cost North Dakota a lot. Enough is enough.
It's time to take this responsibility away from the Corps and give it
to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau manages other rivers, like the
Colorado River, so let's give them a chance to manage the Missouri and
to revise the Master Manual. Perhaps this will give the upstream States
a chance to be treated fairly for a change.
I have written a letter to the head of the Corps of Engineers,
General Robert Flowers, expressing my concern about this issue and I
ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 1, 2003.
LTG Robert B. Flowers,
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC.
Dear General Flowers: More than a decade ago, the Corps of
Engineers was tasked with revising the Missouri River Master
Manual, which governs the management of the Missouri River.
As you well know, I have been very frustrated with the long
history of missed deadlines and continual delays. It
certainly appears that the Corps has no intention of moving
forward with a new Master Manual any time in the near future.
In addition, as I have learned more about the unfairness of
the current management plan, I am concerned that the Corps is
either unwilling or unable to implement equitable management
of the River.
Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota has suffered lake level
decreases of over 16 feet. This has had a devastating effect
on the recreational uses of the lake. It is unacceptable for
the Corps to continue to shortchange the upstream states by
sending water downstream for a barge industry that generates
less than a tenth of the economic activity as the upstream
recreational interests. Fort Peck in Montana has seen lake
level declines of 21.2 feet and Lake Oahe in South Dakota has
suffered lake level reductions of more than 22 feet.
And the downstream lakes? These lakes have seen virtually
no change in their lake levels. Harry S. Truman Lake in
Missouri has lost less than half a foot of elevation. Lake
Rathbun in Iowa is down just 2.4 feet.
This is truly a case of double jeopardy for the upstream
states. The water from their lakes gets drained off for a
nearly non-existent barge industry at a time when the
downstream states are not asked to make any contributions
from their own lakes. The table below shows the inequity of
this situation.
DOWNSTREAM LAKES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Lake elevation
(feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry S Truman Lake (MO).................................... -0.4
Stockton Lake (MO).......................................... -4.8
Pomme De Terre (MO)......................................... -1.9
Lake Rathbun (IA)........................................... -2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM LAKES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Lake elevation
(feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck (MT).............................................. -21.2
Lake Sakakawea (ND)......................................... -16.2
Lake Oahe (SD).............................................. -22.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps has developed a deplorable track record of
managing the Missouri River to the detriment of the upstream
states and the millions of people who live in that region.
This is just the latest in the Corps' string of poor
decisions.
It is clear the Corps is simply incapable to managing the
Missouri River in a fair and equitable fashion.
For this reason, I plan to introduce legislation when the
Congress returns from its July work period, that would
transfer authority for the revision of the Master Manual and
the responsibility for the management of the dams along the
Missouri River, to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Corps has
failed in its mission to manage the River in an effective way
and has neglected to revise the Master Manual despite 13
years of work on the project. My patience has run out, and I
believe it is time to make a dramatic change in the
stewardship of and the responsibility for the River so that
the upstream states can have some hope of fairness and
equity.
Sincerely,
Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1378
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the original study for the revision of the operating
plan under the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual was
begun in November 1989 and was scheduled to be completed 6
months later;
(2) the Corps of Engineers has missed that deadline by more
than 13 years and has consistently missed every other
deadline set in the interim;
(3) the Corps of Engineers is unable or unwilling to move
the process forward to revise the Manual, despite legal
requirements, direction from Congress, scientific evidence,
and various lawsuits from affected parties;
(4) in report number RCED-92-4 in January 1992, the
Comptroller General of the United States concluded that there
is no statutory or regulatory basis for any contention by the
Corps of Engineers that the Corps is bound to give higher
priority to navigation interests than to recreation interests
affected by the operation of dams on the Missouri River;
(5) the Missouri River yields more than 10 times the
economic benefit for recreation and tourism in upstream
States than it does for shipping interests in the downstream
States; and
(6) it appears that the Corps of Engineers is unable to
provide the leadership necessary to finalize revisions to the
Manual.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary of the army.--The term ``Secretary of the
Army'' means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers.
(2) Secretary of the interior.--The term ``Secretary of the
Interior'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation.
(3) Manual.--The term ``Manual'' means the Missouri River
Master Water Control Manual.
(c) Transfer of Authority.--There is transferred from the
Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Interior all
authority of the Secretary of the Army to--
(1) revise the Manual; and
(2) operate the dams the operation of which is governed by
the Manual.
(d) Completion of Current Revision.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall, to the maximum extent practicable, complete
the revision of the Manual begun by the Secretary of the Army
before the date of enactment of this Act not later than the
date set for completion by the Secretary of the Army.
(e) Management of Water Resource Projects.--After the
Secretary of the Interior revises the Manual, the Secretary
of the Interior shall manage water resource projects formerly
operated by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with the
revised Manual.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED & PROPOSED
SA 1135. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 925, to authorize
appropriations for the Department of State and international
broadcasting activities for fiscal year 2004 and for the
Peace Corps for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 1135. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 925, to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State and international broadcasting activities for
fiscal year 2004 and for the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2004 through
2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. JUSTICE FOR UNITED STATES MARINES ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Justice for United States Marines Act''.
(b) Amendment.--Section 1404C(a)(3) of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c(a)(3)) is amended by striking
``December 21, 1988, with respect to which an investigation
or'' and inserting ``October 23, 1983, with respect to which
an investigation or civil or criminal''.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, at 2:30 p.m., in room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
[[Page 17125]]
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the
Compact of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and
the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.
For further information, please contact Meghan Beal at 202.224.7556
or Meghan_B[email protected].
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 17, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
This is the second in a series of hearings devoted to the improved
understanding of the governance of the Department of Energy
laboratories and approaches to optimize the capability of those
laboratories to respond to national needs.
The purpose of this second hearing is to contrast the management of
science and technology resources by the Department of Energy with
management of such resources in other agencies and in the private
sector towards the goal of suggesting approaches for optimizing the
DOE's management and use of its science and technology resources.
Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on Armed Services
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 2:15 p.m., in closed session, to
receive a classified briefing on the situation in Africa, with a focus
on Liberia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on the nomination of Nicole Nason,
DOT, and Pamela Harbour, FTC, and immediately following a hearing on
``Radio Ownership'' in SR-253.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Finance
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, July 8,
2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on An Examination of U.S. Tax
Policy and Its Effect on the Domestic and International Competitiveness
of U.S.-Based Operation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on
``Executive Nominations'' on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in
the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.
Agenda
Panel I: Senators.
Panel II: Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and Jack Landman Goldsmith III to be
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of
Justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on clean air, climate change, and nuclear safety
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be
authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 8, at 9:30 a.m., to examine
agricultural sequestration of carbon.
The hearing will take place in SD 406 (Hearing Room).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on National Parks
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 10 a.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the maintenance
backlog, land acquisition backlog, and deficit in personnel within the
National Park System, including the impact of new park unit
designations on resolving each of these concerns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRINTING OF THURMOND TRIBUTES
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tributes
to Senator Strom Thurmond be printed as a Senate document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30
a.m., Wednesday, July 9. I further ask that following the prayer and
pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings
be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their
use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the motion
to proceed to the consideration of S. 11, the Patients First Act,
provided that the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided between the
two leaders or their designees, and provided further that the time from
11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. be under the control of the Democratic leader
or his designee and the remaining time until 11:30 a.m. be under the
control of the Republican leader or his designee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the
Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration
of S. 11, the Patients First Act. Under the previous order, at 11:30
a.m. the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed. Immediately following that vote, the Senate will proceed to
executive session and vote on the nomination of Victor Wolski to be a
judge on the U.S. Federal Claims Court. Therefore, the first vote of
tomorrow's session will occur at 11:30 a.m. and that vote will be the
first of two back-to-back votes.
Following the two votes at 11:30 a.m., the Senate will begin
consideration of S. 925, the State Department reauthorization bill.
Amendments are expected to be offered to the bill, but it is the
majority leader's hope that we can complete action on this measure in
short order. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout
the afternoon tomorrow.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BROWNBACK. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:57 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate July 8, 2003:
[[Page 17126]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DANIEL J. BRYANT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, VICE VIET D. DINH, RESIGNED.
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
COL. CHARLES S. RODEHEAVER
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
REAR ADM. RODNEY P. REMPT
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major
PATRICE L. PYE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK (*)) UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 531:
To be major
*REBEKAH F. FRIDAY
____________________
CONFIRMATION
Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate July 8, 2003:
THE JUDICIARY
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA.
[[Page 17127]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, July 8, 2003
The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Murphy).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC.
July 8, 2003.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Tim Murphy to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed with amendments in which the
concurrence of the House is requested a bill of the House of the
following title:
H.R. 1. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription drug
coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize the
Medicare Program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a deduction to individuals for amounts contributed
to health savings security accounts and health savings
accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health
benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending
arrangements, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its
amendments to the bill (H.R. 1) ``An Act to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription
drug coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize the Medicare
Program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction to individuals for amounts contributed to health savings
security accounts and health savings accounts, to provide for the
disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible
spending arrangements, and for other purposes,'' requests a conference
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and
appoints Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Frist, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Breaux, to be the
conferees on the part of the Senate.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 30 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for 5
minutes.
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year President Bush
addressed a Michigan audience laying out his plans to restructure
Medicare. He said, ``If it's good enough for Members of Congress, it's
good enough for seniors in this Nation.'' What he meant was that
American seniors who enroll in Medicare should have health insurance
choices like those available to Members of Congress under the health
insurance plan called the Federal employees health benefits plan.
President Bush was not the only one to say so. Republican leaders in
the House made the same point. All of us have heard colleagues here say
that. That message, that seniors should have the same kind of health
insurance choices available to Members of Congress, was an important
selling point for the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill.
That message is absolutely right. The problem is that the Republican
bill is absolutely the opposite. The Republican Medicare bill, H.R. 1,
does not even come close to giving seniors the kind of coverage that
Members of Congress have provided for themselves. The Congressional
Research Service says the FEHBP plan which Members of Congress are in
offers a drug benefit worth $2,700, but the same CRS, Congressional
Research Service, nonpartisan arm of the Congress said the Republican
Medicare bill is worth only about half of that. The Republican Medicare
bill does not offer American seniors health care choices just like
Members of Congress even though the President said it did. It does not
even come close.
Even a basic comparison shows how the Republican bill comes up
woefully short. The Republican bill tells seniors they have to pay a
$250 deductible. Members of Congress do not pay a deductible. The
Republican bill requires seniors with drug costs over $2,000 to
continue paying monthly premiums even though they do not get any
coverage until they spend an additional $2,900 out of pocket. Members
of Congress do not make premium payments and get nothing in return. The
Republican Medicare bill does not offer American seniors health care
choices just like Members of Congress. It does not even come close.
The Washington Post said the drug benefit proposed by the Republicans
for seniors provides merely a fraction of the drug coverage that
Members of Congress receive. The chairman of the health policy
department at Emory University said that drug benefits are much better
in the congressional Federal employees plan. Still do not believe the
Republican bill offers a bad deal for American seniors? You have to
look no farther than H.R. 2631 on today's suspension calendar. H.R.
2631 says that private insurance plans under the Federal employees
health benefit plan must agree to provide drug coverage for Federal
retirees actuarially equivalent to the drug coverage they provide to
current Federal employees. In other words, what that means is that when
Members of Congress and other Federal employees retire, they will not
be forced to go into H.R. 1, into the Republican Medicare bill. It is
good for Members of Congress, it is good for Federal employees, because
the Republican Medicare drug benefit would be a step down for them.
Remember what the President said: If it is good enough for Members of
Congress, it is good enough for seniors in this Nation. That is what he
says about the Republican bill.
It would be a big step down to go into the Republican privatized drug
benefit plan for the 13 million American private sector retirees who
get drug coverage through their employers' health insurance. The
Congressional Budget Office said that more than one-third of all
seniors who are in private retirement plans will see their plans
dropped by their employer. They will be forced out of the private
coverage they have today, forced out of that plan and put into the
inferior Republican Medicare prescription drug plan.
H.R. 2631 says Members of Congress should not have to live under the
same system that the Republican Medicare plan foists on the American
public. Should we pass H.R. 2631 today? Absolutely, because 8.5 million
Federal employees should not have to live with the Republican Medicare
bill's drug benefit. But given that the Republican Medicare bill's drug
benefit is so bad that Congress, after passing it 2 weeks
[[Page 17128]]
ago, today is exempting themselves, get that again, the Republican
Medicare bill is so bad from 2 weeks ago that passed here that today
Congress is exempting itself from that plan so that Members of Congress
can continue to enjoy good health coverage, not the inferior plan that
President Bush and Republicans are foisting on Congress.
We should pass H.R. 2631 today and we should throw H.R. 1 in the
shredder and get to work on a real prescription drug benefit for
American seniors. And the President when he says, ``If it's good enough
for Congress, it's good enough for seniors in this Nation,'' the
President should mean what he says.
____________________
BETTER TEACHERS MAKE BETTER EDUCATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is recognized
during morning hour debates.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, following President Bush's landmark No Child
Left Behind law, we now have an opportunity to make overdue reforms in
the Federal Government's role in our national education system. We will
take up two very important education reauthorization bills this week to
begin that process. The first is the Ready to Teach Act of 2003
sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) which will
strengthen and improve teacher training programs all around this
country. With the enormous responsibilities weighing on them today, we
owe it not only to American teachers but to their students to prepare
every one of them before they set foot in the classroom. Highly
qualified teachers, as all of us know and some of us were lucky enough
to have in school, are worth their weight in gold. But too many
inexperienced teachers are being thrown into the classroom without
effective training and preparation. This legislation will start
measuring training programs' success and holding them accountable. It
will bring higher qualified individuals into the training programs and
ultimately into the classrooms. It is an important first step in
reshaping American education to face the emerging challenges of the
21st century.
Equally important is the bill of the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson), the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act. Under this
bill, qualified teachers in math, science and special education would
be eligible for student loan forgiveness of up to $17,500 if they teach
in low-income community schools. Most of these poor title I schools are
in our Nation's inner cities and in our rural areas where the need for
qualified teachers is most acute. Too many math and science classes are
being taught by teachers who neither majored nor minored in those
fields. And two-thirds of public schools around the country have
teacher vacancies in their special education programs.
Mr. Speaker, as more and more of our best teachers retire every year,
the teaching shortage in America is approaching crisis levels and we
must act. We have to develop innovative ways to attract and retain the
highest quality individuals we can for our schools, to get results for
students, parents and teachers around the country. And while these two
bills are only part of a broader agenda, both of them start to do just
that.
____________________
RECOGNIZING 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF CARICOM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to recognize the
30th anniversary of CARICOM which was celebrated on July 4 of this
year. Founded in 1973 in Chaguaramas, Trinidad, CARICOM, or its full
name, the Caribbean Community, now includes 16 members. I want to
congratulate CARICOM's outgoing chair, Prime Minister Pierre Charles of
Dominica, and the incoming chair, the Honorable P.J. Patterson of
Jamaica, on behalf of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the
Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congress of the United States. We
in the Virgin Islands and the CBC pledge our continued support as they
meet the challenges presented by new global and regional trade
alliances and loss of preferences, HIV/AIDS and the other social and
economic needs of their constituencies, governance, the need for
regionalization and the difficult relationship with us, their northern
neighbor.
I particularly want to recognize the historic participation of the
Honorable Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, in the recent 24th
regular meeting of the conference of CARICOM heads of government in
Montego Bay, Jamaica. His presence significantly underscores the
connectedness of all people of African descent and the sameness of our
struggles no matter whether on the continent of Africa or in the
diaspora. As we are linked by blood and history, so is our future tied
together.
Mr. Speaker, the Caribbean community also shares important historical
ties with this Nation and today represents not only an important
trading partner with the balance in our favor but also a critical
partner in our fight against drugs in our own country and our important
efforts to ensure our homeland security. With this background and the
need for closer cooperation, the recent interactions of our country at
the 24th heads of government meetings held during the anniversary
celebration do not make sense to me.
First, although the presence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Zoellick was important to discussions of the impact of the upcoming
FTAA agreement, the refusal to support what I consider to be standard
transitioning for these smaller countries in the face of the loss of
important preferences which have been the bulwark of their economic
stability is not the action of a friend and neighbor. I hope that the
administration will reconsider its position. Secondly, there was
discussion on the International Criminal Court. While there may be
differing opinions as to whether the United States should be given a
waiver from liability under this court, it is unconscionable in my view
for us to strong arm the Caribbean countries into supporting the waiver
by threatening to cut off financial aid which has been previously
committed and on which they are depending. With friends like us, the
CARICOM nations do not need enemies.
This is not the first instance in which this country has sought to
force its will by employing or threatening punitive measures that these
nations can ill afford. The CARICOM countries are to be commended,
however, for not surrendering their national integrity in the face of
our bullying. But there has to be a better way. I want to use this
time, Mr. Speaker, to call on the administration to seek that better
way and to recognize the value and integrity of these countries and
territories, not only because of their importance to our national
defense in homeland security and economic stability but because they
are also sovereign nations in their own right, with a long history of
democratically elected governments.
As the Delegate from one of this country's two Caribbean offshore
areas, the health of the region has a direct impact on my district and
constituents, even more directly than it does on our larger Nation. We
offer ourselves and that of the recently formed Caribbean Caucus as
mediators to restore the relationships and mutual support that we used
to enjoy with the members of CARICOM.
July 4 is our most important national holiday. It is interesting that
this is the same day that CARICOM was founded. Perhaps the sharing of
this date may form the basis of the beginning of that new and improved
relationship.
____________________
INTRODUCING RESOLUTION TO BRING GREAT AWARENESS OF THE PROBLEM OF
STALKING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) is
recognized
[[Page 17129]]
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, Peggy Klinke was a
constituent of mine from Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was murdered in
January of this year by a former boyfriend who was obsessed with her
and stalked her for almost 2 years. Today I will be introducing a
resolution to this House to bring greater awareness of the problem of
stalking in America and the things that we need to do to protect its
victims. It is my pleasure that Debbie Riddle and Mark Sparks are here
today. Debbie was Peggy's sister and Mark was her boyfriend. I wanted
to thank them for joining me here today in the House.
More than 1 million women a year and almost 400,000 men are stalked
annually. Those numbers are staggering. One in 12 women and one in 45
men in their lifetime will be stalked. Yet the problem continues to go
mostly unrecognized and not responded to properly. The bill that I am
introducing would make January Stalking Awareness Month in honor of
Peggy in the month that she died.
The first step in addressing any problem is to understand that
problem and make sure that other people do, because until people
understand it, you cannot mobilize the will for change. We need model
laws and to make sure those model laws are implemented in every State
in this country. We need to identify the best practices for dealing
with stalkers, practical things proven to work in the field that can be
used by victims and also by law enforcement to make sure victims are
safer. We need to better train our police and our district attorneys so
that they know what tools they have at their disposal when they are
dealing with a stalker. And we need better cross-jurisdictional
communication.
Eleven percent of stalking victims move to get away from their
stalker. As soon as they do, you have got two police departments, two
district attorneys and two judicial systems supposedly working together
but often not communicating about the victim and the stalker. No one
should have to live in fear without protection and without hope. I
believe that this resolution is the first step to getting better
protection for the victims of stalkers.
I ask the House to rapidly consider the resolution and pass it from
this House.
____________________
U.S. SUCCESS IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 227 years ago 56 men put their lives, their
families and fortunes on the line as they defied the most powerful
country in the world, England. These men declared independence and our
country was born by a swift stroke of a pen. This weekend we celebrated
our country's 227th birthday. This country, of course, has survived
many conflicts, both foreign and domestic, and we have survived due to
the fact that American men and women always have answered the call
should our rights and our freedoms come under attack. In the last
couple of years, terror has taken on a new meaning to this country and
its citizens. We have been threatened like never before. With an
amazing outpouring of patriotism, we refused to allow the mantle of
freedom to be taken from our shoulders.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, with the end of Operation Sidewinder
in Iraq, our Armed Forces have experienced tremendous success. Yet we
remain confronted with the sad truth that this success has come at a
cost of American lives. Over the weekend, a Florida National Guard
soldier from my congressional district was killed. My thoughts and
prayers are with his family and friends and I also mourn his loss. I
had the opportunity to meet this young man at the community college he
attended while serving in the National Guard. His presence, enthusiasm
and dedication exemplifies the men and women of our Armed Forces that
continue to serve in Iraq.
From Afghanistan to Iraq and possibly Liberia, our troops face life-
threatening situations. But they fight for those who yearn for freedom,
who cannot fight for themselves. All who wish for democracy know that
America can be the source of the freedoms that have so long eluded
them. Our troops liberated 24 million Iraqis and gave them the
opportunity for freedom that had been denied them for so long. As such,
rebuilding a country neglected for decades by a worthless tyrant takes
time, it takes patience, it takes perseverance. Iraq is showing signs
that the efforts of our troops are yielding large gains. We have over
half of the Iraqis most wanted in custody. We are training Iraqis to
police and govern themselves as a free nation. Iraqis have access to a
growing number of publications, newspapers and magazines replacing the
propaganda of the state-run news that previously existed. Electricity
is running 24 hours a day in Basra and improvements are being made in
Baghdad. According to reports now, Hussein would black out parts of
Baghdad simply because there was not sufficient generation of power for
the entire city. Our people are working to change that and they are
working very, very hard.
Mr. Speaker, many in some parts of the media seem not only content
but resolute in reporting only those stories that portray bad news.
Remember, some of these same people called our initial military
strategy a failure after less than a week of combat. But I find it
perplexing that all we hear from some reporters are stories describing
an Iraq that is a viper's nest of Saddam loyalists and full of an angry
civilian population who want us to leave. However, unlike some of our
media reporting, I believe normal, everyday people in this country
realize that it will take time to foster democracy and to quell
attempts to destabilize fledgling new, free governments. Today's copy
of The Hill magazine touched on this issue and quoted dozens of
soldiers who seem to be baffled by the endless wave of negative press.
One helicopter pilot is quoted as saying, ``The media has
misrepresented Iraqi resistance. For the most part, people here are
extremely friendly to us.'' He goes on to say that, quote, crime in
Baghdad is one-tenth of what it is in Los Angeles. Finally, according
to a poll taken by the Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies, it
was found that 65 percent of Baghdadis want U.S. troops to stay for
now. Only 17 percent wanted them to pull out immediately.
Let us look at what the U.S. has accomplished. For that, of course,
we need look no further than the words of General Tommy Franks in his
recent retirement speech when he said, ``When we arrived, the Taliban
and al Qaeda controlled Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with
an iron hand. What a difference 22 months makes. Twenty-two months ago,
the United States of America and the free world looked into the face of
evil and defeated it.'' Now we are moving closer to freedom in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Yes, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done but the peace is
not lost. With where we are today, the glass for continued democracy in
these countries is over half full.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 55 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.
____________________
{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Boozman) at noon.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, You delivered Jericho into the hands of Joshua with the
mighty sound of trumpet blasts and the joyful shouts of believers in
Your power. We
[[Page 17130]]
remember the story of these tumbling walls coming down, but to this day
no one can find any remains of Joshua's Jericho. So complete is Your
victory, Lord.
In our own day, bring an end to the violence in Iraq. Protect and
bless peacemakers and the coalition military forces who are trying to
bring law and order to that land. Bring down the walls of prejudice and
indifference which surround war-torn Iraq. Embrace the people there
with Your Spirit, that they may know peace and unity. May their ancient
treasures of culture be restored as they rebuild a new nation founded
upon religious truth and human dignity.
May goodness, truth and beauty in the end prove victorious. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Loretta Sanchez) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Ms. SANCHEZ led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
NORTH KOREA SELLING HEROIN TO PAY FOR NUKES
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago, a North Korean ship,
the Pong Su, was captured while trying to transfer $80 million worth of
heroin to a fishing boat off the coast of Australia. This incident
confirms that the rogue regime of Kim Jong Il is selling drugs to
tighten his grip on power and prolong his reign of terror.
The evidence tying this evil regime to the drug trade is
overwhelming. One of the 26 people aboard the Pong Su was a member of
the North Korean ruling party who served as a senior envoy in
Pyongyang's embassy in Beijing.
At a recent hearing in the Senate, a former high-ranking North Korean
official testified that Kim Jong Il has personally designated land in
North Korea for the growth of opium. And U.S. State Department
officials have concluded that the illegal drug program is sanctioned by
the North Korean Government, who is using it to fund its weapons
programs.
This incident is a reminder that North Korea will stop at nothing to
expand its nuclear arsenal.
____________________
BRING IT ON
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice
concern over the disregard President Bush has shown to our brave
servicemembers and their families. Our troops are dying in Iraq at a
rate of one per day. The reason? This administration failed to
adequately plan for postwar peacekeeping and civil reconstruction in
Iraq. As a consequence, our troops are overstretched, morale is low,
and the situation within Iraq is getting worse by the day.
This administration must, it must readdress the situation and give
our troops the peacekeeping training that they need; and, in addition,
efforts to reach out to the international community for assistance must
be enhanced. In short, we should do everything in our power to quell
the violence as quickly as possible.
But instead, just last weekend, President Bush taunted insurgents in
Iraq by boasting, ``Bring 'em on.'' This is an insult not only to the
military families who have lost a loved one in Iraq, but to those who
live under the constant fear that their loved ones might not come home.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on H.R. 2658, making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004,
and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous
material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, June 26, 2003, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2658.
{time} 1208
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 and for other purposes, with Mr.
Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June
26, 2003, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First, I appreciate very much having the opportunity to share this
time with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). I am very
pleased today to bring before the House the 2004 defense appropriations
bill. It is a bill that reflects very much the direction of the
Commander-in-Chief as well as the Department of Defense regarding the
war on terrorism that we are pursuing in the Middle East at this point,
but also recognizing its great threat around the world.
The bill itself is a very, very good bill that I highly commend to
the Members, Mr. Chairman. I must say that in terms of its allocation,
I am a bit disappointed, for the bill before us is in the neighborhood
of $3 billion below the President's request. But having said that, we
did provide some reallocation that helps some of our other bills, and
in the meantime, we are doing all we can to recoup some of those
dollars by way of other venues.
Having said that, the bill is a very balanced bill, and we have made
every effort to reflect the will of the House as well as the needs of
our men and women who are representing us so well around the world.
Before going on and commenting briefly about the bill, I want to
express my deep appreciation to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), who works hand in glove with me in developing this bill,
always, but particularly in this very difficult year with the
challenges we face in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that this work would not have been able to
have been carried forward in this timely fashion without the help of
our very fine staff, Kevin Roper particularly, on my side, and a
variety and mix of other fine staff members. I will let the gentleman
from Pennsylvania talk about his fantastic staff on his own.
But in the meantime, rather than going into great deal about the bill
at this point in time, let me say that we have made every effort to
fully fund the personnel needs that we face in this challenging world,
such as a modest pay raise for our men and women who make up our
forces, and funding the
[[Page 17131]]
health care programs that are so vital to their needs, as well as their
housing challenges.
We are also providing funding to make certain as we go about being
successful in this war on terrorism we also are laying the foundation
for America's leading the world in a way that will preserve peace for
all of us.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert the following
tabular summary of the bill.
[[Page 17132]]
[[Page 17133]]
[[Page 17134]]
[[Page 17135]]
[[Page 17136]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a completely bipartisan bill, as the Chairman
mentioned. Staff has worked diligently on working the details. We have
worked with all the Members. We spent a lot of time asking Members for
their input. We got a lot more input than we could afford, but we have
done the best we could do with the amount that we had.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just rise in strong support of
this bill and to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
Mr. Chairman, when they mentioned the ability of the staff, they are
exactly right. This bill, while it is nearly half of all discretionary
spending, is not half of all government spending, because mandatories
take up two-thirds of the spending. But this bill is half of the
discretionary spending, and this subcommittee does a tremendous job in
allocating it in a proper way.
I am just in very strong support of this, and I compliment the
leadership of the subcommittee.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the House
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Democrat for
their leadership in bringing this bill to the House Floor.
I would like to express my appreciation for the continued funding of
the Joint Diabetes Project in Army RDT&E, Medical Advanced Technology.
This project, a collaborative effort of DOD, VA and Joslin Diabetes
Center, is bringing advanced, state of the art diabetes detection, care
and prevention to large portions of the DOD and VA patient populations.
The Joslin Vision Network, enhanced by the Comprehensive Diabetes
Management Program, has been proven to reduce costs while providing
improved care.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
National defense is important to all of us. This bill, however, will
neither ensure our defense nor promote the general welfare, two of the
central obligations of this government.
At over $368 billion, this bill expends scarce resources in Cold War
era weapons systems. It spends another $9 billion on missile defense, a
17-percent increase over last year. This represents another heavy
installment on what may be a bottomless pit of spending.
This spending comes at real costs. To put this in perspective, last
year, according to the National Priorities Project, the people of
California paid $859 million in tax dollars that were spent on missile
defense.
That money could have paid to allow another 106,000 children to
enroll in Head Start. It could have extended healthcare coverage to
nearly half a million children. It could have created over 12,000 new
units of affordable housing. Or it could have hired nearly 15,000
elementary school teachers.
And this year we are spending 17 percent more. That's a misplaced
priority. And it is not the ticket to national security.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would
like to take a quick moment to compliment the work done by the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee. As a new member of this subcommittee, I
have been thoroughly impressed by the professional and unified way in
which this committee conducts its difficult responsibilities. My
Chairman, Mr. Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha, and their staffs are to be
commended on the difficult work of putting together a fair and balanced
bill, while being under such a tight allocation constraint.
I would like to call attention to an item in the Defense Health
Programs that I believe is noteworthy. Under the committee's action,
there are resources allocated for muscular dystrophy research and the
muscle research consortium. This research has significant applications
for our military in terms of human muscle strength, and the
implications for combating bioterrorism through better understanding of
how motor neurons and muscle tissue are impacted by biotoxins. It is
important that this program be shared in a collaborative consortium of
the nation's four preeminent muscle research facilities and a national
clinical trials network. More importantly, as the author of the
Muscular Dystrophy CARE Act signed into law by President Bush in 2001,
I am acutely aware of the tremendous needs for translational research
regarding the scourge of childhood muscular dystrophy, and I am
encouraged that appropriations such as this will bring hope to
thousands of families who suffer much and deserve their fair share of
Federal research dollars.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my concerns that funds
from the Department of Defense budget could be used to provide
universal health care coverage for the Iraqi people.
I understand that it may be necessary to care for Iraqi citizens
injured in the war, but if we're going to provide universal health care
to the Iraqi population we should do the same for our citizens here at
home.
The 41.2 million Americans who lack health insurance coverage should
not have to suffer from lack of quality health care any longer. And our
soldiers fighting in Iraq, who will soon become veterans, should not be
denied future health care and should not have to worry about whether
their families will receive health care coverage now or in the future.
I had intended to offer an amendment to the 2004 Defense
Appropriations bill to require that the U.S. provide funds only for the
war-related health care needs of Iraqi citizens, and not for the
universal health care services currently being offered for Iraq,
however, I understood that my amendment may not have been ruled in
order.
Instead of offering an amendment, therefore, I urge my colleagues to
consider my position in opposition to universal care service for Iraqis
until universal health is provided to all Americans. As Congress
continues to address the future health care funding needs related to
U.S. involvement in Iraq, I will continue to pursue opportunities to
offer amendments which provide for universal health care here in the
U.S.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the
critical health care needs of all Americans are adequately met before
we commit to providing universal health care services in Iraq. I remain
dedicated to providing affordable and accessible health care for U.S.
citizens first.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2658, the
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This piece of
legislation is perhaps the most important component of our wartime
budget for America. It is the third bill we are considering pursuant to
the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June
17. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels
established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted as its fiscal
blueprint on April 10. The budget resolution provided $400.1 billion in
discretionary budget authority for the national defense function. This
bill funds the bulk of that commitment. The rest is funded in the
military construction bill, which the House already passed on June 26,
and the energy and water bill.
H.R. 2658 provides $368.662 billion in new discretionary budget
authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. This is a 1.2-percent increase
from the previous year, but builds on a 5-year average annual growth
rate of 7.2 percent for defense appropriations. The bill contains no
emergency-designated new budget authority, but does include $2.14
billion worth of rescissions from previously enacted appropriations.
Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act,
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays
established in the budget resolution.
This bill represents the House's support for the more than 165,000
U.S. troops performing difficult and dangerous duty in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The bill contains the largest research and development
funding ever, and the largest procurement funding since 1990. H.R. 2658
also funds a range of military pay raises up to 6.25 percent, as
previously provided for in the Defense Authorization Bill.
I would add one note of caution: the Pentagon has confirmed in a
letter to me that the press reports claiming that DOD cannot account
for some of the supplemental funding since September 11, 2001, are
essentially correct. Accordingly, it is essential that this body adhere
to budget rules, carefully examine budget requests, and diligently
conduct oversight to ensure defense resources are used efficiently.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2658.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in strong
support of H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
FY 2004. I applaud the bipartisan effort that has brought this vital
and carefully
[[Page 17137]]
balanced legislation to the floor, and regret that I was unavoidably
detained in my home State and, therefore, not able to cast my vote in
favor of this bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
this extremely important legislation.
The bill before the House today deserves the strong support of every
Member as it continues the efforts of Congress to ensure that our
nation's military is ready for the challenges of the 21st century. As
has been repeatedly demonstrated during our ongoing confrontation with
terrorists and tyrants around the world, these challenges are as
daunting as any our great nation has ever faced. I am gratified that my
colleagues understand that our security and the defense of freedom must
remain above the partisan fray and demand our full commitment.
We have been thrust into an age of warfare that demands heretofore
unimaginable speed, complexity and flexibility for our fighting
machines and the men and women who design, build and operate them. This
bill provides for the most forward-looking technology in our aircraft,
ships, ground weapons and missile defense. We must press forward in
developing leading edge technology, looking not only to the needs of
today but to 2020, 2050 and beyond.
The most crucial commitment we must fulfill, however, is the one we
make to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who remain
unquestionably the foundation for the United States' continuing status
as the world's sole superpower, unrivaled in our ability to defend and
support freedom anywhere in the world.
The funding provided in this bill is critical to ensuring that the
brave men and women in our armed services have the tools and resources
necessary to accomplish a swift, sure and decisive victory over tyranny
and oppression across the globe. The best of America, and thousands of
the best from my home state of Texas--our men and women in uniform,
active duty and reserve components alike--are now in harm's way in Iraq
and Afghanistan, on the high seas and at the far corners of the world.
These brave Americans now risk their lives to confront the oppression,
tyranny, and terrorism that plague and threaten the world and our
nation.
Through our support of this bill, Mr. Chairman, we show our
unequivocal support for our military men and women by providing them
with improved pay and benefits and better working and living
conditions. We can never do enough to compensate these dedicated men
and women for their sacrifices in defense of our freedom, but this bill
represents continuing movement in the right direction.
One of this nation's finest traditions is our support of our men and
women in uniform. American forces, whether deployed here at home or
across the globe, fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of
national pride. American soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines are
engaged in combat today so that our people do not live in a world in
which tyrants armed with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage,
and in doing so threaten freedom itself.
Accordingly, it is our solemn obligation to stand solidly behind our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and to give our men and women in
uniform the full and complete support they must have in order to
prevail in this war and come safely home. This appropriations bill is
an appropriate step in fulfilling our obligation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to lend their full support for
H.R. 2658. Our nation's service men and women deserve no less.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as we debate this appropriations
bill today, we should recall the words of our President, George W.
Bush, shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. He stated:
``America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much to be grateful
for. But we are not spared from suffering. In every generation, the
world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked
America, because we are freedom's home and defender.''
Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us today is our answer to those
who would attack America. This is a strong legislative product--one
that reflects well on the Committee on Appropriations, I want to
commend you, Chairman, Lewis, Chairman Young and Ranking Members Obey
and Murtha for your leadership.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider this important legislation, we must
remain mindful that our troops are in the field--brave men and women
fighting a new kind of war, as we speak.
It is a war fought with new technology in a land that is very old
world.
It is a war that had Forward Air Controllers riding horseback and
calling in strikes from laptop computers.
This is a war being fought from our ships stationed 700 miles from
targets.
This is a war that utilizes B-52s and B-2s and B1Bs for precision
targeting, but it is also a war that calls for our troops to go from
cave to cave or building to building to seek out the enemy. It is a war
whose enemy is difficult to identify.
At the same time as our men and women are in action in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other scattered locations, the leadership of the
Department of Defense continues its wide-ranging transformation of the
methods and missions and capabilities of our fighting forces.
In this context, America's armed forces have been charged with
developing the capabilities to fight jointly with coalition partners to
secure victory across the full spectrum of warfare while continuing the
transition to a more flexible, more agile, lighter and more lethal
force.
Of course, our goal is to provide a new level of efficiency and
protection to our warfighter so that they may fight--and win--the new
kind of wars that will face the United States of America in coming
years.
Mr. Chairman, we are a peaceful people. But recent months have shown
the world that we will fight anywhere to defend our national security.
The men and women of our armed forces have made us proud. For them--
and their families--I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 26, 2003, the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2658
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, for military functions
administered by the Department of Defense and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active
duty, (except members of reserve components provided for
elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42
U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $28,233,436,000.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill through page 116, line 19, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 2, line 15, through page 116, line 19,
is as follows:
Military Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active
duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere),
midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to
section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402
note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund, $23,052,001,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on
active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for
elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of
Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to
the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$8,962,197,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities,
[[Page 17138]]
permanent change of station travel (including all expenses
thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of
temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for
members of the Air Force on active duty (except members of
reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and
aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of
Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to
the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$23,121,003,000.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers'
Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of
title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$3,568,625,000.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy
Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $1,983,153,000.
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine
Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $571,444,000.
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve
Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section
16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to
the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$1,267,888,000.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
National Guard while on duty under sections 10211, 10302, or
12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States
Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of
title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $5,382,719,000.
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air
National Guard on duty under sections 10211, 10305, or 12402
of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code,
or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10
or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,140,598,000.
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law;
and not to exceed $11,034,000 can be used for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be
made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $24,903,992,000: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than
$355,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional
ammunition care and maintenance: Provided further, That of
funds made available under this heading, $2,500,000 shall be
available for Fort Baker, in accordance with the terms and
conditions as provided under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', in Public Law 107-117.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps,
as authorized by law; and not to exceed $4,463,000 can be
used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be
expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the
Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes,
$28,060,240,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized
by law, $3,440,456,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by
law; and not to exceed $7,801,000 can be used for emergencies
and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may
be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $26,689,043,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds
available under this heading, $750,000 shall only be
available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to
Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority
aviation training.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the
Department of Defense (other than the military departments),
as authorized by law, $16,124,455,000, of which not to exceed
$25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund
account; and of which not to exceed $34,500,000 can be used
for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on
the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and
payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds
provided in this Act for Civil Military programs under this
heading, $500,000 shall be available for a grant for Outdoor
Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support the Youth
Development and Leadership program and Department of Defense
STARBASE program: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
used to plan or implement the consolidation of a budget or
appropriations liaison office of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a military
department, or the service headquarters of one of the Armed
Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative liaison
office: Provided further, That $4,700,000, to remain
available until expended, is available only for expenses
relating to certain classified activities, and may be
transferred as necessary by the Secretary to operation and
maintenance appropriations or research, development, test and
evaluation appropriations, to be merged with and to be
available for the same time period as the appropriations to
which transferred: Provided further, That any ceiling on the
investment item unit cost of items that may be purchased with
operation and maintenance funds shall not apply to the funds
described in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That
the transfer authority provided under this heading is in
addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere
in this Act.
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$2,031,309,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$1,171,921,000.
[[Page 17139]]
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $173,952,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $2,144,188,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National
Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as
authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army
National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army
National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair,
modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and
equipment (including aircraft), $4,325,231,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard,
including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses
in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and
other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of
facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of
aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor
vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized
by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to
the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and
equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks
under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense;
travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as
authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active
Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while
inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau
regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, $4,424,046,000.
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency
Operations by United States military forces, $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary
of Defense may transfer these funds only to military
personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within
this title; the Defense Health Program appropriation;
procurement accounts; research, development, test and
evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: Provided
further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and
shall be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period, as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That upon determination that all or part of
the funds transferred from this appropriation are not
necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in
addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere
in this Act.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $10,333,000, of which
not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation
purposes.
Environmental Restoration, Army
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $396,018,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Navy
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Navy, $256,153,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Air Force, $384,307,000, to
remain available until transferred: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such
funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction
and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings
and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar
purposes, transfer the funds made available by this
appropriation to other appropriations made available to the
Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of Defense, $24,081,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of Defense,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $221,369,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at
sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense
(consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402,
404, 2547, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code),
$59,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005.
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union,
including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for
facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure
transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other
weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the
proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
related technology and expertise; for programs relating to
the training and support of defense and military personnel
for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons
components and weapons technology and expertise, and for
defense and military contacts, $450,800,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006.
[[Page 17140]]
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$2,180,785,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Missile Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,533,462,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including
ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for
the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes, $1,956,504,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That of the
funds made available under this heading, $35,000,000 shall be
available only for advance procurement items for the fifth
and sixth Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by
section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,355,466,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Other Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked
combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; and the purchase of 4 vehicles required for
physical security of personnel, notwithstanding price
limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to
exceed $180,000 per vehicle; communications and electronic
equipment; other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training
devices; expansion of public and private plants, including
the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$4,547,596,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway, $9,030,148,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2006.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and
related support equipment including spare parts, and
accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and
procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and
Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$2,205,634,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by
section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$941,855,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition,
or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including
armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and
machine tools and installation thereof in public and private
plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime
components and designs for vessels to be constructed or
converted in the future; and expansion of public and private
plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
Carrier Replacement Program, $1,186,564,000;
Virginia Class Submarine, $2,123,221,000;
SSGN Conversion, $1,167,300,000;
Cruiser Conversion, $194,440,000;
CVN Refueling Overhauls, $367,832,000;
Submarine Refueling Overhauls, $123,372,000;
DDG-51, $3,198,311,000;
LHD-1 Amphibious Assault Ship, $355,006,000;
LPD-17, $1,367,034,000;
Minehunter, SWATH, $9,000,000;
Service Craft, $39,480,000;
Landing Craft Air Cushion, LCAC, $73,087,000;
Prior Year Shipbuilding Program, $899,502,000; and
For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first
destination transportation, $348,949,000.
In all: $11,453,098,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2008: Provided, That additional
obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2008, for
engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such
budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of
ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading for the construction or
conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards
in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities
for the construction of major components of such vessel:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading shall be used for the construction of any naval
vessel in foreign shipyards.
Other Procurement, Navy
For procurement, production, and modernization of support
equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy
ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and
ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of 2
vehicles required for physical security of personnel,
notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger
carrying vehicles but not to exceed $245,000 per unit;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway, $4,784,742,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2006.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture,
and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment,
appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in
public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and
[[Page 17141]]
contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine
Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants,
including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
$1,200,499,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft
and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized
ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$11,877,051,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of
missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment,
including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public
and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$4,235,505,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by
section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,279,725,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2006.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For procurement and modification of equipment (including
ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground
electronic and communication equipment), and supplies,
materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided
for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, and the purchase of 1 vehicle required for physical
security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations
applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $243,000
per vehicle; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion
of public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway, $11,195,159,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2006.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary
for procurement, production, and modification of equipment,
supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise
provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, including not to exceed 3 passenger motor
vehicles for the Defense Security Service; the purchase of 4
vehicles required for physical security of personnel,
notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger
vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 per vehicle; expansion of
public and private plants, equipment, and installation
thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and
acquisition of land for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway, $3,803,776,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2006.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement
for the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $100,000,000,
to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard
components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment
of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense
committees the modernization priority assessment for their
respective Reserve or National Guard component.
Defense Production Act Purchases
For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to
sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093),
$67,516,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $10,186,272,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2005: Provided,
That of the amounts provided under this heading, $10,000,000
for Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research in
program element 0602787A, shall remain available until
expended.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $14,666,239,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2005: Provided,
That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available
for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational
requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided
further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be
available for the Cobra Judy program.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $20,704,267,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2005.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, $18,763,791,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2005.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith, $293,661,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2005.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,721,507,000.
National Defense Sealift Fund
For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the
necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $1,066,462,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this
paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides
for the acquisition of any of the following major components
unless such components are manufactured in the United States:
auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard
services; propulsion system components (that is; engines,
reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and
spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the
exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the
obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be
considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the military department
responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions
in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely
[[Page 17142]]
basis and that such an acquisition must be made in order to
acquire capability for national security purposes: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$6,500,000 of the funds available under this heading shall be
available in addition to other amounts otherwise available,
only to finance the cost of constructing additional sealift
capacity.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and
health care programs of the Department of Defense, as
authorized by law, $15,613,159,000, of which $14,874,037,000
shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to
exceed 2 percent shall remain available until September 30,
2005; of which $328,826,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2006, shall be for
Procurement; and of which $410,296,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2005, shall be for
Research, development, test and evaluation.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, $1,533,261,000, of which $1,199,168,000
shall be for Operation and maintenance to remain available
until September 30, 2005; $79,212,000 shall be for
Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2006;
$254,881,000 shall be for Research, development, test and
evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2005; and
no more than $132,677,000 may be for the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program, of which $44,168,000 shall be
for activities on military installations and $88,509,000
shall be to assist state and local governments.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
(including transfer of funds)
For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and
maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development,
test and evaluation, $817,371,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for
obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this
Act.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $162,449,000, of which
$160,049,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; and of which $300,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2005, shall be for
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and of which
$2,100,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006,
shall be for Procurement.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding
level for continuing the operation of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System,
$226,400,000.
Intelligence Community Management Account
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account, $170,640,000, of which $26,081,000 for
the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated under this heading, $46,100,000 shall be
transferred to the Department of Justice for the National
Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of
Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of
the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain
available until September 30, 2006 and $1,000,000 for
Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That
the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the
personnel and technical resources to provide timely support
to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community
by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials
collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement
activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and
national security investigations and operations.
National Security Education Trust Fund
For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183,
$8,000,000, to be derived from the National Security
Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not
apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided,
That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire
foreign national employees of the Department of Defense
funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the
percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees
of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the
provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or
at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by
the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever
is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to Department of Defense foreign service national
employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose
pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign
Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations
of this provision shall not apply to foreign national
employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of
Turkey.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in
this Act which are limited for obligation during the current
fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of
the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve
components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers'
Training Corps.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided
further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further,
That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using
authority provided in this section must be made prior to May
31, 2004.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in
working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between
working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and
Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may
be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such
transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has
notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in
amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital
funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a
working capital fund to procure or increase
[[Page 17143]]
the value of war reserve material inventory, unless the
Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress prior to any
such obligation.
Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional
defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no
part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be
available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the
economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at
least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided
further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement
contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value
of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless
specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no
multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
day prior notification to the congressional defense
committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear
authority shall require the use of a present value analysis
to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for
multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
F/A-18 aircraft;
E-2C aircraft; and
Tactical Tomahawk missile.
Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported
as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States
Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and
maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and
similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated
states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free
Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided
further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the
Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical
education programs conducted at Army medical facilities
located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize
the provision of medical services at such facilities and
transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable
basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2004, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2005 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 2005.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the
Department of Defense to exceed, outside the 50 United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia,
125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be
applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided
further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring
programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in
this workyear limitation.
Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8013. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member
of the Army participating as a full-time student and
receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when
time spent as a full-time student is credited toward
completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this
subsection shall not apply to those members who have
reenlisted with this option prior to October 1, 1987:
Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active
components of the Army.
Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to convert to contractor performance an activity
or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more
than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees unless such
conversion is based on the result of a public-private
competition that includes a most efficient and cost effective
organization plan developed by such activity or function and
the Competitive Sourcing Official certifies that the
projected savings of the competition exceed the minimum
conversion differential for such activity or function:
Provided, That this section shall not apply in circumstances
in which the Department of Defense publishes in the Federal
Register a determination that compliance would have an
adverse impact on national security: Provided further, That
this section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C.
2461 shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type
function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is included
on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of
the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), popularly referred
to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is planned to be
converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for
the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other
severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act;
or (3) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified firm under 51 percent ownership by an Indian tribe,
as defined in section 450b(e) of title 25, United States
Code, or a Native Hawaiian organization, as defined in
section 637(a)(15) of title 15, United States Code.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating,
quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the
forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That
for the purpose of this section substantially all of the
components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to
be produced or manufactured in the United States if the
aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in
the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the
components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
Sec. 8017. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or TRICARE shall be available
for the reimbursement of any health care provider for
inpatient mental health service for care received when a
patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health
care or residential treatment care by a medical or health
care professional having an economic interest in the facility
to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this
limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental
health services provided under the program for persons with
disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title
10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or
provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of
Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of
the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who
is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules
prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the
appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of
services required by the patient, and the availability of
that care.
Sec. 8018. (a) During the current fiscal year and
hereafter, the Secretary of Defense may, by executive
agreement, establish with the government of any North
Atlantic Treaty Organization member nation a separate account
into which residual value amounts negotiated with that nation
in the return of United States military installations in that
[[Page 17144]]
nation may be deposited, in lieu of direct monetary transfers
to the United States Treasury. Any such deposit may be made
in the currency of the host nation. Amounts in such an
account shall be treated as credits to that host nation and
may be used only as specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts deposited by a host nation in an account as
provided for in an agreement under subsection (a) may be
used--
(1) subject to subsection (c), for the construction of
facilities to support United States military forces in that
host nation; or
(2) for such real property maintenance and base operating
costs at United States military installations in that host
nation that are currently executed through monetary transfers
to such host nation.
(c) A military construction project may be executed from an
account established under this section only if the project
has been previously authorized by law.
(d) In the budget justification materials submitted to
Congress in support of the President's budget for the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense shall identify--
(1) amounts anticipated to be received during that fiscal
year in residual value settlements under this section; and
(2) such construction, real property maintenance, and base
operating costs that shall be funded by the host nation
during that fiscal year through such credits under an
agreement under this section.
(e)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall report any executive
agreement with a NATO member nation under this section to the
congressional committees specified in paragraph (2) not less
than 30 days before the conclusion and endorsement of the
agreement.
(2) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
Sec. 8019. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1
Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles,
.30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
Sec. 8020. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used during a single
fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization,
unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into
or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional
defense committees that such a relocation is required in the
best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8021. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive
payments authorized by Section 504 of the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime
contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a
subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined
in 25 U.S.C. 1544 or a small business owned and controlled by
an individual defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9) shall be
considered a contractor for the purposes of being allowed
additional compensation under section 504 of the Indian
Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the prime
contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and involves
the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act making
Appropriations for the Department of Defense with respect to
any fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding 41
U.S.C. Sec. 430, this section shall be applicable to any
Department of Defense acquisition of supplies or services,
including any contract and any subcontract at any tier for
acquisition of commercial items produced or manufactured, in
whole or in part by any subcontractor or supplier defined in
25 U.S.C. Sec. 1544 or a small business owned and controlled
by an individual defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9).
Sec. 8022. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the
provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed
exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study
with respect to a single function activity or 48 months after
initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
Sec. 8023. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American
Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national
or international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8024. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates
for civilian employees hired for certain health care
occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
Sec. 8025. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall afford
qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely
handicapped the maximum practicable opportunity to
participate as subcontractors and suppliers in the
performance of contracts for the procurement of supplies or
services that are let by the Department of Defense using
funds appropriated for military functions of the Department
of Defense (other than for military construction or military
family housing).
(b) A business concern that has negotiated with the
Secretary of a military department or the director of a
Defense Agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by
small business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward
meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchase made from a
qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely
handicapped.
(c) For the purpose of this section, the term ``qualified
nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely
handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind, or a
nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped, that has
been approved by the Committee for the Purchase from the
Blind and Other Severely Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-
O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48).
(d) This section shall apply during the current fiscal year
and hereafter.
Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, net receipts
pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to
section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made
available to the local facility of the uniformed services
responsible for the collections and shall be over and above
the facility's direct budget amount.
Sec. 8027. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriations or fund which incurred such
obligations.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8028. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not
less than $32,758,000 shall be available for the Civil Air
Patrol Corporation, of which--
(1) $21,432,000 shall be available from ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol
Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug
activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving
youth programs;
(2) $10,540,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $786,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement,
Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) Notwithstanding section 9445 of title 10, United States
Code, or any other provision of law, of the funds made
available to the Civil Air Patrol Corporation in this Act
under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', not
more than $770,000 may be transferred by the Secretary of the
Air Force to the ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force''
appropriation to be merged with and to be available for
administrative expenses incurred by the Air Force in the
administration of Civil Air Patrol Corporation. Funds so
transferred shall be available for the same period as the
appropriation to which transferred.
(c) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive
reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for
counter-drug activities in support of Federal State, and
local government agencies.
Sec. 8029. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
are available to establish a new Department of Defense
(department) federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity
administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or
as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a
consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
(b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers,
Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or
any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant
to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical
advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services
as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more
than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of
any such entity referred to previously in this subsection
shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized
under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in
the performance of membership duties.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds available to the department from any source during
fiscal year 2004 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a
fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new
buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by
Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or
for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee
participation in community service and/or development.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
funds available to the department during fiscal year 2004,
not more than 6,321 staff years of technical effort (staff
years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of
the specific amount referred to previously in this
subsection, not more than 1,050 staff years may be funded for
the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs.
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of
the department's fiscal year 2005 budget request, submit a
report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of
technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC
during that fiscal year.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
total amount appropriated in
[[Page 17145]]
this Act for FFRDCs is hereby reduced by $74,200,000.
Sec. 8030. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada:
Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to
any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for the procurement may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8031. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
Sec. 8032. (a) During the current fiscal year and
hereafter, the Department of Defense may acquire the
modification, depot maintenance, and repair of aircraft,
vehicles, and vessels, as well as the production of
components and other Defense-related articles, through
competition between Department of Defense depot maintenance
activities and private firms.
(b) In the case of a competition conducted under this
section, the Senior Acquisition Executive of the military
department or Defense Agency concerned shall certify that the
successful bid includes comparable estimates of all direct
and indirect costs for bids submitted both by Department of
Defense depot maintenance activities and by private firms.
The authority of the Senior Acquisition Executive under this
section may be delegated.
(c) Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 shall not
apply to a competition conducted under this section.
Sec. 8033. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding,
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the
Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 2004. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other
purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 8034. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain
available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result
of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense
shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal
year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section
2865 of title 10, United States Code.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8035. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year
to the special account established under 40 U.S.C.
572(b)(5)(A) and to the special account established under 10
U.S.C. 2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available
until transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current
applicable appropriations or funds of the Department of
Defense under the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C.
572(b)(5)(B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with
and to be available for the same time period and the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 8036. The President shall include with each budget for
a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify
clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget
for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and
expenses related to administrative activities of the
Department of Defense, the military departments, and the
defense agencies.
Sec. 8037. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines
program.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8038. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8039. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey
at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian
tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units
located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force
Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
(b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing
units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for
such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the
Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes
located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
and Minnesota.
(c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation
Walking Shield program shall resolve any conflicts among
requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection
(a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air
Force under subsection (b).
(d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included
on the current list published by the Secretary of the
Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25
U.S.C. 479a-1).
Sec. 8040. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than
$250,000.
Sec. 8041. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Department of
Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase
of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new
inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the
current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an
item would not have been chargeable to the Department of
Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and
if the purchase of such an investment item would be
chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations
made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2005 Department of
Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified
as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation
contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed
fiscal year 2005 procurement appropriation and not in the
supply management business area or any other area or category
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
Sec. 8042. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 2005: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or
otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central
Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or
subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred
to the Central Intelligence Agency for agent operations and
for covert action programs authorized by the President under
section 503 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended,
shall remain available until September 30, 2005.
Sec. 8043. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8044. Of the funds appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', not less than $10,000,000 shall be made
[[Page 17146]]
available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts,
including training and technical assistance to tribes,
related administrative support, the gathering of information,
documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system
for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete
estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from
Department of Defense activities.
Sec. 8045. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the
Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An
Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for
other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et
seq.).
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with
appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of
the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in
expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made
equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment
and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and
available in a timely fashion.
Sec. 8046. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support:
Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts
in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to
improvements of equipment that is in development or
production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of
the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the
Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the
interest of the national defense.
Sec. 8047. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and
(c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used--
(1) to establish a field operating agency; or
(2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or
civilian employee of the department who is transferred or
reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or
employee's place of duty remains at the location of that
headquarters.
(b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military
department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a
case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver
will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial
requirements of the department.
(c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies
funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
Sec. 8048. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487
or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air
Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f), for
commercial, industrial or other purposes: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
the Navy may remove hazardous materials from facilities,
buildings, and structures at Adak, Alaska, and may demolish
or otherwise dispose of such facilities, buildings, and
structures.
(rescissions)
Sec. 8049. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts:
``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 2003/2005'', $47,100,000;
``Other Procurement, Army, 2003/2005'', $8,000,000;
``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2002/2006'',
$25,600,000;
``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2003/2005'', $27,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2003/2005'', $30,000,000;
and
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2003/
2004'', $1,650,000.
Sec. 8050. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
(civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
(civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct
result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8051. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, funds
appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members
of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan
submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the
Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United
States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such
duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State
command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall
be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of
sections 12602(a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8053. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and
maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands
and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of
pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be
incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and
Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve
provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to
Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence
Activities, including the activities and programs included
within the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP), the
Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), and the Tactical
Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) aggregate:
Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes deviation
from established Reserve and National Guard personnel and
training procedures.
Sec. 8054. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the
civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to
military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2002
level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive
this section by certifying to the congressional defense
committees that the beneficiary population is declining in
some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be
consistent with responsible resource stewardship and
capitation-based budgeting.
Sec. 8055. (a) Limitation on Pentagon Renovation Costs.--
Not later than the date each year on which the President
submits to Congress the budget under section 1105 of title
31, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a certification that the total cost for the
planning, design, construction, and installation of equipment
for the renovation of wedges 2 through 5 of the Pentagon
Reservation, cumulatively, will not exceed four times the
total cost for the planning, design, construction, and
installation of equipment for the renovation of wedge 1.
(b) Annual Adjustment.--For purposes of applying the
limitation in subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the
cost for the renovation of wedge 1 by any increase or
decrease in costs attributable to economic inflation, based
on the most recent economic assumptions issued by the Office
of Management and Budget for use in preparation of the budget
of the United States under section 1104 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Exclusion of Certain Costs.--For purposes of
calculating the limitation in subsection (a), the total cost
for wedges 2 through 5 shall not include--
(1) any repair or reconstruction cost incurred as a result
of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon that occurred on
September 11, 2001;
(2) any increase in costs for wedges 2 through 5
attributable to compliance with new requirements of Federal,
State, or local laws; and
(3) any increase in costs attributable to additional
security requirements that the Secretary of Defense considers
essential to provide a safe and secure working environment.
(d) Certification Cost Reports.--As part of the annual
certification under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
report the projected cost (as of the time of the
certification) for--
(1) the renovation of each wedge, including the amount
adjusted or otherwise excluded for such wedge under the
authority of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) for the
period covered by the certification; and
(2) the repair and reconstruction of wedges 1 and 2 in
response to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon that
occurred on September 11, 2001.
(e) Duration of Certification Requirement.--The requirement
to make an annual certification under subsection (a) shall
apply until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the
renovation of the Pentagon Reservation is completed.
Sec. 8056. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that
not more than 35 percent of funds provided in this Act for
environmental remediation may be obligated under
[[Page 17147]]
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with a
total contract value of $130,000,000 or higher.
Sec. 8057. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8058. Appropriations available in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for
increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings
may, during their period of availability, be transferred to
other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense
for projects related to increasing energy and water
efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the
same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation or fund to which transferred.
Sec. 8059. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic
origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military
department responsible for such procurement may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction
shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as
defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball
or roller bearings purchased as end item.
Sec. 8060. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made
available to provide transportation of medical supplies and
equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and
funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made
available to provide transportation of medical supplies and
equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health
Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military
project.
Sec. 8061. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Naval shipyards of the United States shall be eligible to
participate in any manufacturing extension program financed
by funds appropriated in this or any other Act.
Sec. 8063. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each
contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the
current fiscal year for construction or service performed in
whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of
title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with
another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the
national average rate of unemployment as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the
contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that
portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous
with another State, individuals who are residents of such
State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or
would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the
requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the
interest of national security.
Sec. 8064. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or
employee of the Department of Defense who approves or
implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or
budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity
financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal
agency not financed by this Act without the express
authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation
shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for
in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 8065. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles
and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for
the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to
transfer to another nation or an international organization
any defense articles or services (other than intelligence
services) for use in the activities described in subsection
(b) unless the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
(1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
(c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8066. To the extent authorized by subchapter VI of
chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of
Defense may issue loan guarantees in support of United States
defense exports not otherwise provided for: Provided, That
the total contingent liability of the United States for
guarantees issued under the authority of this section may not
exceed $15,000,000,000: Provided further, That the exposure
fees charged and collected by the Secretary for each
guarantee shall be paid by the country involved and shall not
be financed as part of a loan guaranteed by the United
States: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide
quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed
Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and
International Relations in the House of Representatives on
the implementation of this program: Provided further, That
amounts charged for administrative fees and deposited to the
special account provided for under section 2540c(d) of title
10, shall be available for paying the costs of administrative
expenses of the Department of Defense that are attributable
to the loan guarantee program under subchapter VI of chapter
148 of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 8067. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay
a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee
when--
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.
Sec. 8068. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this Act may be used to transport or
provide for the transportation of chemical munitions or
agents to the Johnston Atoll for the purpose of storing or
demilitarizing such munitions or agents.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any obsolete World War II chemical munition or agent of the
United States found in the World War II Pacific Theater of
Operations.
(c) The President may suspend the application of subsection
(a) during a period of war in which the United States is a
party.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8069. During the current fiscal year, no more than
$30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be
transferred to appropriations available for the pay of
military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available
for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in
connection with support and services for eligible
organizations and activities outside the Department of
Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8070. During the current fiscal year, in the case of
an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for
which the period of availability for obligation has expired
or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative
unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an
adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current
appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or
closed account if--
(1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable
(except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before
the end of the period of availability or closing of that
account;
(2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to
any current appropriation account of the Department of
Defense; and
(3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is
not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department
of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of
[[Page 17148]]
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note):
Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if
subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was
not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in
the account, any charge to a current account under the
authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded
against the expired account: Provided further, That the total
amount charged to a current appropriation under this section
may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total
appropriation for that account.
Sec. 8071. Funds appropriated for the Department of Defense
in this Act or any other Act for the current fiscal year and
hereafter for Operation and Maintenance or for the Defense
Health Program for supervision and administration costs for
facilities maintenance and repair, minor construction, or
design projects may be obligated when the reimbursable order
is accepted by the performing activity. For the purpose of
this section, supervision and administration costs include
all in-house Government costs.
Sec. 8072. (a) During the current fiscal year and
hereafter, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit
the use of equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning
Project by any person or entity on a space-available,
reimbursable basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau
shall establish the amount of reimbursement for such use on a
case-by-case basis.
(b) During the current fiscal year and hereafter, amounts
collected under the subsection (a) shall be credited to funds
then available for the National Guard Distance Learning
Project and shall be available to defray the costs associated
with the use of equipment of the Distance Learning Project
under that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such
purpose without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 8073. Using funds available by this Act or any other
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a
determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States
Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required
heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military
Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That
in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include
the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy
for municipal district heat to the United States Defense
installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army
Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat
may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services,
if provisions are included for the consideration of United
States coal as an energy source.
Sec. 8074. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of
this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to
military forces for operational training, operational use or
inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does
not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and
test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for
operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does
not apply to programs funded within the National Foreign
Intelligence Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by
certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the
national security interest to do so.
Sec. 8075. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced
tactical fighter to any foreign government.
Sec. 8076. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each
limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign
sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the
application of the limitation with respect to that country
would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between
the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would
invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of
defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10,
United States Code, and the country does not discriminate
against the same or similar defense items produced in the
United States for that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (a).
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding
construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings,
food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section
11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and
products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401
through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through
7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211,
8215, and 9404.
Sec. 8077. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to support any training
program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible
information from the Department of State that the unit has
committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all
necessary corrective steps have been taken.
(b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a
decision to conduct any training program referred to in
subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible
information available to the Department of State relating to
human rights violations by foreign security forces.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in
subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required
by extraordinary circumstances.
(d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of
any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees
describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and
duration of the training program, the United States forces
and the foreign security forces involved in the training
program, and the information relating to human rights
violations that necessitates the waiver.
Sec. 8078. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry out a
program to distribute surplus dental equipment of the
Department of Defense, at no cost to the Department of
Defense, to Indian Health Service facilities and to
federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning of
section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396d(l)(2)(B))).
Sec. 8079. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to
develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the
main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are
manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated
entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes or there exists a significant cost or
quality difference.
Sec. 8080. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or other Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military
family housing units of the Department of Defense, including
areas in such military family housing units that may be used
for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense
business.
Sec. 8081. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any
advanced concept technology demonstration project may only be
obligated 30 days after a report, including a description of
the project and its estimated annual and total cost, has been
provided in writing to the congressional defense committees:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the
congressional defense committees that it is in the national
interest to do so.
Sec. 8082. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of establishing all Department of Defense
policies governing the provision of care provided by and
financed under the military health care system's case
management program under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(17), the term
``custodial care'' shall be defined as care designed
essentially to assist an individual in meeting the activities
of daily living and which does not require the supervision of
trained medical, nursing, paramedical or other specially
trained individuals: Provided, That the case management
program shall provide that members and retired members of the
military services, and their dependents and survivors, have
access to all medically necessary health care through the
health care delivery system of the military services
regardless of the health care status of the person seeking
the health care: Provided further, That the case management
program shall be the primary obligor for payment of medically
necessary services and shall not be considered as secondarily
liable to title XIX of the Social Security Act, other welfare
programs or charity based care.
Sec. 8083. During the current fiscal year and hereafter,
refunds attributable to the use of the Government travel
card, refunds attributable to the use of the Government
Purchase Card and refunds attributable to official Government
travel arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management
Centers may be credited to operation and maintenance accounts
of the Department of Defense which are current when the
refunds are received.
Sec. 8084. (a) Registering Financial Management Information
Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a
mission critical or mission essential financial management
information technology system (including a system funded by
the defense working capital fund) that
[[Page 17149]]
is not registered with the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Defense. A system shall be considered to be
registered with that officer upon the furnishing to that
officer of notice of the system, together with such
information concerning the system as the Secretary of Defense
may prescribe. A financial management information technology
system shall be considered a mission critical or mission
essential information technology system as defined by the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
(b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial
Management Modernization Plan.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management
automated information system, a mixed information system
supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system
improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone
A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with
respect to that milestone, that the system is being developed
and managed in accordance with the Department's Financial
Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as
appropriate, with respect to any such system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1).
(c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen
Act.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated
information system may not receive Milestone A approval,
Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that
milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance
with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
The Chief Information Officer may require additional
certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such
system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification
shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and
milestone schedule for each system covered by such a
certification and confirmation that the following steps have
been taken with respect to the system:
(A) Business process reengineering.
(B) An analysis of alternatives.
(C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the
return on investment.
(D) Performance measures.
(E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the
Department's Global Information Grid.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior
official of the Department of Defense designated by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``information technology system'' has the
meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section
5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
Sec. 8085. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to
provide support to another department or agency of the United
States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in
arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for
goods or services previously provided to such department or
agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized
by law to provide support to such department or agency on a
nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support
pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the national security interest to do so.
Sec. 8086. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition
held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire
cartridge and a United States military nomenclature
designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'',
``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing
incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing
demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under
a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing
projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by
the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture
ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of
Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant
to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military
Articles issued by the Department of State.
Sec. 8087. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may
waive payment of all or part of the consideration that
otherwise would be required under 10 U.S.C. 2667, in the case
of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of
1 year to any organization specified in 32 U.S.C. 508(d), or
any other youth, social, or fraternal non-profit organization
as may be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
or his designee, on a case-by-case basis.
Sec. 8088. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity
of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and
wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such
alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military
installation located in the United States unless such malt
beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the
case of the District of Columbia, within the District of
Columbia, in which the military installation is located:
Provided, That in a case in which the military installation
is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in
any State in which the installation is located: Provided
further, That such local procurement requirements for malt
beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages
only for military installations in States which are not
contiguous with another State: Provided further, That
alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in
contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be
procured from the most competitive source, price and other
factors considered.
Sec. 8089. (a) The Department of Defense is authorized to
enter into agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs
and federally-funded health agencies providing services to
Native Hawaiians for the purpose of establishing a
partnership similar to the Alaska Federal Health Care
Partnership, in order to maximize Federal resources in the
provision of health care services by federally-funded health
agencies, applying telemedicine technologies. For the purpose
of this partnership, Native Hawaiians shall have the same
status as other Native Americans who are eligible for the
health care services provided by the Indian Health Service.
(b) The Department of Defense is authorized to develop a
consultation policy, consistent with Executive Order No.
13084 (issued May 14, 1998), with Native Hawaiians for the
purpose of assuring maximum Native Hawaiian participation in
the direction and administration of governmental services so
as to render those services more responsive to the needs of
the Native Hawaiian community.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' means any individual who is a descendant of the
aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now comprises the State of
Hawaii.
Sec. 8090. Funds available to the Department of Defense for
the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year
may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the
satellite and ground control segments of such system's
modernization program.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8091. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $48,000,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer
such funds to other activities of the Federal Government:
Provided further, That of the amounts made available under
the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to
$177,000,000 shall remain available until expended, and is
available for the acquisition of real property, construction,
personal services, and operations, for certain classified
activities, and may be transferred to other appropriations
accounts of the Department of Defense, and notwithstanding
any other provision of law, such funds may be obligated to
carry out projects not otherwise authorized by law: Provided
further, That any funds transferred shall be merged with and
made available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided
further, That the transfer authority provided in this
paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided to the Department of Defense.
Sec. 8092. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to
apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of
Defense in fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 8093. In addition to amounts provided in this Act,
$2,000,000 is hereby appropriated for ``Defense Health
Program'', to remain available for obligation until expended:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
these funds shall be available only for a grant to the Fisher
House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction and
furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs of
military family members when confronted with the illness or
hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
Sec. 8094. Amounts appropriated in title II are hereby
reduced by $172,500,000 to reflect
[[Page 17150]]
savings attributable to improvements in the management of
professional support services, surveys and analysis, and
engineering and technical support contracted by the military
departments, as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $21,500,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $34,400,000.
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'',
$4,300,000.
(4) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$21,300,000.
(5) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'',
$91,000,000.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8095. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'',
$899,502,000 shall be available until September 30, 2004, to
fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That
upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the
amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
To:
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1996/04'':
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program,
$150,300,000;
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1998/04'':
New SSN, $81,060,000;
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1999/04'':
DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $44,420,000;
New SSN, $166,978,000;
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program $86,821,000;
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2000/04'':
DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $69,460,000;
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program $112,778,000;
and
Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2001/04'':
DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $90,313,000; and
New SSN, $97,372,000.
Sec. 8096. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or
compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under 10
U.S.C. 7622 arising out of the collision involving the U.S.S.
GREENEVILLE and the EHIME MARU, in any amount and without
regard to the monetary limitations in subsections (a) and (b)
of that section: Provided, That such payments shall be made
from funds available to the Department of the Navy for
operation and maintenance.
Sec. 8097. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the
provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g) for occupations listed in 38
U.S.C. 7403(a)(2) as well as the following:
Pharmacists, Audiologists, and Dental Hygienists.
(A) The requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(A) shall
apply.
(B) The limitations of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(B) shall not
apply.
Sec. 8098. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2004 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 8099. The total amount appropriated in title II is
hereby reduced by $320,000,000 to reduce cost growth in
information technology development, to be derived as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $60,000,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $100,000,000.
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$100,000,000.
(4) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'',
$60,000,000.
Sec. 8100. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
initiate a new start program without prior notification to
the Office of Secretary of Defense and the congressional
defense committees.
Sec. 8101. The amounts appropriated in title II are hereby
reduced by $539,000,000 to reflect cash balance and rate
stabilization adjustments in Department of Defense Working
Capital Funds, as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $107,000,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $45,000,000.
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$387,000,000.
Sec. 8102. The amount appropriated in title II for
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' is hereby reduced by
$67,000,000 to reduce excess funded carryover.
Sec. 8103. (a) In addition to the amounts provided
elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $5,500,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made
available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant
in the amount of $5,500,000 to the entity specified in
subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to
opportunities for skilled employment in the construction
industry.
(b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center
for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment,
a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided
for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth
in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of
1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
Sec. 8104. (a) During the current fiscal year and
hereafter, funds available to the Secretary of a military
department for Operation and Maintenance may be used for the
purposes stated in subsection (b) to support chaplain-led
programs to assist members of the Armed Forces and their
immediate family members in building and maintaining a strong
family structure.
(b) The purposes referred to in subsection (a) are costs of
transportation, food, lodging, supplies, fees, and training
materials for members of the Armed Forces and their family
members while participating in such programs, including
participation at retreats and conferences.
Sec. 8105. Financing and Fielding of Key Army
Capabilities.--The Department of Defense and the Department
of the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans
to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Objective Force
cannon and resupply vehicle program in order to field this
system in the 2008 timeframe. As an interim capability to
enhance Army lethality, survivability, and mobility for light
and medium forces before complete fielding of the Objective
Force, the Army shall ensure that budgetary and programmatic
plans will provide for no fewer than six Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams to be fielded between 2003 and 2008.
Sec. 8106. (a) Management of Chemical Demilitarization
Activities at Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky.--If a
technology other than the baseline incineration program is
selected for the destruction of lethal chemical munitions
pursuant to section 142 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law
105-261; 50 U.S.C. 1521 note), the program manager for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment shall be responsible
for management of the construction, operation, and closure,
and any contracting relating thereto, of chemical
demilitarization activities at Bluegrass Army Depot,
Kentucky, including management of the pilot-scale facility
phase of the alternative technology.
(b) Management of Chemical Demilitarization Activities at
Pueblo Depot, Colorado.--The program manager for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment shall be responsible
for management of the construction, operation, and closure,
and any contracting relating thereto, of chemical
demilitarization activities at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado,
including management of the pilot-scale facility phase of the
alternative technology selected for the destruction of lethal
chemical munitions.
Sec. 8107. In addition to the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available in this Act, $6,500,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2004, is hereby appropriated to
the Department of Defense: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense shall make grants in the amount of $4,000,000 to the
American Red Cross for Armed Forces Emergency Services; and
$2,500,000 to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Foundation.
Sec. 8108. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund''
may be transferred or obligated for Department of Defense
expenses not directly related to the conduct of overseas
contingencies: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall
submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each
fiscal quarter to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives that details any transfer
of funds from the ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer
Fund'': Provided further, That the report shall explain any
transfer for the maintenance of real property, pay of
civilian personnel, base operations support, and weapon,
vehicle or equipment maintenance.
Sec. 8109. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31,
United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in
this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any
subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the 1
percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the
appropriation.
Sec. 8110. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or
deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense
system.
Sec. 8111. Notwithstanding section 2465 of title 10 U.S.C.,
the Secretary of the Navy may use funds appropriated in title
II of this Act under the heading, ``Operation and
Maintenance, Navy'', to liquidate the expenses incurred for
private security guard services performed at the Naval
Support Unit, Saratoga Springs, New York by Burns
International Security Services, Albany, New York in the
amount of $29,323.35, plus accrued interest, if any.
Sec. 8112. Of the amounts provided in title II of this Act
under the heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide'', $20,000,000 is available for the Regional Defense
[[Page 17151]]
Counter-terrorism Fellowship Program, to fund the education
and training of foreign military officers, ministry of
defense civilians, and other foreign security officials, to
include United States military officers and civilian
officials whose participation directly contributes to the
education and training of these foreign students.
Sec. 8113. (a) Exchange Required.--In exchange for the
private property described in subsection (b), the Secretary
of the Interior shall convey to the Veterans Home of
California--Barstow, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #385E (in
this section referred to as the ``recipient''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of real property consisting of approximately one acre in the
Mojave National Preserve and designated (by section 8137 of
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public
Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2278)) as a national memorial
commemorating United States participation in World War I and
honoring the American veterans of that war. Notwithstanding
the conveyance of the property under this subsection, the
Secretary shall continue to carry out the responsibilities of
the Secretary under such section 8137.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the property to be
conveyed by the Secretary under subsection (a), Mr. and Mrs.
Henry Sandoz of Mountain Pass, California, have agreed to
convey to the Secretary a parcel of real property consisting
of approximately five acres, identified as parcel APN 569-
051-44, and located in the west \1/2\ of the northeast \1/4\
of the northwest \1/4\ of the northwest \1/4\ of section 11,
township 14 north, range 15 east, San Bernardino base and
meridian.
(c) Equal Value Exchange; Appraisal.--The values of the
properties to be exchanged under this section shall be equal
or equalized as provided in subsection (d). The value of the
properties shall be determined through an appraisal performed
by a qualified appraiser in conformance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Department
of Justice, December 2000).
(d) Cash Equalization.--Any difference in the value of the
properties to be exchanged under this section shall be
equalized through the making of a cash equalization payment.
The Secretary shall deposit any cash equalization payment
received by the Secretary under this subsection in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund.
(e) Reversionary Clause.--The conveyance under subsection
(a) shall be subject to the condition that the recipient
maintain the conveyed property as a memorial commemorating
United States participation in World War I and honoring the
American veterans of that war. If the Secretary determines
that the conveyed property is no longer being maintained as a
war memorial, the property shall revert to the ownership of
the United States.
(f) Boundary Adjustment; Administration of Acquired Land.--
The boundaries of the Mojave National Preserve shall be
adjusted to reflect the land exchange required by this
section. The property acquired by the Secretary under this
section shall become part of the Mojave National Preserve and
be administered in accordance with the laws, rules, and
regulations generally applicable to the Mojave National
Preserve.
Sec. 8114. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the
operation of the 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act.
Sec. 8115. The Secretary of the Air Force shall convey,
without consideration, to the Inland Valley Development
Agency all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to certain parcels of real property, including
improvements thereon, located in San Bernardino, California,
that consist of approximately 39 acres and are leased, as of
June 1, 2003, by the Secretary to the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service. The conveyance shall be subject to the
condition that the Inland Valley Development Agency and the
Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service enter
into a lease-back agreement, acceptable to the Director, for
premises required by the Director for support operations
conducted by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Sec. 8116. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2401
of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to enter into a contract for the charter for a
period through fiscal year 2008, of the vessel, RV CORY
CHOUEST (United States Official Number 933435) in support of
the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor (SURTASS) program:
Provided, That funding for this lease shall be from within
funds provided in this Act and future appropriations Acts.
Sec. 8117. In addition to the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $20,000,000 is
hereby appropriated to ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'',
to remain available until September 30, 2004, to be available
only for a grant in the amount of $20,000,000 to the Silver
Valley Unified School District, Silver Valley, California,
for the purpose of school construction at Fort Irwin,
California.
Sec. 8118. Amounts appropriated in title II are hereby
reduced by $294,000,000 to reflect savings attributable to
efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of
miscellaneous or other contracts in the military departments,
as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army,'' $27,000,000;
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy,'' $50,000,000;
and
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
$217,000,000.
Sec. 8119. The amount appropriated in title II for
``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by
$600,000,000 to reflect cash balance and rate stabilization
adjustments in the Department of Defense Transportation
Working Capital Fund.
(rescission)
Sec. 8120. Of the funds made available in chapter 3 of
title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11), under the heading ``Iraq
Freedom Fund'' (117 Stat. 563), $2,000,000,000 is hereby
rescinded.
Sec. 8121. Of the total amount appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide''
to provide assistance to local educational agencies for
children of members of the Armed Forces and Department of
Defense civilian employees with severe disabilities, the
Secretary of Defense may use up to $855,566 to make
additional payment under section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (20
U.S.C. 7703(a)) to those local educational agencies whose
percentage reduction in the payment amount for fiscal year
2002 was in excess of the reduction otherwise imposed under
subsection (d) of such section for that fiscal year. The
Secretary of Defense may waive collection of any overpayment
made to local educational agencies under such section for
fiscal year 2002.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8122. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 8123. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to implement any amendment
or revision of, or cancel, the Department of Defense
Directive 1344.7, ``Personal Commercial Solicitation on DoD
Installations'', until 90 days following the date the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress notice of the
amendment, revision or cancellation, and the reasons
therefore.
Sec. 8124. Limitation on Deployment of Terrorism
Information Awareness Program.--
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except
as provided in paragraph (2), if and when research and
development on the Terrorism Information Awareness program
(formerly known as the Total Information Awareness program),
or any component of such program, permits the deployment or
implementation of such program or component, no department,
agency, or element of the Federal Government may deploy or
implement such program or component, or transfer such program
or component to another department, agency, or element of the
Federal Government, until the Secretary of Defense--
(A) notifies Congress of that development, including a
specific and detailed description of--
(i) each element or component of such program intended to
be deployed or implemented; and
(ii) the method and scope of the intended deployment or
implementation of such program or component (including the
data or information to be accessed or used); and
(B) has received specific authorization by law from
Congress for the deployment or implementation of such program
or component, including--
(i) a specific authorization by law for the deployment or
implementation of such program or component; and
(ii) a specific appropriation by law of funds for the
deployment or implementation of such program or component.
(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to the deployment or implementation of the Terrorism
Information Awareness program, or a component of such
program, in support of the following:
(A) Lawful military operations of the United States
conducted outside the United States.
(B) Lawful foreign intelligence activities conducted wholly
overseas, or wholly against non-United States citizens.
Sec. 8125. (a) Closure of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Navy shall close Naval Station Roosevelt
Roads, Puerto Rico, no later than six months after enactment
of this Act.
(b) Disposal.--
(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall exercise the authority
granted to the Administrator of the General Services pursuant
to section 545 of title 40 and dispose of the real property
and associated personal property at the former Naval Station
by public sale.
[[Page 17152]]
(2) The Secretary of the Navy may transfer excess personal
property or dispose of surplus personal property located at
the installation pursuant to the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 521 et seq.).
(c) The Secretary of the Navy may use funds in the
Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 2906 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990, Public Law 101-510 to implement the closure.
(d) There shall be deposited into the Account referred to
in subsection (c) the proceeds of sale from the disposal of
property authorized by subsection (b) for the benefit of the
Department of the Navy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
{time} 1215
Mr. Chairman, let me confirm that I think this bill will be supported
broadly on both sides of the aisle, and I would simply like to bring
three matters to the attention of the House.
First of all, I really do believe that this institution is going to
have to take a look at the number of commitments that we have worldwide
and compare that to the strain that we have on the available troops for
use under these many commitments. I think anyone who looks at the
situation will understand that we are dangerously close to having an
overextended military; and I think we ought to ask ourselves honestly
if we are going to engage in these many commitments around the world,
do we need to have a larger Army. In my view if we are, then we do. If
we do not intend to enlarge the Army, then I think we must be much more
aggressive in asking our allies to help us deal with some of the
peacekeeping functions that we face, for instance, in Iraq.
Secondly, I do have some misgivings about the funding levels for SDI
in the bill.
Thirdly, I want to talk about something that I think is more
important than any of those considerations. This Subcommittee of
Defense is perhaps the most bipartisan of all appropriations
subcommittees, and the Committee on Appropriations is probably the most
bipartisan committee in the House; and it is in that spirit that I
raise a matter that I think every Member should be aware of because of
its deadly importance. It involves intelligence, specifically the
intelligence gathering and analysis used in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
What I am going to say is based on published reports purportedly
based on interviews with intelligence officials and military officers.
Neither I, nor I suspect anyone in the House of Representatives, knows
the extent to which these reports are accurate so there is no
possibility of disclosing classified material. We have had the staff of
the committee look at the allegations on a bipartisan basis, and I
think it is fair to say, while they do not have enough information to
reach specific conclusions, they do find much of what has been said in
these stories to be credible.
In addition to the CIA, which is an independent agency, there are
four major intelligence organizations inside the Department of Defense.
All of these entities are funded in this bill. The press stories I am
referring to, and I would be glad to provide copies of them to any
Member who is interested, those stories argue that a group of civilian
employees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, all of whom are
political employees, have long been dissatisfied with the information
produced by the established intelligence agencies both inside and
outside the Department. That was particularly true, apparently, with
respect to the situation in Iraq.
As a result, it is reported that they established a special operation
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which was named the
Office of Special Plans. That office was charged with collecting,
vetting, and disseminating intelligence completely outside the normal
intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that the information
collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with the
established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed
on to the National Security Council and the President without having
been vetted with anyone other than OSD political appointees.
It is further alleged that the purpose of this operation was not only
to produce intelligence more in keeping with the preheld views of those
individuals, but to intimidate analysts in the established intelligence
organizations to produce information that was more supportive of policy
decisions which they had already decided to propose. There is
considerable discussion regarding the intelligence relating to weapons
of mass destruction.
I think it would be unfortunate if this issue were subsumed by the
question of whether or not Saddam Hussein had such weapons. First of
all, we do not know at this point. My personal suspicion has always
been that he did. Secondly, measuring the quality of our intelligence
apparatus requires more than determining whether the reporting was
right or wrong on any single issue. Is what was reported consistent
with the best information that was available? Did we reach the right
conclusion based on good information or by happenstance?
These allegations, however, go well beyond the issue of WMDs. It
appears that the individuals in question also challenged the consensus
within the intelligence community on the number of troops that would be
required for a successful invasion. The political appointees within the
Office of the Secretary maintained regular contact with sources within
the Iraqi National Congress, who in turn maintained contact with
sources inside of Iraq.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, based on information transmitted by these
sources, the political appointees argued that the conclusions of the
intelligence community, the Joint Chiefs, and in particular General
Shinseki, were in error and the invasion could be successfully carried
out with fewer than 50,000 troops.
While the chiefs in the end got most of the troops that they
requested, it appears that the invasion was both lighter than they
would have desired and lighter than what was required. The inability to
fully protect supply lines did in fact result in the loss of life. The
shortage of available personnel did leave certain critical sites such
as nuclear facilities unprotected.
We all know this is incredibly serious business. It is important not
only to understand what we did or did not do with respect to Iraq, but
it is far more important in terms of what we will do in the future. How
will the information that the President and the Congress receive on our
options in Korea be put together, for instance? Will the long-
established collection mechanisms, evaluation and dissemination be
used, or will we again fall back on the ad hoc efforts of this self-
appointed group of experts?
It is important to note that these same individuals have established
a new office with an Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. This
office will have more than 100 people, and it is widely believed in the
intelligence community that the office is being created for the express
purpose of pressuring analysts to produce information more supportive
of predetermined policy. I do not know if that is true or not, but the
question remains, Will this office stand between our war fighters and
the information they need? Why did they require this small group of
civilians to employ this kind of a role? Will the Under Secretary
compete with the Director of Central Intelligence in the coordination
of these agencies? All I can say is that we are paying for all of this.
We ought to have the answers.
I would like to ask Members to remember that there was a reason the
National Security Act of 1946 placed all intelligence activities under
the control of one man, the Director of Central Intelligence. General
Hoyt Vandenberg, who himself served as the DCI, explained that decision
in testimony before Congress. He said, ``The joint congressional
committee to investigate the Pearl Harbor attack found failures that
went to the very structure of our
[[Page 17153]]
intelligence organizations, a failure to coordinate the collection and
dissemination of intelligence, and the failure to centralize
intelligence functions of common concern to more than one department of
the government which could more efficiently be performed centrally.'' I
think we need to remember those words, and I think the Congress needs
to dig and dig hard to get to the bottom of this.
I do not, frankly, know what the right structure for gathering and
dissemination of intelligence information ought to be, but I am very
leery of the fact that we have a new operation which can deal with
information without clearing it with anyone else. The reason the system
has served us so well over the past years is because all information
has been vetted with other people who are supposed to know the most
about it. I think it is dangerous when we get away from that practice.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
On page 103, line 9, strike ``$67,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$96,000,000''.
At the end of title VIII (page 116, after line 19), add the
following new seciton:
Sec. __. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this
Act, the following amounts shall be made available for the
purposes specified:
(a) The amount of $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated for
``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', for the
nationwide dedicated fiber optic network program;
(b) The amount of $14,000,000 is hereby appropriated for
``Procurement, Marine Corps'', of which $9,600,000 is for the
AN/PRC-148 tactical handheld radio, and $4,400,000 is for
combat casualty care equipment;
(c) The amount of $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated for
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'',
for low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck
propulsion; and
(d) The amount of $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated for
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'',
for development of novel pharmaceuticals for anthrax.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the minority has seen the
amendment and has no objection. I simply ask for its passage.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', insert after the dollar amount on page
31, line 19, the following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', insert after the dollar amount on
page 33, line 4, the following: ``(reduced by
$100,000,000)''.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved on the amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I come today with deep respect for the
hard work that this subcommittee has done. I think it may be the
toughest subcommittee in the House given the amazing pressures in terms
of the military requirements of our country during a difficult time.
This is a difficult budget, and there are crosscurrents that I cannot
even imagine, but I get a little hint as I look from a distance.
My special interest has been in an area dealing with unexploded
ordnance, being able to protect people at home and abroad from the
consequences of everything from landmines to training munitions that
are unexploded. This has been an area that I have been deeply troubled
with. It is an area that around the country there are potentially
millions of acres in the United States that are so affected; and when
we look at what has happened overseas, whether it is in the war in
Southeast Asia and Vietnam, Afghanistan, what is going on right now in
Iraq, and we just had a boy back home die this week in my community as
a result of efforts trying to clear landmines.
Around the world, over 300 million landmines have been built, and 75
million that have been placed remain undetonated.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
and I have both talked to the gentleman about this issue. We understand
the seriousness of it, and the importance to both the gentleman and to
the country; and we are certainly going to work with the gentleman in
trying to increase the amount of money in the unexploded ordnance area.
We think it is a very important area, and we feel very strongly that
the gentleman is right about it. We do not agree with the amendment,
and we hope it will be withdrawn; but we do think money needs to be
increased in that area.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, echoing the words of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am deeply
appreciative of the spirit of cooperation from the chairman and ranking
member and willingness to work with us. We had made a request initially
of $20 million before the subcommittee. Frankly, as I watched what
moved through the process, I thought we had identified an area with the
new generation of ballistic missile defense interceptor, additional
research that frankly would be a higher priority. But given the strong
encouragement to work with the subcommittee and their willingness to
work with us, I look forward to working with them to make sure that at
least the $20 million is there to protect Americans at home and abroad.
Candidly, Mr. Chairman, it is not just going to save our fighting men
and women. I would just conclude on the notion that every single day
civilians, including a sad number of children, are killed and maimed as
a result of landmines and unexploded munitions. This investment will
reap dividends for generations to come. I deeply appreciate the
cooperation of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In one quick
hour of debate, Congress will spend $368 billion on the military.
Amazingly, this massive sum does not fund our troops in Iraq or
Afghanistan. If we want to use our Armed Forces, the taxpayers will
have to use extra. We all know that the President will be back asking
for more billions of more taxpayer dollars for these operations.
This bill funds the wrong defense priorities that will do little to
provide for a more secure America. It will fund weapons systems that we
all know will not work and will be subject to spiraling upward costs;
and yet we cannot fully fund education needs at home. The only needs
this Congress will take care of today are the profit-gouging defense
contractors. Perhaps we should rename this bill the Lockheed-Martin,
Northrop Grumman, United Defense, Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics
Welfare Act of 2003.
Unlike the Republican majority, I do not believe we should heavily
deficit spend to further enrich defense contractors. We can heavily
invest in education and reduce the deficit by cutting national missile
defense, the F-22
[[Page 17154]]
fighter plane, the V-22 Osprey, space-based weapons and other
unnecessary and wasteful programs.
{time} 1230
I believe we should cancel the national missile defense, a savings of
$8.9 billion, because it reduces our security here at home, it steals
money for more effective security options, and because it will not work
as promised, it leaves us more vulnerable.
National missile defense does not work. It has failed three tests
that were much simpler than real-life scenarios. It will not be subject
to a real-life test before deployment in 2004. The only conclusion I
can draw is that proponents do not care. They do not care if this
weapons system works and it harms rather than protects Americans. Any
country that decides to attack the United States with nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons is more likely to use a less expensive
and more covert delivery method than long-range missiles, such as
smuggling it on a ship or a truck.
National missile defense would offer no protection against such an
attack, and because we waste so much money on this system, we leave our
homeland security system underfunded and unable to protect from real
threats. We can also significantly reduce our ship-building programs
funded at $11.5 billion. Our Navy is not threatened by any other navy;
yet it offers little protection from today's real threats. We would do
far more for our Nation's security by shifting some of these funds to
the Coast Guard.
It would immediately save lives to cancel the V-22 aircraft program,
a savings of $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2004. This aircraft has killed
30 Marines because it has an unsafe design that cannot be relied upon.
I cannot support funds for such a program.
The F-22 fighter plane is a relic of the Cold War that suits no
purpose in a modern Air Force. Our current airfighters are more than
capable and far less expensive. The F-22 continues to be subject to
massive cost overruns and continued development problems, making it an
unaffordable plane. The $3.6 billion saved in fiscal year 2004 would
raise a lot of teachers' salaries, providing our children with better
education.
I believe we should roll back our spending in research and
development of unnecessary expensive weapons systems such as Army's
Comanche helicopter, a savings of $1.1 billion; the Joint Strike
Fighter, a savings of $4.2 billion; the Space-Based Infra-Red System, a
savings of $617 million; and the Space-Based Radar, a savings of $174
million.
Do we want to start a new war in space, or do we want to finish the
struggle against deteriorating public schools? I believe we can do more
for America by our repairing our school infrastructure. The savings
proposed here amount to a significant investment in education. I have
highlighted $30 billion in unnecessary defense spending, and this money
can be immediately invested in education for our children. A thorough
review of the Pentagon budget would likely reveal another $30 billion
in defense waste and unnecessary programs.
Today only 12 percent of the 17 million low-income children eligible
for child care subsidies receives assistance. Only 23 percent of all
families with children younger than 6 have one parent working and one
parent staying at home. And today the average cost of child care for a
4-year old in an urban-area center is more than the average cost of
public college tuition in all but one State.
I ask who will care for our children? And I say that we can. With $60
billion we could have universal prekindergarten and child care in this
Nation. I have a bill before this Congress, the Universal
Prekindergarten Act, that would establish and expand prekindergarten
programs to ensure that all children ages 3 to 5 have access to high-
quality, full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education.
It is time to set our priorities straight. We are arming ourselves to
the teeth, and we are missing a chance to make sure our children have
decent education.
Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Under the heading ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', insert after
the dollar amount on page 4, line 14, the following:
``(increased by $37,300,000)''.
Under the heading ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', insert
after the dollar amount on page 6, line 6, the following:
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'',
insert after the dollar amount on page 7, line 21, the
following: ``(increased by $22,330,000)''.
Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard'', insert after the dollar amount on page 12,
line 19, the following: ``(increased by $26,400,000)''.
Under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'',
insert after the dollar amount on page 27, line 22, the
following: ``(reduced by $273,000,000)''.
Under the heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', insert
after the dollar amount on page 30, line 18, the following:
``(increased by $52,100,000)''.
Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to close a gap that I
see in the vital needs of the American people. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, as the father of the Civil Support Weapons of Mass
Destruction Team, knows well that the National Guard is a unique
repository of expertise with capabilities of response to weapons of
mass destruction, chemical, biological, or radiological events, events
that are far beyond the capabilities of most civilian units even in our
major cities. They certainly exceed the capabilities that our States
have to fund and train such teams at this point in time; yet we would
all admit that a very real threat exists, and we are spending a
tremendous amount of time around the world attempting to prevent such
attacks on our country. But if the worst should happen, we are going to
need these teams, and we are going to need more than we have. The
Congress has authorized 55, but at this point, as I understand it, 27
are fully operational, and another 5 are in training, and yet there are
23 that have not yet received funding.
My intention with this amendment was to push the Congress to make a
difficult choice between a weapons system and these teams. We have to
make difficult choices around here in the hopes that we can move
forward.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked to me, and I have
talked to the chairman, and we are certainly going to work something
out. We were disappointed we did not have more requests for more teams.
As a matter of fact, as the gentleman mentioned, we started this 12 to
13 years. The National Guard fought it initially, but now they see the
importance. We think every State should have these, and we hope we can
work out four or five more times in this legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and the chairman,
too, because I think they both recognize a critical need. I know there
are difficult choices to be made, and I am very hopeful that we will
come back from conference with the Senate with the additional teams
funded, and I think that that would be a tremendous asset to the
protection of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Acevedo-Vila
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Acevedo-Vila:
Page 115, beginning line 20, strike section 8125 relating
to closure of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.
[[Page 17155]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in regard to Section 8125 of
this bill which will arbitrarily close Naval Station Roosevelt Roads in
Ceiba, Puerto Rico. I have been aware that this facility could be
closed and presume that any such closure will occur through the 2005
base realignment closure process. I was, therefore, surprised and
dismayed to find language in this appropriations bill authorizing the
closure of Roosevelt Roads. I believe that this provision violates the
standard procedures of Congress by legislating on an appropriations
bill, that it arbitrarily circumvents the 2005 BRAC process, and that
it neglects the importance of this facility both for the U.S. and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
To address this issue, I have two amendments that will permit the
normal process of Congress and the Base Closure Commission to take
place. My first amendment will simply strike Section 8125. Thus, if the
criteria of BRAC finds Roosevelt Roads to deserve closure, then it will
take place, but Congress, as with all other bases, will remain out of
the process. The economic benefits of Roosevelt Roads estimated by the
Navy to be $300 million per year will continue to accrue.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has talked to me, and I have
talked to the chairman about this issue. This is a very delicate issue.
We had the same situation in Philadelphia a couple years ago when they
closed down the Navy yard there. The Navy insists it needs the
personnel. They are very short. They are overly committed all over the
world, and they need these 3,000 people in other places.
I have to say to the gentleman he is actually better off with it
going with the appropriation process where we could work with him
trying to help solve some of the problems that they have in Puerto Rico
when they close down a base. For instance, we have done it in San
Francisco. We have done it in other parts of California. We did it in
Philadelphia. We did it in Texas. And we are very aware of the economic
disruption, and if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, we will
certainly work with him. And it is going to take some time because we
probably have to make a visit to Puerto Rico and see exactly what we
are talking about.
One of the big problems we have, some of this equipment, when they
knew they were going to close down, do not take care of it. So we need
to see what really needs to be done.
But the gentleman can be assured we will do everything we can to help
him. If this works its way through the entire Congress and the
conference, we will do everything we can to help him.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would agree with
the statement made by my colleague from Pennsylvania. As the gentleman
and I discussed on an earlier occasion, it is our intention to work
very closely with the Delegate to see that every step is taken to make
certain that the people of Puerto Rico have all the flexibility they
possibly can have to maximize the potential of this potentially very
valuable property, and one that could provide a great stimulus for
their economy.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I really
appreciate the support of the chairman and the ranking member. As I
have spoken to them, my position and the position of Puerto Rico is we
do not want the base to be closed because we think it is important for
Puerto Rico and it is important for the U.S. But if that is the final
decision, then, as with any other bases that have been closed, we need
the support of Congress, we need a package, and we need special
consideration to the possibility of transferring the lands to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and to the municipality of Ceiba. Actually
the mayor of Ceiba, Gerardo Cruz, is here, and also the senator from
that district in Puerto Rico Juan Cancel Alegria is here because this
is really a main concern in that area. Unemployment is very high in the
eastern part of Puerto Rico.
So if, based on the gentlemen's statements, if we can work this out
in conference, again my position is we want to keep the base open, but
if it is going to be closed, we need, we need some clear language from
Congress that we are going to get an economic development package for
that area and that the possibility of those lands be transferred to the
Government of Puerto Rico and the municipality of Ceiba are going to be
part of that discussion.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I repeat to the gentleman that
I very much appreciate his forthright discussion of this matter. I know
of the potential difficulty that could be faced, but I want the
gentleman to know that we are very committed to working with him to
carefully see that this very potentially valuable property is used for
the best interest of people of Puerto Rico. Our experience with base
closing would suggest there is a variety in mix of approaches that
might very well be taken, and we look forward to giving him all the
support that we possibly can.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that
commitment.
I include the following letters for the Record:
House of Representatives
Washington, DC, June 23, 2003.
Mrs. Connie Patrick,
Director, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC
Glynco Facility, Glynco, GA.
Dear Director Patrick: I recently became aware of reports
on the effects of increased federal law enforcement training
needs. As was noted in Roll Call on June 2, 2003, Department
of Homeland Security law enforcement training needs have
increased and as a result, other agencies such as the U.S.
Capitol Police, may be required to conduct training a federal
facilities other than the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Glynco, GA. Rather than address this issue on an
agency-by-agency basis, I believe that such trends indicate a
new FLETC training facilities.
The FLETC facilities at Charleston, SC and Cheltenham, MD
are located at former military sites. Such a transfer of
government property from one agency to another serves
valuable purposes, such as the elimination of land
acquisition and plant construction costs and maintaining
benefits to the local economy. For these reasons, I encourage
you to consider the possibility of locating any future FLETC
facilities at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads (NSRR), Puerto
Rico.
NSRR is currently home to Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training
Facility, however, many of the military commands located at
NSRR are being downsized, relocated, or eliminated with the
recent closure of the Vieques training range. Such ongoing
changes will lead to excess buildings, land and other
infrastructure. Located a short distance from San Juan,
NSRR's assets include numerous buildings, dormitories and
classrooms, a modern aviation runway, marine berthing
facilities, firing ranges, communication facilities, among
others. It is my belief that these plant assets, coupled with
the downsizing of NSRR, could enable FLETC to make high use
of this facility for federal law enforcement training.
Further, NSRR could also be a suitable facility for the
training of international law enforcement personnel,
particularly those form the Caribbean and Latin America.
I would appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss with
you FLETC's future needs and the opportunities that NSRR may
afford our nation's future law enforcement officers. Please
contact me to determine a time that I could meet with you or
an associate of yours to discuss these issues.
Sincerely,
Anibal Acevedo-Vila
Resident Commissioner,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 27, 2003.
Hon. Joe Knollenberg,
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Knollenberg: During consideration of Military
Construction Appropriations for fiscal year 2004, I
respectfully request that the Subcommittee include language
that calls for a thorough evaluation of the military
facilities in Puerto Rico, including facilities at Naval
Station Roosevelt Roads (NSRR). This evaluation should
include what excess infrastructure currently
[[Page 17156]]
exists and what will become available once the Navy finishes
downsizing at NSRR in conjunction with the closure of the
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility's (AFWTF) Inner
Range
The Committee should be aware that Puerto Rico has a
longstanding and impressive history of military commitment
and sacrifice with the U.S. I am concerned that the difficult
environmental and safety issues surrounding the AFWTF inner
range have overshadowed this ongoing commitment by Puerto
Ricans. Furthermore, Congress cannot let this issue hamper
our ability to effectively take on the numerous challenges we
face, including: the war on terror abroad and here in the
Western Hemisphere; efforts to wage war on drugs; to provide
for Special Operations training and missions; and to provide
the best facilities and preparedness for homeland security. I
feel that should NSRR in particular not be fully utilized to
meet numerous security threats, that indeed our preparedness
could well be undermined.
An ongoing military presence at NSRR during these uncertain
global conditions offers numerous opportunities beyond the
traditional naval presence at NSRR. Puerto Rico's strategic
location in the Caribbean along with significant base
capabilities provides ready access and other advantages that
should be fully utilized. I suggest the following language be
considered by the Committee in order to prevent
underutilization of a strategic military facility when we can
least afford to make such a mistake.
``Therefore the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice to
conduct an audit of ongoing operations in Puerto Rico and
report to the Committee on Appropriations what steps may be
necessary to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and
what additional investments may be necessary to meet the
operational needs of the agencies involved.''
I appreciate your consideration of this request and remain
available to discuss this matter with you at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Resident Commissioner,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2003.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers: I write to respectfully request that
you include in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for
FY 2004 a feasibility study regarding the potential for
Department of Homeland Security facilities to be situated at
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico (NSRR).
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, a 31,000+ acre naval base
located at the eastern end of Puerto Rico, contains 1200
buildings with over 4.6 million square feet of space. In
addition to myriad naval assets, this facility also houses
the Special Operations Headquarters for the U.S. Southern
Command. By virtue of these facilities, NSRR provides a
secure location, secure communications networks, and a
domestic, forward-deployed location to the U.S. government.
Essential DHS functions, such as border and maritime
security, customs enforcement and counter-terrorism could be
suitably located at NSRR, and would permit a high-degree of
coordination between DHS and the armed forces. NSRR's
position in the Caribbean is vital due to the growing threat
of terrorist groups in Central and South America, drug
trafficking to the U.S. from the Caribbean and South and
Central America, and the unfortunate possibility that
experienced drug smugglers could ferry weapons of mass
destruction into the United States. As the nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism emerges, this location can further
aid in the interdiction of both threats.
In order to examine the benefits that NSRR may provide to
the DHS, I suggest that the following language be considered
by the Committee:
``The Committee directs the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of
Defense, the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transportation to conduct a feasibility study to determine
the possible benefits of locating facilities of the
Department of Homeland Security at Naval Station Roosevelt
Roads, Puerto Rico.''
I appreciate your consideration of this request. Should you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or
my staff, Eric Lausten, at 225-2615.
Sincerely,
Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Resident Commissioner.
Member of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Puerto Rico?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Bordallo
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Bordallo:
Add at the end (before the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to overhaul, repair, or
maintain in a shipyard outside the United States or Guam any
naval vessel that has no designated homeport and is located
in an area of responsibility of the Unified Combatant Command
encompassing a United States or Guam shipyard.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the gentlewoman's amendment.
{time} 1245
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to request that the House
take action to ensure that Military Sealift Command vessels, known as
MSC vessels, are repaired in American shipyards. This would ensure that
the money we appropriate here today is used to not only ``buy
American,'' but to ``repair American'' as well.
You would think that if anything would be repaired in the USA, it
would be our naval fleet procured with taxpayer funds. Unfortunately,
the Military Sealift Command thwarts the will of Congress by exploiting
a loophole in the current law to designate its vessels as having no
home port. The MSC then repairs the vessels in foreign ship repair
facilities in places such as Singapore and Korea. Such repair work is
done without regard to American health, labor and environmental
standards. Using foreign ports runs counter to force protection
requirements following the October 12, 2000, terrorist attack on the
USS Cole.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have with this
amendment is it should be in the authorization bill rather than our
bill. But at any rate, it would really be very difficult for us to
apply something like this.
I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I would hope
that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment and let us see what
we can work out, because we have a lot of ``buy American'' provisions.
This is kind of a new wrinkle to it. But we have an awful lot of
operational problems that we might run into if we prohibited some of
these things from being done.
For instance, I remember the Roberts was first taken into a port in
Dubai, I think it was, and then we finally shipped it back to the
United States. But I think we need some more time to look at this. I
appreciate your thoughts, and I know we will work with you trying to
come up with something.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand, and I
would be very willing to work with the gentleman concerning this
situation with the MSC ships. I look forward to working with you to
resolve this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I
will work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on the
matter.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Guam?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to suspend, modify, or waive any provision of law
under chapter 43, 71, 75, or 77 of title 5, United States
Code, or any regulations promulgated under those provisions
of law.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would ensure that no funds
would be used essentially to alter our existing civilian personnel
system for the proud men and women who are civilian employees of our
defense system.
This basically is a response to the work we are now doing in an
attempt
[[Page 17157]]
to find a reasonable and protective reform package that originally left
the House as H.R. 1588. We are concerned that the language of that
bill, if in fact it would be implemented, would substantially degrade
our protections of our civilian employees who are doing workman-like
work.
Basically, we had concerns about that bill because it was overly
broad and was really a rushed approach to civilian systems, but we are
also troubled by a lack of explicit protections for fundamental worker
rights. Currently, the bill has a lack of protection for true
collective bargaining, a lack of a real right of fair appeals, a lack
of adequate overtime and weekend compensation, preference for veterans
and equal pay for equal work.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
yielding.
Let me mention that the gentleman and I have had a chance to discuss
this, and I am aware of his concerns. The gentleman and I have very
similar concerns in this arena.
Frankly, I would hope that, if the gentleman withdraw this amendment,
we will have a chance to discuss it further and try to provide the kind
of flexibility we need to give him the assurance and employees the
assurance they need so we can go forward in a positive way.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate those
comments, and will look forward to working with the gentleman, because
we do not obviously want to go back to those bad old days of nepotism
and poor performance and political selection. I look forward to working
with the gentleman to get an honest, reasonable bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler:
Insert at the end, before the short title, the following
new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out sections 2912, 2913, and 2914 of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
related to the 2005 round of base closures and realignments.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Act that would prohibit any funds in
this act from being used to carry out activities in 2004 related to the
next round of Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, currently
authorized to take place in 2005.
The purpose is to put a hold on the implementation of BRAC-related
activities until Congress and the Department of Defense can get a
better handle on the expected savings, anticipated force structure and
infrastructure changes, and the actual need for additional closures.
As many of my colleagues know, in 2001, the Defense Department
testified to Congress that it has 20 to 25 percent excess physical
capacity that must be eliminated, so the President's fiscal 2002 budget
proposal to Congress requested authorization to carry out another round
of base closures.
As part of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization Act, the Senate
authorized a BRAC round to take place in 2005. The House specifically
refused to include any such BRAC authorization in its version of the
bill, but this body did agree to the Senate's BRAC provision when it
passed the conference report to the FY 2002 authorization bill.
To date, we have gone through four different rounds of military base
closure process, in 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Through these rounds,
we saw the BRAC commission's result in the closing of over 450 military
installations of various size, mission and stature in the United
States.
Nearly everyone currently involved in this process agrees that all
the low-hanging fruit have already been picked. Yet the current
administration succeeded in enacting another round for 2005 following
the horrific events of September 11, 2001. On December 28, 2001, just a
little more than 3 months after those deadly attacks, and 3 days after
Christmas, the President signed into law the FY 2002 defense
authorization bill, which included the BRAC authorization provision at
his request.
The administration seems to sincerely believe there is a 20 to 25
percent excess military infrastructure, and the administration has a
laudable goal of finding additional savings in the defense budget to
free up funds for procurement and new weapons systems.
Specifically, the Department of Defense claims that it could save as
much as $6.6 billion per year with an additional round of base
closures. But there are many reasons to question both the Department's
rationale and its estimates.
First, this Congress deserves to know the details about the suggested
excess capacity. Is it 20 percent? 25 percent? 23 percent? The 5
percent difference is not insignificant, particularly when you are
talking about the hundreds of U.S. military bases. And where is that
excess capacity exactly?
Furthermore, DOD estimates that it eliminated 71,000 Federal civilian
jobs and 39,800 military positions in the past four BRAC rounds.
Unfortunately, no one could give me an estimate of how many of those
jobs were transferred to private contractors still paid through DOD
contracts. Eliminating military positions, only to replace them with
private contractors, raises doubts about any potential savings.
Regarding the estimated savings from additional base closures, I must
advise the House of an April 2002 Government Accounting Office, GAO,
report that indicates the previous four base closure rounds have
produced a net savings of $16.7 billion through FY 2001. GAO, however,
admits that these are the Defense Department's numbers and that they
could not be independently verified because DOD's accounting systems
are not oriented to identifying and tracking savings.
GAO further noted that the estimates do not include a cumulative $1.5
billion cost incurred by the Federal Government to assist communities
affected by the closure process or $3.5 billion in environmental costs
expected beyond FY 2001. Because the BRAC savings estimates cannot be
supported by real data, the GAO report had to affirm the DOD numbers,
while characterizing the savings as ``imprecise and rough
approximations.''
The Members of this body need to understand that when Defense
Department officials talk about so-called savings from a BRAC round,
they are not talking about real cost savings. Most of the so-called
cost savings are actually cost avoidances.
DOD also claims that it needs savings from BRAC to fund new weapons
systems in support of the military transformation. However, the first
few years of a BRAC round requires hundreds of millions of dollars in
upfront investments costs. This includes upfront costs for new military
construction, for relocated troops and families, new MILCON dollars for
realigned missions, new money for environmental restoration and base
conveyance procedures.
To complicate the problem, DOD still does not have solid data on
costs of environmental clean up. Our current information indicates that
environmental clean-up costs have exceeded $10 billion, and the
estimated environmental costs beyond 2001 rose from $2.4 billion in
1999 to $3.5 billion as stated in last year's GAO report on purported
BRAC savings.
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment,
Ray DuBois, summed it up well when he told the DOD Roundtable in
December 2002 the following: ``The excess capacity statistic, which the
Secretary and others, including myself, have referred to, is based on a
1998 capacity utilization study. It is true that there is excess
capacity in some range of 20 to 25
[[Page 17158]]
percent, but that is a clumsy number insofar as it is an aggregate
number.''
He goes on to say: ``Remember that BRAC is not inexpensive. BRAC will
probably end up costing the Department of Defense, over a 4- to 6-year
period, depending upon how large the BRAC is, depending upon how much
capacity you are reducing, and by definition, how much you are
realigning it, it could cost 10 to $20 billion over that period of
time.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask for my colleagues to support the amendment to
limit the funding for BRAC in this appropriations bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to very briefly oppose
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is appropriately an item that should be a part of
the authorization process. It is my understanding at the subcommittee
level there was support for this proposal and there was a decision at
the full committee to turn that around, and the authorizing committee
has spoken in terms of this question.
It is, in my judgment, poor policy on the part of the Committee on
Appropriations, going through the back door by limiting appropriations
to essentially undo what is the policy in the existing law, a policy
which has not been changed by the authorizing committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California still reserve his
point of order?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that it does cost a substantial amount of
money in the first few years; but there is no question that, long-term,
billions and billions of dollars have been saved because of the BRACs
we have had in the past. So I think we should move forward on this, and
it would be wrong to do it in this bill. It would be an authorization
matter. I think it is a mistake, and I support the chairman in his
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I very
strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment that would have
restated the policy of our country against the use of torture. The
reason that I was going to offer that amendment is that I do represent
this body in the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and
in many of our meetings, the issue of the use of torture has been
raised, particularly in light of our war against terrorism. I might
tell you there have also been press accounts recently that call into
question the use of torture in regards to the campaign against
terrorism.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think the President of the United States,
along with the representatives from the State Department and Defense
Department, have made it very clear on the U.S. policy in this regard.
{time} 1300
Let me just point out that on June 26, the International Day in
Support of the Victims of Torture, President Bush declared that
``Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere.'' He
observed that ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right.''
The State Department also noted that ``Freedom from torture is an
inalienable human right, and the prohibition of torture is a basic
principle of international human rights law. This prohibition is
absolute and allows no exceptions.'' Finally, as the General Counsel to
the Defense Department William Haynes wrote to Senator Leahy recently,
``The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone any such
torture by its employees under any circumstances.''
Mr. Chairman, I think the record is very clear on the U.S. position
in regards to the use of torture, and, therefore, I will not pursue an
amendment at this time. I thank my colleagues for their patience.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2658)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX,
the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend
the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or
on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m.
today.
____________________
REGARDING THE ACTUARIAL VALUE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS OFFERED TO
MEDICARE ELIGIBLE ENROLLEES BY A PLAN UNDER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH
BENEFITS PROGRAM
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 2631) to provide that the actuarial value of
the prescription drug benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees
by a plan under the Federal employees health benefits program shall be
at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits
offered by such plan to its enrollees generally.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2631
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NEGOTIATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 8902 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p)(1) A contract may not be made or a plan approved
which does not offer to Medicare eligible enrollees
prescription drug benefits the actuarial value of which is at
least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug
benefits which are offered to enrollees under the plan
generally.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management shall establish processes and
methods for determining the actuarial value of prescription
drug benefits.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to contract years beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page 17159]]
Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed H.R. 1, the Medicare
Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. Part of this bill recognizes
and seeks to address one of the core concerns regarding adding a
prescription drug benefit to Medicare; that is, with the implementation
of such a benefit, lead employers who currently offer prescription drug
coverage to their employees to stop doing so. Obviously, we do not want
to put a government entitlement plan into operation and drive the
private plans out of existence, or the costs over the long term to the
taxpayers will go off the charts.
The bill addressed these concerns by providing subsidies to private
employers and unions to encourage them to maintain prescription drug
benefits for their retirees. With the help of the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas), we were able to clarify that the Office
of Personnel Management would also be eligible for these subsidies,
something that I believe will lead to lower FEHBP premiums for all
enrollees. However, I think it is necessary for us to go one step
further.
Coming from northern Virginia, I represent over 50,000 Federal
employees and retirees. As chairman of the House Committee on
Government Reform, I am responsible for issues pertaining to Federal
workers and retirees, along with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo
Ann Davis), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Thus,
not only am I acutely aware of the challenges the Federal Government
faces as an employer to recruit and retain quality employees, I am also
very aware that Federal retirees are sometimes treated differently than
current employees in ways that are not always equitable.
For example, current Federal employees are allowed to deduct their
health insurance premiums from pretax dollars, but Federal retirees are
not. I look at this issue from an employer's perspective. Remember: In
addition to the large number of retirees already in FEHBP, 50 percent
of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement in the next several
years. With H.R. 2631, we are telling the people that we are going to
live up to our end of the bargain. We are saying that with regard to
prescription drug benefits, Federal retirees will continue to be placed
on par with current employees, that OPM will not reduce their benefits
as opposed to the benefit offered to current employees.
In crafting H.R. 2631, I thought it was important to continue to
allow OPM as much flexibility as possible in negotiating future
prescription drug benefits. And for the record, Senator Akaka, my
colleague in the other body, has offered similar legislation on the
other side of the Capitol. Thus, H.R. 2631 does not require OPM to
offer a specific dollar amount of coverage that has to be maintained;
they can raise or they can lower benefits as they see fit through
negotiations with individual plans, but they have to do it for all
FEHBP enrollees to treat them the same, regardless of their age. In
essence, we are simply telling OPM to continue to do what they have
always done.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe H.R. 2631 sends an important
message to both Federal retirees and current Federal employees. It will
be a helpful tool in our efforts to build and retain an effective
Federal workforce and give these employees a career path and retirement
they can depend on. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the
passage of H.R. 2631.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2631, was crafted to
ensure that legislation expanding Medicare will not reduce prescription
drug benefits for Federal retirees enrolled in the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program. While I support this legislation because it
shields Federal employees from the illusive drug benefit in the
Medicare proposal, the reality is it leaves millions of others
unprotected.
Federal annuitants are worried, and they should be. They are worried
because they see something in the government's subsidized Medicare
prescription drug benefit that they do not like, and with good reason.
This past Sunday The Washington Post reported that despite the Bush
administration's proclamations, and I am quoting, ``The reality is that
the two Medicare drug bills passed by the House and the other body do
not come close to providing the level of coverage given to the 8.5
million Federal workers, including lawmakers, White House staff, and
the President. Both measures would require senior citizens to buy an
auxiliary prescription plan, whereas all 188 plans offered to Federal
employees include drug coverage, and at far more generous reimbursement
rates.''
To remedy this, H.R. 2631 would maintain prescription drug parity
between Medicare-eligible retirees enrolled in the FEHB program, and
active duty Federal employees and retirees. It provides that the
prescription drug benefit offered to Medicare-eligible enrollees by a
plan under the FEHB program be at least equal to the prescription drug
benefits offered by such a plan to its enrollees generally.
This is obviously a good bill for Federal employees, but it also
sheds light on what a bad bill the Medicare prescription drug benefit
is for the rest of America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation and similar
legislation for the rest of America's seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis),
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 2631, a bill that has a simple, yet powerful, purpose:
to protect the health benefits of our valued Federal retirees. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, along with my
distinguished colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
One of the hallmarks of Federal service has been the government's
commitment to providing health care for its retired employees, those
public servants who dedicated their professional careers to protecting
our shores, fighting disease, keeping our air and water clean, and
upholding the laws of the land. We not only owe them our thanks, we owe
it to them to keep our commitments.
As the chairwoman of the House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Service, I want to thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for sponsoring this legislation and thank
the leadership for allowing us to bring this important bill to the
floor so quickly.
H.R. 2631 guarantees that Federal retirees will have a prescription
drug benefit that is equal in value to the one provided to active
Federal employees. This legislation fulfills the promise of the Federal
Government not to eliminate prescription drug coverage to its retirees
once a prescription drug benefit is also available through Medicare,
which the U.S. House of Representatives has wisely decided to add.
This bill also ensures that there is no difference between the total
amount of coverage offered to active employees and the coverage
available to retirees. This is an important equity, one that we want to
maintain.
I want to emphasize that this legislation does not diminish the
Office of Personnel Management's authority to negotiate health care
benefits for Federal employees, but assures that drug benefits will
still be available for retirees.
Finally, this is a case of the Federal Government leading by example.
If the U.S. Government were to cut benefits for its retirees, why would
we expect the private sector to act any differently?
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) for bringing
this legislation to the floor, and I urge passage of H.R. 2631.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking
member of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page 17160]]
Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation that is before us today for
one simple reason: Federal retirees deserve an adequate prescription
drug benefit just like all America's seniors do. Without the
protections of the bill before us, they face the possibility of losing
what they have got.
But let us be clear: This legislation is necessary because the
prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries that was forced
through the House by the Republican majority is inadequate and
unresponsive to the needs of America's seniors and disabled persons.
The President and House Republicans like to defend that bill by saying
America's seniors deserve the same coverage that Members of Congress
and the Federal workforce get, but nothing could make it clearer that
their Medicare bill fails miserably to meet that test. The drug benefit
our Republican colleagues are willing to give Medicare beneficiaries is
filled with features that will be laughed out of the room if they were
suggested for Federal employees.
The Medicare bill contains large gaps in coverage, like the so-called
donut hole, where beneficiaries have no coverage for their drug
expenses. Once they have $2,000 in drug costs, coverage stops.
Beneficiaries are stuck with the next $2,900 in costs, and maybe more.
Oh, they get to pay premiums for coverage during that time. They just
pay for nothing, because the program gives them no help, and whether
coverage ever starts up again is uncertain. It will be a catastrophic
situation for many of our seniors.
The hypocrisy of claiming that Medicare beneficiaries deserve what
the Federal employees health program has, and then give a prescription
drug benefit that the Republicans pushed through which is so inferior,
it is breathtaking. And, to add insult to injury, the Medicare benefit
is designed so that any help from an employer reduces Medicare
coverage. That leads to the likelihood that employers will drop drug
coverage for their retirees and make people worse off.
{time} 1315
That is a very real possibility that makes the bill that is before us
right now necessary. But what about those retirees in the same
situation that this bill does not help? Federal retirees deserve to
have adequate prescription drug coverage. They deserve to keep the
benefits they have, but so do the rest of America's seniors and
disabled people. We should live up to the rhetoric and make the
Medicare benefit a good one: simple, comprehensive, certain, and
affordable. It should truly be as good as what Federal employees have
and Members of Congress have. The drug benefit in the Republican
Medicare bill fails that test. That is the tragedy that that bill that
is now before us highlights today.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a co-sponsor of this
legislation and a leader in the fight for Federal employees' rights.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R.
2631 and am pleased to be an original co-sponsor. Before I make my
comments, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) for his efforts.
Those who followed this debate know, through the colloquy that took
place on the floor last week, the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Tom
Davis) efforts with regard to this; and I think every Federal retiree
and Federal employee will be very very grateful for that. So I want the
gentleman from Virginia to know that I appreciate it, as they will
also.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary to clarify the intent of H.R. 1,
the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the House passed on June 27.
H.R. 2631 would ensure prescription drug parity between retirees
enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP, who
are eligible for Medicare, and other Federal employees in the FEHBP. It
is vital to pass this legislation to make sure that the bill now moving
through Congress to extend Medicare will not reduce prescription drug
benefits for Federal retirees enrolled in FEHBP. Federal employees in
their retirement must be assured that the commitment will be kept that
their drug benefit will remain unchanged and they will not be forced to
pay additional costs for prescription drugs. They deserve that
commitment from Congress.
I urge all Members to vote for this bipartisan legislation to protect
retired and active duty Federal employees.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2631, but I am just puzzled by
this. I guess I must be missing something. This bill concerns the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers President Bush,
Vice President Cheney, and Members of Congress and others. Right now
the plans offer drug coverage for retired Members of Congress and other
Federal employees equal to the drug coverage these plans offer current
employees. This bill puts this policy in law, requiring drug coverage
for Federal employees must be equal to coverage for current employees.
This bill was introduced the day the House passed the Republican
Medicare prescription drug bill. It is clear that this bill is meant to
ensure that Members of Congress, this is where I am puzzled, Members of
Congress do not have to live under the Republican Medicare
privatization plan. That is why I am puzzled. If it is good enough for
Congress, it is good enough for seniors of this Nation. That is what
President Bush said in Michigan in January about H.R. 1, his Medicare
prescription drug plan.
In his statement of administrative policy on H.R. 1, the White House
praised the Republican drug plan saying it was just like the coverage
that Members of Congress get. That is where I am getting stuck, trying
to figure out why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has
brought this bill to the floor. If the Republican Medicare bill offers
drug coverage just like Members of Congress have and as President Bush
says, then why do we have to protect Members of Congress and Federal
employees from being forced into the Republican privatized Medicare
plan? I just do not get it.
The majority leader of the other body who runs that place and the
leader on this side, both said the Medicare Republican bills would
accomplish the goal of giving health care security to seniors. But if
the Republican drug plan provides real health care security, H.R. 1,
why do we have to exempt Members of Congress and other Federal
employees from the bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) and other Republicans rammed through this Congress recently?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, said the Republican drug plan uses private
plans to compete to provide beneficiaries better care at lower costs.
It is confusing. Why do we need this plan when Congress is exempting
itself from what Congress did only 2 weeks ago? I hope that my friends
on the other side would explain that.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to help the gentleman solve the puzzle. The
fact of the matter is there are 1.25 million Medicare-eligible Federal
employees and annuitants. Only 388 retired Members of Congress are in
FEHBP. The majority of retired Members of Congress do not even take
FEHBP. They are in other plans or have opted out of this.
The fact is they are eligible for that by virtue of their service
here. This legislation was not crafted by Members looking after
themselves. It was crafted with the help of the National Association of
Retired Federal Employees. It was difficult to write out the 388
retired Members who happen to use this, which is a minority of the
retired Members. Most Members do not use FEHBP. I want to clarify for
the gentleman that in no way, shape or form was this for Members. In
fact, this was
[[Page 17161]]
called to our attention by the National Association of Retired Federal
Employees. I do not know any other way to get at the problem.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my friend sits on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce where this bill was heard. I just heard over and
over people saying that we wanted to give, under the Republican drug
plan that passed 2 weeks ago by one vote, that we wanted to give the
same coverage to seniors as FEHBPs. Are you saying then that the
coverage for Federal retirees is significantly better than the coverage
that you are providing or that this House provided under H.R. 1, the
Republican Medicare prescription drug plan?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all it does is ensures that
Federal retirees will be treated the same as current Federal employees
in regard to the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. Currently, they
are not in some areas. The feeling is that with this other plan, that
retirees could have a different benefit program and that creates some
difficulty. So we are trying to even this up and give that assurance.
Most Members of Congress do not opt for FEHBP. That is what the
record shows after this is done. So that is kind of a misnomer. It is a
small percentage that ends up in FEHBP when they retire. A few do, I
grant to the gentleman; but that is not the purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2631. Today, about
76 percent of seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage; and
less than 2 weeks ago the House passed historical legislation, H.R. 1,
to create a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, when we passed H.R. 1, we did not intend to create a new
Federal benefit that would replace the prescription drug benefits that
many of our seniors today already enjoy. H.R. 1 does contain a number
of incentives to employers to maintain their existing level of health
care coverage to their senior retirees. But I personally heard from
several constituents of mine, retired Federal workers, who are
concerned that the Federal Government in an attempt to save money will
reduce or eliminate their prescription drug coverage once a benefit is
available through Medicare. In passing H.R. 1, we called upon employers
to maintain that coverage it offers to retirees, and the Federal
Government has an obligation to lead by example and ensure that Federal
retirees continue to receive the same prescription drug benefit as
current employees. So H.R. 2631 does just that.
It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said he was puzzled
by this bill, but I am not so puzzled. It seems to me quite clear that
the one thing that our Federal retirees were right to be concerned once
the Republican prescription drug bill had passed this House, they were
right to be concerned that they might some day have to live under those
prescription drug benefits which do not even come close to the benefits
that they have today.
So it does make sense that as soon as the Republican prescription
drug bill was passed that Federal retirees would get worried and
Members would come down here and say, boy, one thing we sure do not
want to have is to have our Federal retirees forced to participate in
the Republican prescription drug bill that we just passed.
Now, one of the reasons that this is happening so fast, and it is
happening fast, the Republican bill passed by one vote here in the
House. A bill has passed in the other body, but we do not even have a
conference. We do not know what the final product will be like. But we
know this: it will not be good for America's seniors. It will not be
good for those Medicare beneficiaries who are counting on getting some
relief from the high cost of prescription drugs.
The Republican bills are a disaster, a looming disaster for our
Medicare beneficiaries; but they also fall far short of what Federal
retirees are likely to expect. Because under the FEHBP program we have
today, there are no additional premiums for drug benefits. There is no
deductible. There is a small co-payment. There is no gap in coverage,
and that is different from the Republican bills passed here in the
House. This bill may make some sense for Federal retirees; but the
question remains, if it is good enough for Members of Congress and
Federal employees, it ought to be good enough for Medicare
beneficiaries. That is what the President said, but the Republican bill
does not keep that promise.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill. And I am sure it
will pass with near-unanimous support, because under this bill no plan
on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan could be approved that has
a prescription drug benefit for retirees that is lesser in actuarial
value than the existing prescription drug benefit.
This legislation represents the commitment of the Federal Government
not to reduce dues or eliminate prescription drug coverage to its
retirees once prescription drug coverage is also available through
Medicare. One of the core concerns with the Medicare prescription drug
benefit has always been that, in the attempt to provide for those
without coverage, we would take from those with coverage. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one-third of retired
employees with employer-sponsored drug coverage could lose it as a
result of the Medicare prescription drug bill that passed 2 weeks ago.
Currently, there is no different prescription drug benefit for retirees
than is available for current employees. Our bill simply seeks to
maintain that dynamic.
We do not want the total amount of coverage offered to Federal
retirees reduced for the reason that they could simply opt for the
Medicare plan alone. This is an issue with the Federal Government
leading by example. If the Federal Government cuts its benefits for its
retirees, how can we expect private employers to do anything but follow
our lead? H.R. 2631 does not tie OPM's hands in the negotiating process
by requiring that they provide a plan of a certain dollar value. OPM
can still negotiate higher or lower levels of benefits, but they simply
cannot target retirees alone for reduced benefits.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has always led the way in
setting the example for employer-sponsored health care. It should have
been the standard for the Medicare prescription drug plan, but Federal
retirees should not lose benefits because it was not. That is the point
that many people have been making. But they should certainly not vote
against this bill as a result. There is nothing wrong with this bill.
This bill clarifies what the policy is and should be, and for that
reason we should all vote for this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I kept hearing my Republican colleagues
talk about parity for Federal employees; and I support this bill as
well, because I do believe that Federal retirees should have good
prescription drug benefits. But it is not an issue of parity. It is an
issue of hypocrisy, hypocrisy because the Republicans say that
[[Page 17162]]
they want to preserve a generous prescription drug benefit for Federal
retirees, but at the same time they were not willing to provide it for
the other seniors around the country.
The bottom line is that the Medicare prescription drug benefit that
the Republicans have proposed both in this House and the other House is
no real benefit. It is a meaningless benefit. It is not generous enough
that anybody would even sign up for it.
{time} 1330
And they wanted to make sure that the Federal retirees do not get
stuck being forced into that Medicare system that they have proposed,
which essentially gives an almost worthless prescription drug benefit
to most seniors. Well, there is a lot of hypocrisy saying you want to
preserve it for the Members of Congress, for the President, and for
Federal retirees, but not give it to seniors in general.
There was an article in today's New York Times that had a little
grid, and it talked about how Federal retirees' drug benefits stacked
up with those under the Medicare prescription drug plan the Republicans
have proposed for the rest of the seniors. And guess what? Average
premium for Federal employees, nothing. No additional premium for drug
benefits. But in the Senate bill, $35 a month, or $420 a year; in the
House, $35 a month. What about the deductible? For Federal retirees, no
deductible. But in the Senate bill, for the rest of the seniors, $275;
in the House bill, $250. What about gap in coverage? For Federal
retirees, no gap in coverage, but then there are major gaps in the
Senate bill, $4,500 to $5,800 a year; in the House bill, $2,000 to
$4,900 a year.
In fact, there is a statement that for the most popular plan among
Federal workers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Congressional Research
Service estimates that drug benefits under the plan are worth 50
percent more than the proposed Republican bill.
Hypocrisy, not parity. Give the same benefits to the rest of the
seniors. That is the fair thing to do.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to respond that The New York Times chart is absolutely
wrong when it says Federal employees have no deductible for their
prescription drug coverage. What they get is, they get a set amount of
dollars, and it is a cafeteria style. They can spend it on prescription
drugs, preventive care, HMOs or whatever. So there is certainly a cost
to that. But the way the system is set up, it is a total health care
program.
So when the gentleman gets up and quotes this New York Times article,
it is entirely misleading. Of course there is a cost to Federal
employees opting for that over something else.
The other underlying part of the bill that this body passed 2 weeks
ago is the fact that we did not want to drive private programs out of
existence. Should we drive the 60 percent of seniors that are currently
satisfied with their prescription drug program out of existence, then
the Federal Government ends up picking up the total tab, and the cost
rises significantly.
We are setting an example with this legislation that we are, in fact,
making sure that the FEHBP program is not driven out of existence; that
we maintain the parity it has always had with existing Federal
employees. And this program ought not be diminished. It is the same
thing that we have incentivized in the program passed 2 weeks ago by
the subsidies that are in that program as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this bill is here, and I want to make
clear that while I certainly do not object to the effort to insulate
Federal employees from negative retirement actions, if there is a
rollcall on this bill, I would vote ``no.'' And the reason is because I
think this bill demonstrates a rampant double standard.
As I understand it, last week in the prescription drug bill debate
that we had on this floor, the majority party in essence told seniors,
``Have we got a deal for you. We are going to set it up so that you are
going to be able to get the same benefits as your Member of Congress.''
And now what are you saying this week? You are bringing a bill up that
says to your future retiring Member of Congress, ``Have we got a deal
for you. It is going to be a special deal. You are going to be able to
make sure that when you retire, you will have better prescription drug
benefits than that poor sucker on Medicare.''
That is what you are telling people, and I do not happen to think
that is a very straightforward way to deal with our constituents.
I understand what the committee wants to do to protect Federal
employees. I would be very happy to vote for this bill once the
majority party brings back to this floor a decent deal on prescription
drugs for every other American, but not under these circumstances, not
under these circumstances.
Right now, if you are a Federal employee, if you are a Member of
Congress, if you belong to the Blue Cross plan, you get 80 percent of
your cost paid for for prescription drugs basically. But what do you
say to seniors under that turkey of a prescription drug bill you passed
last week? What you say is, oh, we will help you pay up to $2,000, but,
boy, if you get stuck with drug costs that are somewhere between $2,000
and $5,000, for that $3,000 hit on your wallet, sorry, you are not
going to get any help from Uncle Sam.
And my colleagues think that is a square deal? I mean, with all due
respect to the effort behind this bill, it does not meet the laugh
test, as far as I am concerned. If the majority party in this House
wants to be considered a serious legislative force on this issue, they
will pull this bill from the floor and bring it back when they can also
bring back to the floor a bill with a decent, sustainable, consistent,
reliable, affordable benefit under Medicare for all seniors for
prescription drug costs. Until that happens, do not ask me to vote for
a special insider deal for Members of Congress. That is what this bill
does.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and let me just say in all candor that we have 1.25
million FEHBP employees covered by this, with 388 former Members of
Congress. The vast majority of former Members do not even sign up for
FEHBP, those who would be eligible for the plan passed by this body 2
weeks ago, and do not even use FEHBP, which is a more comprehensive
option for retired Federal employees, including Members of Congress. So
this really has nothing to do with Members of Congress.
The other question I pose is, why, when my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle controlled this body for 40 years, did they not bring
up any prescription drug benefit plan before this body for a vote? We
have passed plans now the last 3 years, only this time has the Senate
passed a plan as well, and we are giving meaningful relief to seniors
who want it. It is a voluntary plan. It is not a perfect plan by any
means, but it is within the budget limitations passed by this Congress.
Their plan was outside the budget limitations.
I think we have to get real. I think we have a good deal for
Americans in the plan that we passed 2 weeks ago. As we work with the
Senate, we will try to refine it and make it better. I think this
legislation today makes it better as well, recognizing that as we look
at our Federal workforce, trying to make sure we have the right
incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest to fight
for homeland security, to fight the battles for this country, to
develop cures for cancer, that we are treating our employees well.
So I am very proud to support this legislation. I think it enhances
and goes with the underlying theme of the legislation passed 2 weeks
ago, and that is we do not want to drive current prescription drug
benefit plans out of existence, which, if we do not pass this, we will
be setting a terrible example here at the Federal level.
[[Page 17163]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am here to expose the hypocrisy of my
Republican colleagues. The previous speaker just said that this bill
has nothing to do with current Members of Congress. Well, we will just
wait and see.
Over on the Senate side, Senator Dayton successfully offered an
amendment to the Medicare prescription bill to ensure that no Member of
Congress would receive a better prescription drug benefit than that
which is included in the Medicare bill. And guess what? It passed, 93
to 3. And Roll Call reported the following hypocrisy. According to Roll
Call, indeed, many Republicans, 50 of whom helped add the Dayton
provision to the Senate version of the Medicare bill this week,
acknowledged that they were told by their leaders to vote for the
Dayton amendment with the understanding that it would not show up in
the final version of the legislation.
That is hypocrisy. What is good enough for America's senior citizens
is good enough for those of us who serve in this Chamber. I am
circulating a letter to the Speaker, and I am asking all Members of
this House to sign this letter in support of the Dayton amendment. If
this House, if this Congress does not support the Dayton amendment, we
are little more than hypocrites. If this language is stripped from the
conference report, it can only mean that Members of Congress believe
that they deserve better health coverage than the seniors they
represent.
America's seniors are watching us, and I hope my Republican
colleagues will sign my letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert), and I hope all of my Democratic colleagues will sign my
letter in support of the Dayton amendment. We ought not to do for
ourselves what we are unwilling to do for America's senior citizens. It
is as simple as that. And to do less is to be hypocritical.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I think the points that have been made by some of my Democratic
colleagues about the impact of the bill passed when we were last in
session to cover prescription drugs for seniors is a point well taken.
That bill is inadequate, and the reason we are passing this legislation
is that we want to protect retired Federal employees.
Well, we do want to protect them, but we have to protect them because
we passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that will give incentives
for employers, public and private, to drop insurance coverage for their
retirees for prescription drugs. What in effect we are saying is we do
not want Federal retirees to face the plight that other seniors are
going to face when they are retired and their employers decide to let
them go get their Medicare prescription drug benefit under the
Republican-passed bill. It will be a lot less expensive, but it will be
much less a benefit, in fact, a very inadequate benefit, for those
retirees.
That leads me, however, to say that we should oppose the bill that
the Republicans passed for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and
make sure that we pass a really decent prescription drug benefit for
all Medicare beneficiaries. That is not to say that we ought to leave
our Federal retired employees without the protections that we promised
them, which is that they would have the health care plans that they
paid into during their working years available to them as retirees.
So I commend my Democratic colleagues for their pointing out the
hypocrisy, and I support what they have to say, but urge, however, that
we adopt this bill because we do not want to be against Federal
retirees. But in doing that, we certainly need to acknowledge that the
reason we are passing this legislation is because the prescription drug
bill for Medicare that was passed by the House is so filled with holes
and so inadequate.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to say two things. This vaunted Senate bill that passed a
couple of weeks ago, Senator Akaka has also offered legislation in the
Senate for their legislation as well. I think whatever happens under
whoever's bill that passes, we want to ensure that we do not get that
separation between the retired Federal employees and current employees
in their health benefit premiums, and that is what this bill is about.
We had a spirited debate 2 weeks ago on a health benefit plan, and I
do not think we need to continue to air this today. But I think this is
good legislation, it is good protection for our retired Federal
employees, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
thank them for the bipartisan support this bill is getting today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I think we have heard a great deal of debate, and we
understand the merits of this legislation. It is unfortunate we did not
have a bill last week that would have covered all of the seniors
looking for relief under Medicare.
I certainly agree that we do not want Federal retirees to be at risk
for giving up what they have already got, and so I would agree with my
colleagues that we should support this legislation to make sure that
our Federal retirees maintain the benefits they have already received.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we've heard the President, Republican Members
of Congress, Administration officials, and Republican Senators claim
time and time again that their Medicare prescription drug plan will
provide seniors with the same choices as Members of Congress get.
They've said that if FEHBP is good enough for Federal employees and
Members of Congress alike, it should be good enough for seniors.
That's a great message and I'm sure it sells well with seniors.
Unfortunately, their rhetoric fails to match the reality. The drug
benefit they are willing to provide to Medicare beneficiaries is far
less than the drug benefit provided to Federal employees.
We've been trying to expose this hypocrisy for months. Today, the
Republicans point out the truth themselves.
This bill, authored by Representative Tom Davis, requires that each
health plan in FEHBP agree to provide the same drug benefits to Federal
retirees as they do to active employees.
In other words, it protects Federal employees from ever having their
retiree drug benefits reduced to the level that the bill's author just
supported for the rest of our nation's retirees!
Representative Davis represents an awful lot of Federal employees and
he knows that the Medicare drug benefit is inadequate. Therefore, he's
here today--the very first legislative day we are back in session after
having passed the Republican Medicare drug bill--to get a fix for his
constituents and himself.
If the Republican drug bill was as good a benefit as Federal
employees and Members of Congress receive, Representative Tom Davis and
others would not be here today ensuring that Federal employees are
never forced to give up their FEHBP coverage and find themselves with
only the Medicare drug benefit his party has legislated.
But, the Medicare drug benefit isn't as good. That's why they're
here.
Unfortunately, they are ignoring the problems that will be faced by
the millions of seniors and people with disabilities who are not
Federal employees or Members of Congress.
The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if the Republican
Drug Bill becomes law, one-third of employers will drop their retiree
drug coverage. That will cause millions of Americans to lose the
coverage they have today only to be replaced with the inadequate
benefit put forth by the Republicans. Yet, nothing in this bill will
help them.
Put frankly, we can't buy a health plan in FEHBP with as poor drug
coverage as is included in the Republican Medicare prescription drug
bill that was passed last week.
Rather than protect us from having to suffer with inadequate coverage
with the rest of America's seniors, we should be considering a bill
that guarantees all America's seniors and people with disabilities with
a drug benefit as good as Members of Congress get.
[[Page 17164]]
Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to go along with that.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2631.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1345
GARNER E. SHRIVER POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 1761) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in
Wichita, Kansas, as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1761
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GARNER E. SHRIVER POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita,
Kansas, shall be known and designated as the ``Garner E.
Shriver Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on H.R. 1761.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1761, introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service
located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the
Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building. All members of the Kansas
congressional delegation have cosponsored this legislation.
Garner Shriver represented the Fourth Congressional District of
Kansas in this House for 8 terms, from 1961 to 1977. He was a lifelong
resident of the Sunflower State; he spent nearly his entire adult life
working for other Kansas residents, first as the State legislator and
later as a U.S. Representative. This legislation is a fitting
commemoration of his service to his home State and to the entire
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, Garner Shriver was born in Towanda, Kansas, July 6,
1912. He and his family moved to Wichita in 1925, and he graduated from
the University of Wichita in 1934. Following his college graduation, he
enrolled in the Washburn School of Law and received a law degree in
February, 1940.
After he was admitted to the bar, he entered into public service for
the first time by enlisting in the U.S. Navy. He spent 3 years as an
officer in the Navy; and after being honorably discharged, he chose to
run for public office. He was elected to the Kansas State House where
he served 2 terms. In 1951, he left the State House to run successfully
for the Kansas Senate, which he served from 1953 to 1960. Finally, in
the fall of 1960, the voters of the Fourth Congressional District of
Kansas sent Garner E. Shriver to Washington for the first of 8
distinguished terms in the House of Representatives.
In Congress, he was an influential member of the Committee on
Appropriations. He accomplished much during his 16 years in the House,
but he fought extra hard for his fellow veterans, particularly working
to secure health and education benefits for his peers when they
completed their duties with the U.S. Armed Forces.
Moreover, even when he left the House in 1977, he stayed in
Washington to fight for veterans by moving a few blocks north and
becoming the staff director for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He
worked in the Senate for 5 years before returning home to Kansas in
1982 to practice law.
Garner E. Shriver passed away on March 1, 1998, at the age of 85. He
was a remarkable American who succeeded at everything he tried in life,
and I know the citizens of Kansas still feel very grateful to him for
his years of dedication. Congressman Shriver preceded the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) as the representative of the fourth district,
and I congratulate my colleague for his work on this measure.
I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1761 that honors
the life and service of Congressman Garner E. Shriver.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform in consideration of H.R. 1761, which designates
the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East
Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the Garner E. Shriver Post
Office Building, which was introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt) on April 10, 2003. The bill has been cosponsored by the entire
Kansas delegation.
Garner E. Shriver served in both the Kansas House of Representatives
and the State Senate before being elected to represent the Fourth
Congressional District of Kansas. Reelected seven times, Representative
Shriver served on the House Committee on Appropriations. He left the
House in 1977 and went to the United States Senate where he served as
the minority staff director and general counsel for the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 until 1982. He practiced law
until his death in 1998.
He was obviously a person who spent all of his life working from one
career to another career doing outstandingly well in each and every one
of them. I think the designation, or the naming, of a postal facility
in his honor is appropriate and serves as an indication of the
tremendous legacy of service that he left. I urge swift passage of this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the author of this
legislation.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a former Member of
this distinguished body, the late Congressman Garner E. Shriver.
Congressman Shriver was born July 6, 1912, in the small Butler County
town of Towanda, Kansas. His family later moved to Wichita in 1925
where he attended public schools and graduated from Wichita East. He
remained in Wichita to receive his undergraduate degree from the
University of Wichita, now Wichita State University, in 1934. Today his
congressional papers are kept in the Ablah Library at Wichita State.
In 1940, he graduated from Washburn University School of Law in
Topeka, Kansas. He put himself both through undergraduate and law
school by working odd jobs, including serving as a doorman.
In 1941, Garner Shriver married Martha Jane Currier, his wife for the
next 50 years of his life. However, before he and Martha had a chance
to begin raising a family, World War II pulled him away from home. Mr.
Shriver enlisted in the Navy; and after 10 months, he received a
commission as lieutenant, leaving the Navy after 3 years as an officer.
At the end of the war, Lieutenant Shriver found himself commanding a
boat group in the Pacific for the Navy.
[[Page 17165]]
Not long after the war effort ended, Mr. Shriver made his first
attempt at elected office. In 1946, he ran for the Kansas House of
Representatives. He entered the race because, as he said, he felt he
did not have anything to lose. Representative Shriver etched out a
victory by a slim margin of only 222 votes. And so began the long and
distinguished career of a great Kansas statesman.
After serving 2 terms in the Kansas House, Representative Shriver had
greater ambitions and was elected to the Kansas State Senate where he
served for two 4-year terms. During his 12 years of service in the
Kansas legislature, he championed many worthwhile causes, including
education for handicapped and mentally challenged children, keeping
reckless drivers off the highways, creating the Kansas State Park
Authority, important flood control legislation, and setting up the 4-H
livestock show.
In 1960, he left State politics to run for Congress. Winning what was
characterized as ``a very spirited race,'' Garner Shriver became the
new Representative of the Fourth Congressional District. At that time,
the district included Sedwick and 14 other counties which are
considered to be heavily Democratic. Congressman Shriver went on to win
eight consecutive races before losing in a narrow defeat of 3,200 votes
in 1976 to former Congressman and former Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman.
During his 16 years in Congress, Mr. Shriver became an influential
voice on significant issues of the day, including health care and
education benefits for our Nation's veterans, as well as landmark civil
rights legislation. Congressman Shriver served on the committee that
drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His family is very proud of the
fact that they have one of the pens President Lyndon Johnson used to
sign the historic legislation into law.
While Congressman Shriver worked on various issues of national
concern during his time, he was a relentless advocate of his
constituents back in Kansas. As a senior member of the Committee on
Appropriations, Representative Shriver was in a unique position to
protect the vital interests of the fourth district of Kansas and the
State of Kansas.
When Representative Shriver left Congress in 1977, he was ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations and third ranking Republican on the full committee. In that
important capacity, Congressman Shriver was able to make sure Kansas
was never overlooked during the Federal budget process.
Although he left the House in 1977, he did not leave Congress. He
moved over to the Senate and served as minority staff director and
general counsel for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee until 1982
where he made a significant impact on the lives of his fellow veterans.
Upon completion of a near-lifetime of public service, Congressman
Shriver returned home to Wichita where he practiced law and spent the
rest of his life alongside his loving and dedicated wife, Martha Jane,
until his death on March 1, 1998. Garner Shriver is survived by his
wife and three children, David, Kay and Linda. He also has seven
grandchildren and two great grandchildren.
During the nearly 30 years of elected public office, the name of
Garner Shriver became synonymous with Wichita and south central Kansas.
Simply put, Garner Shriver was a political giant. I am honored to
succeed him as the current fourth district Representative, and I am
pleased to have an opportunity to commemorate his service to our Nation
by sponsoring this legislation.
Mr. Shriver's beloved wife, Martha Jane Shriver, receives her mail
from the United States post office at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in
Wichita, Kansas; and this is an especially appropriate location to
designate the Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I commend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for introducing this
legislation. Garner E. Shriver during his years in Congress lived in
Lake Barcroft, which is the community I live in and represent in
Congress. He was a good family man and neighbor there as well. This is
a fitting commemoration for a very distinguished statesman, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support adoption of this measure.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the rest of the
Kansas congressional delegation in supporting H.R. 1761, which will
designate a post office in Wichita, KS, as the ``Garner E. Shriver Post
Office.''
As a Kansas native, who was raised in Wichita, I well remember
Congressman Garner Shriver. My father, Warner Moore, served as Sedgwick
County Attorney in the 1950s and was the Democratic nominee in 1958 for
the congressional seat later held by Shriver. My father came within
less than 2,400 votes of defeating Representative Edward Rees, who had
held the seat since first being elected in 1936. Two years later,
Representative Rees retired, and my father lost a very close primary
battle with William Robinson, who was defeated for the open seat by
Garner Shriver, who won with a margin of over 22,000 votes.
Garner Shriver served as a U.S. Representative for 16 years. He was
born in Towanda, KS, in 1912; his family moved to Wichita in 1925. He
graduated from University of Wichita in 1934; after postgraduate study
at the University of Southern California, he graduated from Washburn
University School of Law in 1940. The following year, he married Martha
Jane Currier, who would be his wife for 56 years--they had three
children: Kay, David, and Linda. He worked for Fox-Vlient Drug Company
of Wichita from 1934-36, and taught speech at South Haven High School,
of South Haven, KS, in 1936-37. Shriver joined the Navy at the outset
of World War II and served 10 months in the enlisted ranks before being
commissioned as lieutenant, senior grade. He was a boat group commander
in the Pacific at the end of the war.
Shriver agreed to run for the Kansas Legislature in 1946, because, as
his wife was later quoted as saying, ``he figures he didn't have
anything to lose. When we went to bed that night, we didn't know
anything about elections. We woke up in the morning and he'd won by 22
votes.'' He served two terms in the Kansas House and two terms in the
Kansas Senate before being elected to the House of Representatives in
1960. Senator Bob Dole, who was in Shriver's freshman class of House
Members, recalled at this funeral that he ``was known as a quiet and
effective legislator and someone who kept his word. He was an exemplary
husband and father.'' Former Representative Dan Glickman, who defeated
Shriver in 1976, recalled him as ``one who helped his district and
state a lot, while being very congenial, civilized; not noisy, not
polarizing.''
Garner Shriver rose to be the ranking Republican on the House
Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee; he also was one of the
original appointees to the House Budget Committee upon its
establishment. Low key and moderately conservative, he was an active
supporter of medical benefits for World War II veterans and for combat
pay for Vietnam-era servicemembers. Early in his career, he served on a
House subcommittee that originated the Civil Rights Act of 1964; his
family still treasures one of the pens used by President Johnson in
signing the measure into law. As the Whichita Eagle's obituary put it,
Garner Shriver ``embraced politics, seeing public service as a mandate
for living a truly Christian life.'' As the Shriver family's minister
and eulogist at his funeral, the Reverend George Gardner said, ``Garner
Shriver was always mindful of the people. They were not his people but
God's people. And he thought they must be served with generosity,
kindness and compassion.''
Following his defeat in 1976, Shriver remained in Washington, DC,
until 1982, working as the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee's
minority staff director and general counsel. After concluding that
service, he returned to private law practice in Wichita, where he died
in 1998.
Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we come together today to commemorate
the life and service of Garner Shriver with the naming of this post
Office. As Reverend Gardner said at his funeral, ``Garner Shriver came
to us with energy and compassion and from his life we were called to a
higher standard of principle. In him, we saw the value of public
service as he revealed to us the great privilege of living in
America.''
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 17166]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1761.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
FRANCISCO A. MARTINEZ FLORES POST OFFICE
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 2396) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte,
California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2396
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FRANCISCO A. MARTINEZ FLORES POST OFFICE.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte,
California, shall be known and designated as the ``Francisco
A. Martinez Flores Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on H.R. 2396.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, introduced by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis), designates the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California,
as the Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office. All 53 members of the
California delegation have signed on to this bill as cosponsors.
The story of Lance Corporal Flores is one of remarkable courage. Born
in Guadalajara, Mexico, Francisco came to the United States with his
family at the age of 3. His family settled in the community of Duarte,
California, east of Los Angeles. He grew up in Duarte, attended Duarte
High School where he was a standout in the jazz band and on the
football team. When Francisco graduated from high school in the spring
of 2000, he bravely enlisted in the Marine Corps despite not yet being
an American citizen. He was assigned to the First Marine Division and
sent north to Twenty-nine Palms, California, the home of the Marine
Corps Air-Ground Combat Center. After 2\1/2\ years of active duty in
California, Lance Corporal Flores courageously journeyed with many of
his fellow Marines across the globe to Iraq in January of this year for
the military buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On March 25, 6 days into the war of liberation of Iraq, Lance
Corporal Flores was killed in action outside of Nasiriyah in
southeastern Iraq.
{time} 1400
Sadly, he was less than 2 weeks from earning his United States
citizenship, something that was his lifelong dream.
Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Francisco A. Martinez Flores lived an
extraordinary life, albeit a tragically short one. He represents the
best of what American immigrants bring to this country. I commend the
gentlewoman from California for introducing this bill, that it will
appropriately honor his sacrifices to our Nation.
I want to let all Members know that Lance Corporal Flores was
deservingly granted his U.S. citizenship posthumously on April 6, right
on schedule. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the passage of
this bill that will name this post office after Lance Corporal Flores
in his hometown.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2396, which designates the facility of United
States Postal Service located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte,
California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office'' was
introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) on June 9,
2003. The bill has been cosponsored by the entire California
delegation.
Mr. Speaker, Francisco A. Martinez Flores was 3 years old when his
family moved from Mexico to California. He joined the Marines so that
he could go to college. Unfortunately, at the early age of 21, Lance
Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, who was assigned to the 1st Tank
Battalion, 1st Marine Division in Twentynine Palms, California, was
killed in Iraq on March 25, 2003. He died when his tank went over a
collapsing bridge and tumbled into the Euphrates River.
The oldest of four children, Corporal Martinez was to have become a
citizen of the U.S. in April of this year. Unfortunately, he died
before he could take the oath of allegiance. He was buried as an
American after being granted his citizenship posthumously.
Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez
Flores, with commendations, who gave his life before being granted or
having the opportunity to have been granted his citizenship. I express
condolences to his mother and to his siblings, and I commend the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for seeking to honor the memory
of a fallen hero, a soldier who gave his life so that others may
experience the freedom, the liberty, and the opportunities that he
never got an opportunity to fully enjoy. One cannot give much more than
that, and I would urge swift passage of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the author of this resolution, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member and also the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. We just came back from
celebrating July 4, and on that occasion I had the opportunity of
attending one of the local parades in one of my cities, Rosemead,
California. I met four soldiers that had just returned from Iraq, about
the same age as Francisco Martinez Flores, and their stories were also
heartening and compelling. They came back to their families, and I had
a chance to meet them.
Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, a young man of 21 years of
age, did not come back. And people ask me, Congresswoman, why is it
that you want to name a post office after this young man? He was not an
elected official. He was very young in life and was just barely
starting out in his own career and finding his way. One of the things I
have to tell the Members is that what when I read the tragic story of
his death, one of the first soldiers to die among those in California,
I was very moved, very moved to see his family and the community of
Duarte that I now represent in the 32nd Congressional District come
together. I attended his funeral where there were 1,200 people from
outside of that city who came to gather to pay witness to this young
man who had served and given his life.
[[Page 17167]]
As was stated earlier by my colleagues, this young man was not
originally from the United States. At 3 years of age, he came to this
country with his parents from Guadalajara, Mexico, but he attended our
local high school in Duarte, participated in many activities,
extracurricular, football team and the jazz band. He even wanted to be
a member of our government, serving as a police officer. He will never
get to realize that dream, and I saw that this was an opportunity for
us to pay tribute to someone like him, like many other soldiers who are
now serving and some that have not returned that we should pay tribute
to, for they made and they make the ultimate sacrifice without a doubt
and without question. In fact, his mother was quoted, and I recall at
the church the mass that I attended at that funeral, her name is Martha
Martinez, and she said of him, ``He loved the United States so much. He
was from Mexico, but he was fighting for America and its ideals.''
Everyone was touched and moved by that statement.
Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was not just a brave and self-
sacrificing marine, but he was a loving son, a brother and a friend to
many who live in the 32nd Congressional District. He was the eldest of
four siblings that emigrated to the country, and as I said, he served a
short time there at high school in various extracurricular activities.
And on that day January 23, 2003, he was sent abroad to fight in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, probably not knowing that he would never come
home. He was just 2 weeks shy from gaining his United States
citizenship. Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was killed in the line of
duty near Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 25, 2003, and after his death,
Lance Corporal Martinez's family proudly accepted a certificate of
naturalization granting to Francisco posthumous U.S. citizenship on
April 6, 2003. He was one of thousands of lawful permanent residents
who have volunteered their service to protect the United States by
joining the U.S. military.
Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was a courageous and dedicated marine
who grew up in our local community of Duarte, and I am privileged that
we will be naming a Federal building after him in his hometown.
Local residents in the city there have also shown their support to
honor him. They have come together to put together their own funds to
develop a scholarship in his name. And all 52 Members on a bipartisan
effort from California support this initiative. The mayor and the city
council of the city of Duarte are also bipartisan and support this
piece of legislation. These efforts now will lead to the post office at
1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, to be named Francisco A.
Martinez Flores.
I want to thank all of them for their support for the bill, all those
that had the ability to be a part of this to help us move this along in
an expeditious manner, and I want to especially thank the family
members and those people that represent that community that came
together to fully unify themselves behind this young man. It is
devastating for us to know that someone has to lose their life under
such turbulent time and hardship to have a community come together like
that. This was one of those moments in our history. The bill is a
tribute to all those who have died to our country, and it is a tribute
to all the families who have lost a loved one. The bill symbolizes the
gratitude and admiration we have for our Nation's soldiers who risk
their life to uphold their way of life and the American ideals of
liberty, justice, and equality. And I urge all my colleagues to join me
in recognizing this American hero, Lance Corporal Francisco A. Martinez
Flores, who fought and died for our country, by supporting this bill
today, H.R. 2396.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me say I commend my colleague for bringing this legislation to
the floor. In our usual order of things, it is individuals with power,
prestige, and notoriety that get postal namings, but it is the
Francisco Floreses of this world, many of them immigrants, who built
this country, who make it run every day, and who fight to keep it free.
He is in a larger sense, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis)
says, an American hero, and I urge adoption of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to
stand before the Members today in support of H.R. 2396. This
legislation designates the post office located at 1210 Highland Avenue
in Duarte, California, after a courageous young marine, Lance Corporal
Francisco Martinez Flores.
Lance Corporal Flores was killed in the line of duty near Nasiriyah,
Iraq, on March 25, 2003, protecting the rights, beliefs, and values of
a Nation that he could not yet call his own. He was just 2 weeks away
from gaining his U.S. citizenship, which was granted posthumously on
April 6, 2003.
According to the Department of Defense, an estimated 37,000 legal
permanent residents are currently serving on Active Duty in our Armed
Forces. These young men and women have willingly volunteered to carry
out one of the most solemn duties any nation can ask of its people, and
they have more than earned the right to become citizens of the Nation
they have sworn to uphold and protect. Their contributions should
always be remembered.
Naming the post office after Lance Corporal Flores is not just a way
to honor his memory, but also a small way to show appreciation and
respect to the other 200 soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Each day when a person walks through the Highland Avenue Post Office
located in Duarte, California, they will be able to read about this
hero and remember that it is the people in their community who
contribute to the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans.
I would like to thank every man and woman currently serving in the
U.S. military. I hope they stay safe, and I wish them a speedy return,
and I sleep better at night knowing that they are doing such a
tremendous job, and I sleep better at night knowing that people like
Francisco Martinez Flores are there serving our country. I urge all my
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2396.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With the understanding and recognition that I agree with the
gentlewoman from California that if one has the right to fight and die,
one certainly has the right to citizenship, I would urge swift passage
of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2396.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 1610
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dreier) at 4 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.
[[Page 17168]]
____________________
REPORT ON H.R. 2660, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2004
Mr. REGULA, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 108-188) on the bill (H.R. 2660) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1, rule XXI, all points
of order are reserved on the bill.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 11 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 1834
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) at 6 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.
____________________
THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to speak out of order, to
revise and extend his remarks and include therein extraneous material.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, this morning the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, and I had the honor of
bestowing on four of our former colleagues the Congressional
Distinguished Service Award. The four honorees were John Rhodes of
Arizona, Louis Stokes of Ohio, Don Edwards of California, and Bob
Michel of Illinois.
I first discussed creating the award last Congress with the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then Democratic leader. We thought it
appropriate and fitting to have an award that is dedicated to former
Members of Congress whose service to the country exemplifies the best
traditions of the United States House of Representatives.
Today we honored four former colleagues, two Republicans, two
Democrats, who had widely different political views, but who shared a
love for their country and for this Congress. John Rhodes, Louis
Stokes, Bob Michel, and Don Edwards shared certain virtues even as they
pursued different political agendas. The words integrity, humility,
honesty, and steadfastness describe all four of these individuals. None
of them, none of the men that we honored today, pursued political
ambition at the expense of common decency. None sacrificed their souls
on the altar of political expediency. They inspired many with their
political insight and their remarkable ability to bridge differences
when seeking compromise.
All of them left their mark on this institution. Some were succeeded
by former staff members who they mentored. All were giants in their
district who cultivated many to go into public service. All of them
left this institution a better place by their service, and for that we
give them our humble thanks.
It was an honor to award these individuals, to hear them speak from
their hearts today about what this House meant to each of them. It is a
very special place for them and their generation and for us today. I
wish them Godspeed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the entire proceedings
of this morning's proceedings into the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The material previously referred to is as follows:
Remarks From the Congressional Distinguished Service Award Ceremony,
July 8, 2003
HASTERT. Several years ago, in conferring with then-
Democrat Leader Dick Gephardt, we thought it was very fitting
and proper for us to recognize members of Congress of this
House of Representatives who've gone before us, who've laid
the cornerstones of the good things that we enjoy in this
Congress: the ability to communicate with one another, the
ability to move forward good legislation, people who have
shown the very best human attributes in this pursuit that we
carry forth day in and day out.
I just want to thank every one of you, for being here today
in Statuary Hall as we honor and recognize the first
recipients of the Congressional Distinguished Service Award.
In doing this, we said, ``Here are thousands of great
people, people that we deal with, people that we live with in
a sense day in and day out. But yet there are certain people
who add a very special meaning to serving in this Congress
and this House of the Representatives of the U.S. Congress.''
The Distinguished Service Medal Award is dedicated to
former members of Congress whose service to the country
exemplifies the very best traditions of the United States
House of Representatives.
We are honoring four men today, two Republicans and two
Democrats. The purpose of this was to start two years ago,
but because of illness and some extenuating circumstances
called 9/11 and others we have put both the Congresses
together today in this presentation.
The two Republicans and two Democrats who had widely
different political views but who shared a love for their
country and for this Congress, all four are members of the
greatest generation who--those Americans who lived through
the Great Depression, who fought in the Second World War, who
played a critical role in making America the brightest beacon
of freedom in the darkest days of the Cold War.
It is altogether appropriate that we honor these four men
with this new award.
Since my colleagues selected me as their Speaker, I've had
the distinct pleasure to participate in ceremonies
recognizing recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal, our
nation's highest civilian award given by the United States
Congress.
I have had the pleasure to participate in ceremonies
honoring Rosa Parks, the World War II Indian windtalkers,
Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II with the Congressional
Gold Medal. The gold medal awarded by the Congress is an
important way for our nation to pay tribute to leaders who
make this world a better place with their service.
The Distinguished Service Award pays tribute to those who
make this House a better place with their service.
John Rhodes, Lou Stokes, Bob Michel, Don Edwards--all of
these men shared certain virtues even as they pursued
different political agendas: integrity, humility, honesty,
steadfastness.
None of these men pursued political ambition at the expense
of common decency. None sacrificed their souls on the alter
of political expediency. They always respected each other's
differences and opinions. They inspired many with their
political insight and their remarkable ability to bridge
differences when seeking compromise.
They're all war heroes who served their country during
World War II, then continued to serve their country as
leaders in this United States Congress.
John, Louis, Bob and Don will always be remembered not just
as the first recipients of this award, but also as great
leaders who truly made a difference in the lives of so many
Americans.
You're all very deserving of such recognition.
Congratulations again for being the first recipients of the
Congressional Distinguished Service Award.
And now it's my privilege to introduce the Democratic
leader, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause)
PELOSI. Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those very, very inspiring
words about the people whom we are gathered here today to
honor.
Thank you also, Mr. Speaker, for having the idea, along
with Congressman Richard Gephardt--then-Leader Richard
Gephardt, to recognize the distinguished service of our
former colleagues.
Those of us who served with them are blessed to be able to
call them colleague.
As you know, it's a privilege to be here in this role to
honor the first-ever recipients of the Congressional
Distinguished Service Award and their families. It's an honor
for all of us to be part of this historic ceremony.
I'm so pleased that we've been joined by some of the pages,
because they, of course, were not here when these
distinguished gentlemen served. But what they should know is
that all four of them had public service as a high calling,
all four of them were an inspiration to other generations to
serve to be attracted to public service. And that's one of
the reasons we're honoring them today.
Again, I want to commend the speaker and Dick Gephardt for
their foresight in establishing this award.
[[Page 17169]]
Today's ceremony offers the opportunity both to honor these
individuals and to remind ourselves how outstanding the
character of a few fine people through sheer measure of their
decency can elevate the institution for everyone.
These former members were on different sides of the aisle,
but they took a shared oath and recognized a greater
obligation to serve the country together, both to find common
ground where they could and to stand their ground where they
could not. No one has come closer to the ideal, the perfect
member of Congress, perfect public servant, than John Rhodes,
Lou Stokes, Don Edwards and Bob Michel.
Though John Rhodes cannot be with us today, we are honored
that his award will be received in the most appropriate way.
John Rhodes earned the love and the respect of his colleagues
and constituents for his service to his district, to his
beloved house and to the country. We remember his calming
strength and the dignity he displayed during the last days of
the Nixon Administration, when his leadership was so
important to the country.
I hope that you will convey, in addition to the award, all
of the good wishes of all gathered here today to your
distinguished father.
Lou Stokes and I served together for many years, both on
the Appropriations Committee and the Ethics Committee. A man
of humble beginnings and high principle through his integrity
and his commitment to the less advantaged was unsurpassed. He
came from a strong public tradition of public service, as did
Mr. Rhodes--continuing that. His colleagues were blessed to
see Lou's character in acton every day. But, the whole
country caught a glimpse and were affected by what made his
so special, and his moving personal statement during the
Iran-Contra hearings.
He comes, again, from a distinguished family. His mother
has a federal building named for her, and rightly so, because
she produced two great public servants. And I have a personal
connection because my brother served as mayor of Baltimore
when Lou's brother was mayor of Cleveland, and went on, of
course, to represent our country with great distinction as an
ambassador.
And part of that family tradition is, obviously, the
service of Lou Stokes in the Congress of the United States.
On the Intelligence Committee, where he was chair, he
introduced diversity into the mix: integrity, diversity,
mission success.
On the Ethics Committee, it was always the highest possible
standard. And on his work on the Appropriations Committee, he
did a great deal to put forth the values of our country into
our spending priorities, and he has been recognized for that
at the National Institutes of Health, among other
distinctions.
I had the privilege of naming this--Lou was named by Dick
Gephardt when he was leader, and as the speaker said, the
service of this presentation was deferred.
I, in my capacity as Democratic leader, had the privilege
of naming Don Edwards, a great patriot in the finest sense of
the word, absolutely committed to his country, to our country
into making it better. Don spent his entire adult life
defending the Constitution and protecting our civil
liberties. Successfully demonstrating that neither our
security nor our liberties need to be sacrificed. In order to
have both, we need leadership; Don Edwards provided that.
Don is the only member who upon his retirement received
both the American Civil Liberties Union Award and had a
dinner honoring him hosted by the FBI.
And while in Congress, he was a mentor, a gentleman, a
floor leader of the ERA. Well, you're going to hear so much
more about all of these from our distinguished presenters,
but suffice it to say, as a Californian, I am particularly
proud of Don Edwards.
Bob Michel--anyone who served with Bob Michel knew that it
was a special privilege to do so. He always had a basic
respect for his political friends and political foes alike.
He never questioned the motives of his colleagues.
A great Republican leader, Bob's strong working
relationships and personal friendships with the Democratic
speakers of the House, Tip O'Neill and Tom Foley, were on
full display when then-Speaker Foley invited Bob to take the
chair on the last day of the lame duck session in 1994. That
spoke volumes as to the respect with which Bob Michel was
held as a member of Congress as a Republican leader, and is
held as a statesman for our country.
It is a joy always to see him as a source of great
intellectual power, political strength and dignity in his
service to the Congress.
I am honored to be part of any program that Bob Michel is
being recognized.
As individuals, our honorees today are some of the finest
people ever to pass through these halls. Together, they are a
welcome reminder of what our country and our Congress can be
at its best. These first recipients of the Congressional
Distinguished Service Award call all of us to a higher
standard.
Again, thank you, Speaker Hastert, for your vision and
leadership in establishing this award with Leader Gephardt.
Congratulations to all of our honorees, and thank each and
every one of you for being with us this morning.
Thank you, (Applause)
HASTERT. Thank you, Leader Pelosi.
Now I'd like to introduce the chairman of the Defense
Appropriations Committee, a 25-year veteran of the House, a
distinguished gentleman from California, the distinguished
Congressman Jerry Lewis. (Applause)
LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Leader Pelosi,
Reverend Dan and friends (inaudible).
Ladies and gentlemen, it's my distinct privilege and honor
to say a few words about John J. Rhodes and remind all of us
a bit of his service.
I first met the then-Republican leader in 1969--'79--'89--
1979 as I came to the Congress a part of a band of wild men
who arrived on the scene recognizing that the House had been
dominated by one party too long and by golly it was our
responsibility to do something about it.
The wild men led by Newt Gingrich and the likes of then-
Congressman-elect Dick Cheney were counseled early on by Bob
Livingston, who had arrived about six months before us, and
he had special tools in mind to help us carry forward our
quest.
At that point in time, we were fortunate enough to have a
Republican leader who recognized that there was much to be
done, including changing the House, but who also recognized
that there were ways to accomplish things. And his advice and
counsel, over that period and over the years, has been very,
very important to me personally and to all of us.
John J. Rhodes, a man of the House, served in the House as
the first Republican elected from Arizona. For 30 years, a
member of the House of Representatives. John J. Rhodes, first
and foremost a Republican but beyond that a public servant
committed to representing his people and his state well and
committed to bringing about change in our national
government.
Over the years, John served on several committees in the
House: the Education and Labor Committee, the Interior
Committee, the Appropriations Committee, in which he served
on my Subcommittee on National Security, and on the Rules
Committee. During all of that service, he made many a
contribution to the work of the House in terms of impacting
public policy.
During those early years, he had a direct involvement in
developing Republican policy or perhaps an alternative to the
then leadership direction that might be a bit more
conservative. He was chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee, and he did a fantastic job helping the leadership
to hold our band together to impact the direction of our
government.
In 1973, his life changed rapidly for the then-Republican
leader, Gerald Ford, was tapped to become our vice president.
And by acclamation, John Rhodes was selected to be our
leader. His advice and counsel, his stability, his solid
commitment to the House made all the difference for the
minority of those days.
He was a gentleman who everyone recognized as a person who
cared about the House, the institution and public policy
first. He reached out to the leadership on the other side of
the aisle, seeking compromise, where possible, to impact the
best possible of directions.
John J. Rhodes developed an interest in water because of
its importance to Arizona. And while serving on the Interior
Committee, he literally developed more base knowledge
regarding the challenges in this difficult arena than anybody
in the entire body.
John J. Rhodes, a public policy specialist, who early on
expressed concern about the direction of our country in terms
of national security. It was his voice that was heard time
and again talking about the challenge and the problem of
decreasing defense budgets. It was his voice that suggested
we should have an intertwining between foreign policy and
national defense that projected itself not for five years but
for 10, 20, perhaps 50 years, to make certain that America
played that leadership role that was necessary to make
certain that we were the force for peace and freedom in the
world, a voice that's heard today in many a circle, the first
echoed in these halls by our leaders, John Rhodes.
A fabulous Arizonan who would be with us today if it were
not for the fact that he is fighting another battle, the
battle of cancer that we all know about affecting our
country.
John J. Rhodes, a man to be remembered, a man of the House
who indeed served out his destiny, making a difference in
strengthening the House and laying the foundation for the
future of this great institution. (Applause)
HASTERT. At this time, I'd like to call up Jay Rhodes.
Jay. (Applause)
On behalf of the Congress of the United States.
JAY RHODES, son of John Rhodes. Thank you, Speaker, and
thank all of you for being here today. It's a great privilege
and it's such a great honor for me to be here. I wish I
weren't. There are so many of you in the audience that I
recognize, members of my dad's staff, members who served with
him, members who served with both of us.
As you all know, service in this House is a great honor and
it's a great privilege. One of
[[Page 17170]]
my honors and privileges was to serve with both Speaker
Hastert and Leader Pelosi. And I thank you both very, very
much for the kind words that you've mentioned here this
morning.
And, Congressman Stokes, Congressman Edwards, Congressman
Michel, it's an honor to share this podium with you.
We are here to award four longtime members of the House,
members who lent a significant part of their lives and of
their dedication to service to the House of Representatives,
and that's quite appropriate.
But in many ways these four members are simply reflections
of the House, because the House, while it's made up of a
group of fiercely independent individuals, when it is the
House, when it's the House acting on the country's business,
it's a grouping of Americans, a grouping of Americans who
have ideals and thoughts and aspirations and hopes and goals
which basically can be boiled down to a peaceful, free,
harmonious United States.
And those are the goals of every member of this body,
regardless of the time that they served and regardless of the
party that they served.
And so you award four very deserving former members of the
House, but at the same time you're honoring yourselves and
you're honoring the institution, and rightfully so.
And were my dad able to be here today--and let me hasten to
say to you that he is not currently at death's door, he just
simply would be physically unable to make the trip--but were
he here he would tell you that service in this body is an
honor that has been conferred upon and enjoyed by very few in
the history of this country, and it's an honor that cannot be
replicated and it's an honor that can sometimes barely be
described.
But he would tell you that service here made him when he
left a better person than he was when he arrived, and I think
that each and every one of us who's had the honor to serve
here would concur in that. I think that being here makes you
a better person. Having the opportunity to be of some
measured service to your country has to make you a better
person.
If I could use two words to describe my dad, they would be
service and they would be loyalty. Service is self-described
in terms of the amount of time that he spent, both in the
military and then here in this body, and what he has done
since he's left the body.
Loyalty, of course, to his family, tremendous loyalty to
his family. Tremendous loyalty to his wife, to my mother. But
loyalty to this institution, because he felt and feels very
strongly that this is democracy's cradle, this is where the
work of keeping people free and hopeful starts and sometimes
is concluded, hopefully always positively.
And were he here he would tell you that he appreciates this
from the bottom of his heart, as do I for him. Thank you all
very much. (Applause)
HASTERT. Thank you, Jay.
When Louis Stokes decided to retire after 30 years of
service in the House many in Ohio thought it would be
impossible to fill his shoes. But when a certain prosecutor
by the name of Stephanie Tubbs Jones decided to run for his
seat, the people chose her as their candidate to do that job.
Please welcome Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
(Applause)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES (D-OH). To
Speaker Hastert, Leader Pelosi, Reverend Coughlin, my
colleagues, current, my former colleagues who I have not had
a chance to meet, imagine this: In 1968, I was completing my
freshman year in college at Case Western Reserve and I had
the opportunity to work in the campaign for the first African
American to be elected to the U.S. Congress from the State of
Ohio. Imagine this: He didn't know who I was. (Laughter)
Imagine this: Some 30 years later, I would be running to
hold that very same seat in the U.S. Congress, and today, 35
years later, I have the opportunity to participate in the
presentation of this Distinguished Service Award to the
Honorable Congressman Louis Stokes, to celebrate and
recognize his outstanding service and achievement.
Let me fill in the blanks. Prior to serving in Congress,
Congressman Stokes practiced law for 14 years and was one of
the founders of the firm Stokes, Character (ph), Terry (ph),
Perry (ph), Whitehead (ph), Young (ph) and Davidson (ph) law
firm. His brother Carl (ph), the first African American mayor
of a major American city, was also a partner. Congressman
Stokes argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, one
of the most famous the stop-and-frisk landmark case of Terry
(ph) v. Ohio. On November 6, he ran and was elected to
Congress, serving 15 consecutive terms. When he left the
Congress he was 11th overall ranking in the House.
But during his tenure he served as chair on several
important committees, including, most notably, the House
Select Committee on Assassinations, the Ethics Committee, the
House Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD and Independent
Agencies.
He was the dean of the Ohio delegation and was one of the
founding members of the infamous Congressional Black Caucus.
It is through his work and leadership that he became the
chair of the Congressional Black Caucus health brain trust,
and his name is marked across the country for his service in
this area. He has worked in health care in so many different
areas that he is recognized for the Alliance for Minority
Participation program that was created under his leadership
and funded by this Congress, and more than 20 programs across
this country are participating in this wonderful program.
His work in the area of health care has also been
recognized by the National Institute of Health, the Louis
Stokes Libraries, the Case Western Reserve University Louis
Stokes Health Center, the Department of Veterans Affairs
Louis Stokes VA Hospital campus, and Howard University Louis
Stokes Health Science Libraries.
I'm smiling, Congressman Clay, because Congressman Clay
said if another building in Cleveland is named after Louis
Stokes they might as well call it Stokes, Ohio. (Laughter)
He has received more than 26 honorary degrees from colleges
and universities across this country. The Congressional Black
Caucus, in association with the Heinken Company (ph), created
the Louis Stokes Congressional Fellows Programs.
Now, why do you think that a man like this would be
recognized in so many instances? It is because of his
leadership. It is because of his willingness to stand up and
talk about issues that are important for all Americans.
In Cleveland, the Cleveland Public Library has a Lou Stokes
wing. The public transit station is named after him. A street
is named after him and his brother. A day care facility. A
post office after his wonderful mother, Louise (ph) Stokes.
Yet with all of this recognition, he takes time to talk to
children at schools, to teach at Case Western Reserve, to
serve as an adviser to the National Committee on Minority
Health.
And you would think after retiring, at least in my
conversations with Jay, that he would get a fishing pole and
find a cool stream. Not my congressman. He, in fact, says,
``How would you characterize successful aging?'' These are
not my words, these are his. ``I'm not sure I know precisely
what the term successful aging means. If by successful aging
you mean continuing to be active and involved and productive,
notwithstanding that I am older than 65, then that might be a
good definition of successful aging. I've worked since I was
12 years old. I have never been without a job. I love work.
I``--I need my glasses--'' (inaudible) when I am productive
and I am involved in being active. I perhaps overdo it in
that one should have hobbies. Perhaps, people say to me all
the time. `What are your hobbies?' I don't know. I don't have
any hobbies. My hobby is work. I just love work. If anything
has enabled me to fill a category of successful aging, it is
that I have spent my lifetime working.''
And quote he says--well, the question is, ``With your
public service career behind you, to what are you looking
forward to now?''
``The challenge of engaging a third career at the age of 74
is very exciting. To think that now I come back to the city
to practice law is thrilling. I practiced law for 14 years as
a criminal defense lawyer before I went to Congress. I spent
30 years in Congress. Now to come out and have a worldwide
law firm, Squire (ph), Sanders (ph) & Dempsey (ph), accept me
as senior counsel in the firm is very flattering. Most law
firms kick you out at 65. The fact that they have a lot of
seniors and juniors in respect to one of the myths that after
65 you don't have much utility to a law firm, for them to
reach out and take a man who is 74 years old and say, `Oh, he
does have value,' should cause some of the law firms to
rethink that myth.''
It goes on, but I won't spend time reading it.
I have been personally blessed to have the ear, the heart
and the support of the Honorable Congressman Louis Stokes. On
each occasion that I've asked for help he was there for me,
and occasionally when I didn't ask he was there. (Laughter)
People often ask, ``Is it hard coming behind an icon like
Congressman Louis Stokes?'' I answer, ``Of course it is. But
I'm not trying to fill his shoes, I'm standing on his
shoulders.''
He's blazed the trail for me, cleared the bushes, and it's
my obligation to keep moving forward. God has truly blessed
me. I viewed Congressman Stokes from afar and I watched him
on that TV doing that cross-examination or standing up on
issues or bringing people in Cleveland out to vote or turning
out people in support of issues important to our community. I
sat at his feet, and now I can sit at his table.
What a great country we live in and what a wonderful and
mighty God we serve that I've had the opportunity to go from
afar and to come this close to my icon, the Honorable
Congressman Louis Stokes. (Applause)
HASTERT. Would Louis Stokes please come forward?
Louis, on behalf of the United States House of
Representatives.
FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUIS STOKES (D-OH): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
And thank you, Stephanie.
[[Page 17171]]
To our leader, Nancy Pelosi. Distinguished members of the
dais. Ladies and gentlemen.
I want to thank Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones for
being my presenter on this occasion and for her very warm and
kind remarks.
The choice of who in the current Congress would present me
was not an easy one because I still have many friends here.
But I chose Stephanie because she is not only my friend, she
is the embodiment of all that I hold dear about this
institution. She is now the current and the future for the
people who gave me the honor of representing them in the
United States Congress.
The torch I placed in her hands is burning brightly, and I
anticipate her exceeding any accomplishments that I may have
had in this house. She is now the pride and the joy of the
11th congressional district of Ohio.
Stephanie, I thank you. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this honor bestowed upon me
today. It is humbling to be accorded this honor by the
speaker of the House of Representatives. Having served in
this house with you prior to and during your speakership, I
have great admiration and respect for both your leadership of
the House and the great service you are giving to our nation.
Thank you, sir.
Madam Leader, Nancy Pelosi, as you and I know, before
Stephanie Tubbs Jones arrived you were my favorite female in
the House. (Laughter)
Madam Leader, I am so proud of you, and I am proud of our
friendship over the years. As members of the Appropriations
Committee and the Ethics Committee, as you've already stated,
you and I stood and fought together on many issues on behalf
of health, education, housing, women, children, minorities,
the poor and the disadvantaged. We didn't always win, but we
always fought.
I want to thank you, Nancy Pelosi, also for this great
honor.
I'm also indebted to my friend Dick Gephardt, who last
year, while still Democratic leader, selected me for this
honor. When I served in the House I was proud to be a member
of his leadership team. His leadership in the House was
exemplary, and I am grateful to him for deeming me worthy of
this high honor.
In this audience today are a few people whose presence I
would like to acknowledge. I share this great honor today
with my lovely wife and closest friend, Jay Stokes, with whom
next month I will celebrate 43 years of marriage. (Applause)
We have with us here today our four children, Shelley,
Angie, Chucky, Lori, Lori's husband Brian. We also are
privileged to have with us five of our seven grandchildren.
My children and my grandchildren have been my greatest
inspiration.
Also present is my best friend in the House, former
Congressman William ``Bill'' Clay, who came into Congress
with me, with whom I served for 30 years.
I'm also proud to acknowledge the presence of a number of
my current colleagues at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, a
worldwide law firm, including the chairman of that firm, Tom
Stanton (ph).
The word ``ultimate'' seems to best describe the award
being given me, John Rhodes, Bob Michel and Don Edwards.
Serving with each of them was a great honor.
I have always thought that to be one of the small group of
Americans privileged to have been elected to serve in the
greatest legislative body in the world was the highest honor
that one could achieve. But to be given this ultimate award
here today by my former colleagues in an institution which I
revere is the most humbling experience of my life. No greater
honor can ever be accorded than to be honored by one's own
peers.
In accepting this award today I'm reminded of my first day
in Congress, January of 1969, 34 years ago. My mother, my
wife and family had been specially seated in the gallery, in
the section usually reserved for the family of the president
or other special guests. My mother had just been honored as
Ohio's mother of the year. Seated next to her was my brother
Carl, the mayor of Cleveland, who was America's first black
mayor of a major American city.
Growing up on welfare in the housing projects of Cleveland,
in the heart of Cleveland's slums, this mother, who scrubbed
floors and cleaned houses for a living, constantly admonished
Carl and me to work hard and grow up to be somebody. That
day, 34 years ago, as I stood on the floor of the United
States Congress and looked up in the gallery at her,
painfully aware that Carl and I were the first in our family
to ever to go to college, I was determined to make her proud.
Thanks to all of you in my prayers tonight I can say, Mom,
I worked hard, and Congress said I grew to be somebody.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
HASTERT. Thank you, Louis.
I'd now like to introduce the distinguished gentlewoman
from the state of California, who for eight years worked for
Congressman Don Edwards before his retirement from Congress.
She then ran for his seat and was elected to serve the people
of the 16th District of California.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Congresswoman Zoe
Lofgren. (Applause)
U.S REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA). Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. It is great to
see all of you here today, and especially so many Members of
the House. I know how hard it is to take time to be at a
ceremony. We're pulled in a million different directions. But
someone who's probably even busier than us is a Cabinet
secretary, and I'd especially like to thank Secretary Norm
Mineta, who shared San Jose with Don Edwards for so many
years, for being here. (Applause)
Norm was the Watergate class, the class of `74. And I see
people who served with Don Edwards, and I know that there was
a scramble, every one of them would have wanted to introduce
Don Edwards. And I guess I was lucky enough because not only
was I elected to represent the people that he represented so
well for 32 years, but I also served on his staff for nearly
nine years.
And you know, those of us who were on the staff sort of
divided up our service. I mean, there were different decades,
the `60s, the `70s, the `80s, and the `90s. And some of those
who served in the `90s never really knew the people who
served in the `60s, but we knew that Don Edwards made a
difference in every one of those decades.
It's worth noting that Don Edwards was not always a
Democrat, hard to believe. A native of San Jose, he grew up
on 13th St., just a few blocks from where I live today, on
16th St. He graduated from Stanford, passed the bar exam. He
was a scratch golfer, he was ``AM'' in the winning Pro-Am at
the Crosby one year. He established and ran a successful
business in San Jose and looked like he was going in one
direction when all of sudden the world turned.
And in 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected president of the
United States, Don Edwards came to his senses and became a
Democrat, and he got elected to Congress in 1962 to join the
country's new president in changing the world. And he did.
As floor leader during the omnibus civil rights act in the
`60s, he also led on the voting rights act; he was a key
figure in the establishment of fair housing laws.
You know, he was part of the greatest generation in World
War II. He was not afraid to fight for our country as a
gunnery officer and later as an intelligence officer, but he
also wasn't afraid to stand up for what he knew was right.
And so he was one of only nine people who voted against the
first funding for the Vietnam War, in the `60s. And he knew
that he was right and he wasn't afraid to stand up for it.
In the 1970s, he was the floor leader for the equal rights
amendment, and we all called him the Father of the Equal
Rights Amendment, but he was gracious enough to make sure
that women got to be the mothers and the authors. He was a
gentleman.
In the 1980s he led the fight for the ADA. And although he
and Congressman Henry Hyde had sharp differences of agreement
on many issues, he was able to work with Congressman Hyde
together on the assault weapons ban, and also on voting
rights issues, because he is the kind of person who would not
let a disagreement stand in the way of reaching an agreement
when you could if it served the public interest.
There are things that he did that people don't even know
about. I remember in the '70s, and you'll think back, when
the junta threw out the democratically elected government in
Greece, and his office became the center of the Greek
parliament in exile. And they would meet in his office, and
we would come in and find all the parliamentarians from
Greece plotting their return. And I think actually the
democracy in Greece today has a lot to do with what Don
Edwards was willing to do then.
As a former FBI agent, he knew about and had the stature to
go after misconduct in the FBI, the CoIntelpro, the misuse of
FBI resources for politics. J. Edgar Hoover was not a fan.
But the FBI has now become a better place because of the
efforts that he did to make sure that we had standards and
that law enforcement could not be misused.
I remember during 1974 in the impeachment inquiry of
Richard Nixon, President Nixon, and having served on the
Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiries here, I am
especially impressed by the dignity and the fairness with
which Don Edwards dealt with that issue. He was never
interested in getting to an end, to reaching a conclusion; he
was only interested in making sure that the facts were out
and that fairness was applied and the country was served.
As chairman of what was then known as Subcommittee Number
4, later the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
he spent full time securing constitutional rights for
Americans, and, yes, trying to expand civil rights. He spent
every day thinking how he could expand freedoms for America,
not just in his bills: I think you can tell a lot about
someone not just by their voting record and by the bills
introduced, but how they act in their daily life.
And I remember so clearly a situation where the least
powerful employees of the House of Representatives, workers
in the cafeteria, were being unfairly treated, and the one
person they felt they could come to in the House was
Congressman Don Edwards. And this group of totally powerless
people came to see him and he sat down with them and listened
to them and became their advocate so that they could receive
fair treatment.
[[Page 17172]]
I first saw Don Edwards in Mitchell Park in 1964. He was
running for reelection. And Larry O'Brien, then the
postmaster general, was with him. He gave a speech and I was
totally inspired. I was totally impressed. And although he
didn't know it, I walked a precinct for his election.
Later, on the staff, I was inspired again. And I will say,
also, on a personal level, I would not be here today as a
member of Congress except for the help and assistance and
encouragement that he gave to me, both in terms of working
here and helping me to go to law school and always inspiring
me to do my best.
You know, when I got elected in 1994, after Don's
retirement, members would come up to me and say things about
him, and I think you can learn a lot by what people--the
words used to describe someone they had served with, and let
me just give you some of those words: ``a gentleman, fair,
decent, honest.''
``Even when I didn't agree. I knew he was a principled
person. He was someone who actually listened to other points
of view. He stood up for his country.''
I was inspired when I first saw Don Edwards in 1964. I'm
inspired today that even in his retirement he continues to
fight for civil rights, for civil liberties.
He continues to stand up for what is right and decent in
America. Our country is a better place because of his
service. We are all in his debt. And I am very, very honored
to be participating in this ceremony today. Thank you very
much. (Applause)
HASTERT: Will Don Edwards please come forward?
On behalf of the House of Representatives. (Applause)
EDWARDS. Thank you, Zoe.
And thank you, Mr. Speaker and Leader Nancy Pelosi. The
people's house is in very good hands with your leadership.
I'm pleased today that my wife, Edie Wilkie Edwards (ph),
can share in this happy day, and also that I have members of
my family have come from a long way, from California, to
share in this lovely day. My grandson, Eric Edwards (ph), and
his fiancee, Susan Parret (ph), are here. They're going to be
married in September in Carmel, California. Carmel is a
little village...
(Laughter)
... out of the Third World...
(Laughter)
And we're looking forward to the ceremony.
Also, Eric's mother, Dr. Inger Sagatin Edwards, who is
Norway's great gift to the United States. Inger is a
professor, got her doctorate at Stanford University, and is
the head of the Administration of Justice Department at San
Jose State University.
We also have other people from different parts of the
country, and welcome to all of you.
No member of Congress would be anything without a staff
that is competent and skillful, and I was very lucky for all
the many years to have a marvelous staff. And from Portland,
Oregon, Terry Pocue came all this way to share in this
celebration. Catherine LeRoi was the chief counsel for the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, where I was
chair. Stuart Ishimaru from the Department of Justice and a
valued staff member. And Virginia Stone, Ginny Stone, was a
valuable lawyer, and she and I worked very closely on a lot
of issues.
So I couldn't have gotten along without these valuable
staff members, and I thank you all for coming.
I am very grateful to have had the privilege of being a
member of the House of Representatives. It's a glorious
organization, and I have many happy and important memories of
my service.
One day in 1983 I was sitting in my office and the sergeant
at arms called and said that You, as the senior member of the
California delegation, have the honor of escorting the
president into the House chamber tonight so that the can
deliver his State of the Union message.
And I said, fine, and so I showed up at quarter of nine in
the speaker's formal sitting room, I walked into the room,
and there was only one person: It was President Ronald
Reagan.
And I said, I said, What in the heck am I going to talk to
President Reagan about? (Laughter)
All by myself. So I walked over and shook hands, and then
I, there was a moment of silence, and I said, Mr. President,
at your ranch in San Diego, do you have rattlesnakes?
(Laughter)
And his face lit up, big smile, he said, We sure do. He
said, And I wear boots up to my knees because they're pretty
dangerous. And he said, When I see one on the path, I just
stomp on it with those big boots.
Oh, but, he said, Two weeks ago Nancy and I had been
riding, and we were walking back from the stable to the ranch
house, and I saw a rattlesnake and I stepped on him, and I
looked down and I had on tennis shoes. (Laughter)
But the most glorious moment in 32 years in Congress was in
1964, when the House enacted the omnibus Civil Rights Bill
that did away with segregation and American apartheid in this
country.
The House was the leader, and we didn't have the votes on
the Democratic side because we lost so many votes in the
South. And the Republicans joined us in enacting this
glorious piece of legislation.
Bill McCulloch of Ohio was the Republican leader, and other
great ones there were Bob Michel, John Rhodes, and the
Republicans did better in the vote than the Democrats, and
then next year this same thing happened with the Voting
Rights Act.
So that was my glorious moment, when the House in a
bipartisan way did this great movement. Now, if anybody asks
me what's your advice as you leave the House--nobody ever
asked me, but I said anyway----
(Laughter)
And all I would say is do good. Do good for the American
people, don't do any harm. And the same would apply to the
billions of people throughout the world. Do good for them,
too. Be a good neighbor. Thank you very much. (Applause)
HASTERT: Thank you.
Now I'd like to introduce a congressman from my own state
of Illinois, who also is known for his fair and balanced
approach in the House, just like his former boss, Mr. Bob
Michel.
Please welcome Congressman Ray LaHood. (Applause)
REP. RAY LAHOOD (R-IL): Thank you very much. Thank you,
Speaker Hastert, for the honor you bestow on me and to my
friend, Bob Michel, and the opportunity to say a few words of
introduction to our great leader.
I've had the honor to know Bob Michel for over 20 years, so
that I know there are three things that he dislikes very
much. The first is to miss a three-foot putt at Burning Tree.
The second is to see his Cubs lose a game they should have
won. And the third, worst of all, is to sit quietly by while
a former staffer sings his praises in public.
So Bob, I ask you to bear with me this morning. I'll try to
make this as painless as possible.
We all know Bob as a great legislator, a combat veteran, a
great singer, a patriot and as a man devoted to his beloved
Karin (ph) and his great family.
But today I want to speak of Bob in another capacity. I
want to speak about Bob Michel the teacher. I consider myself
a graduate of the Robert H. Michel school of applied
political arts and sciences, and there are some in this room
who are also students, like our friend Billy Pitts, who's now
at the Rules Committee; like John Feehery, who works for the
speaker; and Ted Van Der Meid, who works for the speaker; and
Karen Haas who works for the speaker, all students of Bob
Michel. And Paul Vinevicy, who works at the House
Administration Commission.
And my own staff, Diane Liesman and Joan Mitchell and Erin
Reif, all students of the Bob Michel school. We went to one
of the finest schools anywhere in the world.
His classrooms were his office, the floor of the House, its
committee rooms, and the farms and towns of the 18th
Congressional District. Everywhere he went, he taught his
staff by his example what it means to be a great public
servant.
President John Adams once said the Constitution is the
product of, quote, ``good heads prompted by good hearts.''
Bob Michel taught us that both of these qualities, head and
heart, are necessary in order to make this institution work.
Bob taught us by his example that the House floor should be a
forum for reasoned debate among colleagues, equal in dignity.
He inherited an old-fashioned Peoria work ethic from his
beloved parents, and he came to the House every day to do the
work of the people and not to engage in ideological
melodramas or political vendettas. And he expected, in fact
he demanded, that all his staff do the same.
Bob knew warfare first hand. Not a war in a Steven
Spielberg movie, or war fought on the pages of books, but
real war. I guess that's the reason he never used macho
phrases like ``warfare'' and ``take no prisoners'' when
discussing politics with his staff. To Bob, the harsh,
personal rhetoric of ideological warfare had no place in his
office, no place in the House, and no place in American
politics. He knew that the rhetoric we use often shapes the
political action we take.
Bob Michel was a superb Republican leader. And he would
have been a great speaker of the House. But fate decreed that
this was not to be.
So Bob, today I want you to know that you are, in the
opinion of many, the greatest speaker this House never had.
Bob, in a sense, you have never left this place you love so
well. Whenever there is a debate on the House floor conducted
by men and women with good heads and good hearts, treating
each other with mutual respect, you are there among us, and
will be so long as the House endures.
You are a great congressman, and you remain, as ever, a
great teacher.
And if I may just indulge--I was told we only had three
minutes, and some of the other people didn't get that memo,
so I'm not going to abide by it either. Right after I was
elected in 1994, and Bob was obviously a big help and came to
our victory party that night. Right after we were sworn in, I
had the great privilege of chairing the House of
[[Page 17173]]
Representatives. And during that chairing of the House, there
was a phone call to our office from our great leader, Bob
Michel, and he said to one of our staffers, You know, I
served in the House for 38 years. LaHood's been there three
months and he's chairing the House. How could this happen?
And it happened because of the great leadership that he
showed to all of us. He was a great teacher, he is a great
teacher, and we all--we all, not just those of us that worked
for him, but all of us who stand in the House, or serve in
the House, stand on his shoulders.
Thank you, Mr. Leader. (Applause)
HASTERT. Bob Michel, will you please come forward.
Bob, it's my great honor to present this to you on behalf
of the House of Representatives. (Applause)
MICHEL. Well, thank you, Ray, for your introduction. And
Mr. Speaker and Mrs. Pelosi and my erstwhile colleagues in
the House and those currently serving, and my friends, I
thought when I retired from the House, nine years ago, that I
had received far more than my share of plaudits and awards.
And yet, today there is one more.
I wouldn't feel right accepting it if I didn't share it in
a way and acknowledge those over the years who made it all
possible, those closely associated with me, working in my
office back in Illinois, here in Washington, here in this
Capital building.
And of course it would also include my dear wife of 54
years, members of the family.
When I first came--well, let me begin by saying that I
decided upon embarking upon a career in politics without the
blessing of my parents. I remember Dad and Mother telling me,
why would you want to get involved in this dirty, rotten,
nasty game of politics? And I had to respond to my mom and
dad, Folks, you've taught me the different between right and
wrong.
And while my father was a French immigrant, probably didn't
quite understand our system all that well, and my mother was
first-generation American, I told them that I was quite sure
that politics could be a very noble profession, and that I'd
give it a try, and then from time to time, Dad, we'd come
back and we'd check signals with one another and see if you
were right or if I was right.
And, well, time passed, and I went up the ranks,
leadership, and became leader, and before my parents passed
away, they changed their mind. And I think they were proud of
their son.
But I mentioned that only because, well, for several
reasons, because of the nature of things today, and how we
have changed as a country. And mention has been made, or
surely should be made, of my 38 years, all as a member of the
minority party. All those were frustrating years, believe me.
(Laughter)
And there wasn't many cheers. But I tell you, I never
really felt that I was out of the game, or that I had no part
to play. Under the rules of the House, the traditions of the
House and practices of the House, there is a role to play for
the minority and a solo voice from here and there.
And for me to have all these voices from around the
country, men and women, of different persuasions, come to
this body and argue those differences, the clash of ideas and
views of members. And then I guess the more exhilarating days
from me as I became leader and took on more roles of
responsibility, that those differing views, those clashes of
ideas, verbally, not personally, but on the issue, had to be
harmonized, they had to be rationalized, and we struck a
deal, we made a bargain, hopefully, and the joy of bringing
dissonant factions together, to work together, to craft good
legislation for the country.
That was the joy of it, and I can honestly say today,
emotional as this is for me, that my service in the House was
a real joy. And my colleagues, particulary John and Luke,
with differing views than John Rhodes and I, were always just
good friends.
And we went at it hammer and tongs from whatever it was,
12:00 to 6:00 or 7:00, but then after all the arguments, back
and forth, you know, you could still be good personal
friends.
That's the way I like to see these deliberative bodies
work, and I hope we can continue to keep our eye on striving
toward that end, because in that way, I think, we bring
credit to ourselves and for our country to the rest of the
world.
I tell you, this has been just some, such memorable day for
me, Mr. Speaker, and Nancy, Majority Leader, thank you for
the high honor that you do me by once again honoring me as
you do today.
I shall surely treasure this moment for the rest of my
life. Thank you. (Applause)
HASTERT. Thank you, Bob Michel.
As somebody has said several times today, we do stand on
the shoulders of giants. That's how we can make this a better
place. I think we can all learn from lessons passed and those
heroes that have gone before us.
I want to thank everyone, including all the families and
friends who have joined us for today, as we honor John Rhodes
and Lou Stokes and Don Edwards and Bob Michel. Please stand
and join me in a very deserving round of applause for all
recipients of the first-ever Congressional Distinguished
Service Award. (Applause)
And now please welcome the House chaplain, the Reverend
Daniel Coughlin.
COUGHLIN. Every blessing comes from our eternal father. May
divine providence continue to guide this nation, hold this
House together with clear ideals, civility toward all, aware
of the deepest needs of the people.
May God grant all who have gathered here, especially the
family and friends of the honorees, his continued blessings.
And let the honorees assure them happiness and health in the
future, with unwavering faith, constant hope and love that
will endure to the end.
God, order all our days and grant us peace of heart, hear
our every prayer and bring us all to everlasting joy and life
forever. Amen.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for his very inspiring
words about the people who were honored today and for having the idea
along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our former
leader, recognizing the distinguished service of our former colleagues.
Today's ceremony was an opportunity to honor these individuals and to
remind ourselves how the outstanding character of a few fine people
through the sheer measure of their decency can elevate the institution
for everyone. It was a sincere pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see our
friends and former colleagues today, and it was a moving occasion to
thank them for their service and to rededicate ourselves to the ideals
by which they lived. Those of us who served with them are indeed
blessed to be able to have called John Rhodes, Louis Stokes, Don
Edwards, and Bob Michel our colleagues. These former Members, as the
Speaker indicated, were on different sides of the aisle, but they took
a shared oath and recognized a greater obligation to serve the country
together to find their common ground where they could and to stand
their ground where they could not.
No one has come closer to the ideal of a perfect Member of Congress,
a perfect public servant, than John Rhodes, Republican of Arizona, who
could not be with us, but his son accepted the award for him, accepted
the award and the very good wishes of all assembled. And let me say
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) had the opportunity of
making the presentation on behalf of Congressman Rhodes, and moving it
was indeed; Congressman Louis Stokes, who was presented by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), his successor, and with great
pride; Congressman Don Edwards, who was presented by the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren), his successor; and Congressman Bob
Michel, who was presented by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood),
his successor.
Any who have served with these people know what giants they were, and
as individuals they are some of the finest people ever to pass through
these halls. Together they are the welcomed reminder of what our
country and what our Congress can be. These first recipients of the
Congressional Distinguished Service Award call all of us to a higher
standard.
Mr. Speaker, it is so appropriate that this ceremony took place in
the days following July 4, because all of these people honored the
memory and the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers, every one of them, in
their service to this country. And in the course of these holidays, and
July 4 being a great one for our country, we are all singing God Bless
America, and we know that God in the service of Louis Stokes, Don
Edwards, Bob Michel, and John Rhodes in their service to this country,
God truly blessed America.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democrat leader for her
remarks, and I think in the spirit of Bob Michel, God Bless America was
probably a very fine resemblance.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, June 26, 2003, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2658.
[[Page 17174]]
{time} 1840
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a
request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) had been postponed, and the bill was open for
amendment through page 116, line 19.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 57,
noes 358, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 334]
AYES--57
Abercrombie
Allen
Bishop (UT)
Bradley (NH)
Cannon
Carson (OK)
Carter
Costello
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Farr
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Gingrey
Hefley
Hinojosa
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
King (IA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Marshall
Matheson
McInnis
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Napolitano
Ortiz
Paul
Platts
Pomeroy
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Scott (VA)
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Stearns
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Waters
Wilson (NM)
NOES--358
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fletcher
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Cramer
Crane
Flake
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goss
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Knollenberg
Lipinski
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Owens
Pickering
Rush
Sandlin
Sweeney
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1900
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. LINDA T.
SANCHEZ of California and Messrs. BURNS, RADANOVICH and HOLT changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2004''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If there are no other amendments, under the order of the House of
June 26, 2003, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2658) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant to the previous
order of the House of June 26, 2003, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1900
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 399,
nays 19, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 335]
YEAS--399
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
[[Page 17175]]
Baird
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--19
Baldwin
Brown (OH)
Conyers
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Jackson (IL)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
Oberstar
Paul
Sanders
Schakowsky
Stark
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--17
Cramer
Crane
Flake
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goss
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Lipinski
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Owens
Pickering
Rush
Sandlin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes left in this vote.
{time} 1918
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, my return flight to Washington was
unavoidably detained due to inclement weather, and I therefore missed
two votes this evening. I ask that the Congressional Record reflect
that had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No.
334, the Hostettler Amendment, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 335,
final passage of H.R. 2658.
____________________
GARNER E. SHRIVER POST OFFICE BUILDING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1761.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1761, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 0, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 336]
YEAS--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
[[Page 17176]]
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Burns
Cox
Cramer
Flake
Frost
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goss
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Lipinski
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Owens
Pickering
Rush
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). There are 2 minutes left in this
vote.
{time} 1935
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1063
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
removed from the list of cosponsors for H.R. 1063.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO NORMA KIPNIS-WILSON
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today
compelled to share the inspirational story of a most extraordinary
constituent. At 75 years of age, Norma Kipnis-Wilson remains a dynamic
philanthropic force in the wonderful Miami-Dade County community which
I am proud to represent. Norma fondly recalls making flower wreaths for
the USO during the Second World War, and in her own words reflects, ``I
have always been an activist. I am a patriot, greatly influenced by my
being born on the 4th of July.''
A native of Jacksonville, Florida, Norma came to Miami in 1959. She
studied at the University of Miami and later worked as a stockbroker
and real estate agent. Although always involved in service, she entered
the business world more out of necessity. After gaining financial
security, she drove right back into her lifelong passion, extending a
caring hand to those less fortunate.
According to Norma's daughter, Deahni Kipnis, philanthropy runs in
her blood. In the late 1970s, Norma pioneered gender equality on the
University of Miami's campus by breaking into that institution's male-
dominated board of trustees. ``It was wonderful to be a part of this
change,'' she recalls. Deahni feels very grateful to her mom and
remembers her mother's advice. ``Don't ever learn how to type or take
shorthand.'' In Deahni's own words, ``She is a very forward-thinking,
modern woman.''
Norma's son, Dr. Douglas Michael Kipnis, adds, ``It is a great honor
to know that your mother was a pioneer in women's equality.''
Deahni, considering her mother's struggle for female ascendancy,
recalls an instance when she observed Norma sitting with a female
Jackson Memorial Hospital nurse. Deahni promptly declared, ``You're
sitting in the presence of a legend. Your life is easier today because
of the work my mother has done.''
After her work at the University of Miami, Norma focused her
attention on Jackson Memorial Hospital, serving as the chairman of the
board of the Rape Treatment Center. She is also a member of the board
of the Foundation at Jackson, where she raises money for many causes,
ranging from the renovation of the Holtz Children Hospital to funding
the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center.
According to Norma's son Douglas, ``She works effortlessly for the
masses, people she will never see; but she knows that they will benefit
from her work.''
Striving to better her community, Norma Kipnis-Wilson, with her
colleague Rosey Cancella, founded the Guardian Angels, an organization
dedicated to lovingly supporting sick kids at the Holtz Children's
Hospital. Norma was not content to just sit on a board; rather, she has
always tried to make a difference.
In addition to her extensive local service, Norma Kipnis-Wilson has
reached out to the international Jewish community as a lifetime
contributor to and leader of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, where
she helps foster support and expedites programs for Miami-Dade and
Israel. Indeed, Norma has recently been named as a life member of that
institution's board of directors. Through her involvement with the
Jewish Federation, Norma developed the Lion of Judah pin, which
signifies outstanding generosity.
Considering the Lion of Judah to be her greatest contribution, Norma
marvels at how her idea has become a benevolent global sorority, over
7,000 strong, helping to raise millions of dollars every year.
According to Norma's son, Captain Daniel Carlin Kipnis, ``I have to
credit her with my becoming a moral person.'' This is just one example
of Norma's far-reaching influence, an influence that has helped better
many lives and has inspired many others to adopt the cause of community
service as their own. In the words of her lifelong friend, Roxcy
Bolton, ``Norma cares about the human race and cares about Israel.''
Norma is also a tough survivor, recently triumphing in her battle
against cancer. Never complaining about her pain, she continued to
attend board meetings at Jackson Memorial Hospital throughout her
chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
Norma Kipnis-Wilson is a remarkable woman who has had a profound
effect on her immediate community and, indeed, on the world. In
addition to her legacy of uncompromising perseverance in the face of
obstacles, Norma encourages the young people of today with a challenge:
Care about others as much as you care about yourself.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Norma and her entire family for
their selfless contributions to our community.
[[Page 17177]]
____________________
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here tonight, and I want to especially thank my good
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) for bringing us together tonight to talk about Africa.
The United States' focus on Africa has been sporadic at best, despite
our extensive ties to the continent. I strongly believe that our past,
present, and future is closely intertwined with Africa.
{time} 1945
The United States is the leading foreign investor in Africa. Last
year the total U.S.-African trade approached $30 billion, and America
is Africa's largest single market. Over 30,000 Africans study in
America today, and we have almost 35 million citizens of African
descent.
Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that about 200 million people in Africa
are chronically hungry. At least 25 percent of the world's
undernourished people live in this region. Millions of Africans, mostly
children under the age of 6, die every year as a result of hunger.
Since becoming a Member of Congress, I have visited Africa a dozen or
more times and have seen both the continent's problems and its promise.
From Zimbabwe to Kenya, Gambia to Cape Town, I have been both saddened
and inspired.
Just 2 weeks ago, I met with the Gambian President, A.J.J. Jammeh, in
my office, and we spoke about how our nations can work together to
promote economic reform, end conflicts, and build sustainable peace. We
also discussed our partnership against crime and terror, which know no
borders. I welcome the President's courage and farsightedness in
supporting the democratic institutions and accountable government.
There is an opportunity to build a true partnership between the United
States and Africa, to leave behind the attitudes and habits of the past
and seize opportunities to work together to achieve our shared goals.
I pledge to work to return American assistance to Africa to its past
high levels. I join my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues in making
the case to the American people that Africa's peace and well-being are
closely bound to our national interests, whether fighting crime and
terrorism or promoting exports and trade. The fight against poverty and
underdevelopment is a critical part of our struggle of democracy and
stability in Africa.
I am a passionate believer in the power of biotechnology to boost
food production and fight hunger in this developing world. I know that
the African continent is in special need of agricultural biotechnology,
including transgenic crops. I believe that biotechnology is an
indispensable tool that can produce dramatic benefits in food
production on the African continent.
Biotechnology research has the potential to help the nations of
Africa increase food security and improve the quality and nutritional
content of food. Additionally, biotechnology can also improve the
health of citizens of developing African countries by combating
illness. Substantial progress has been made in the developed world on
vaccines against life-threatening illnesses. Unfortunately,
infrastructure limitations often hinder the effectiveness of
traditional vaccinations methods in several developing nations.
For example, African clinics sometimes lack the electricity necessary
to properly refrigerate and store vital vaccines. Even if a health
clinic is able to effectively deliver the vaccines, the cost of
multiple needles may hinder vaccination efforts. Additionally, the
improper use of hypodermic needles can spread HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS. Biotechnology offers the prospect of orally delivering
vaccines to immunize against life-threatening illnesses through
agricultural products in a safe and effective manner.
Mr. Speaker, during the 107th Congress we successfully created a
competitive merit-based grant program at the National Science
Foundation to conduct bio genome research on crops that can be grown in
developing countries. I strongly believe this program can make
invaluable contributions to the fight against hunger, malnutrition, and
disease by providing research grants to the U.S. institutions and
scientists in developing countries to address their agricultural
challenges.
It is my hope that trade disputes between the United States and the
European Union and the African countries do not prevent this promising
technology from benefiting ordinary Africans who face ongoing food
shortages due to agricultural challenges such as pest, drought, and
disease. Indeed, the continent may be able to reduce dependency on food
aid and increase self-sufficiency through increased investment in
generic engineering.
We cannot hope to combat poverty without winning the war on HIV/AIDS.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic has killed more people than all of the wars of
this century combined, and it will leave 40 million children homeless
and orphaned by the end of the next decade. The way to beat AIDS is not
to ignore or deny it, but to actively prevent it. Countries such as
Uganda and Senegal that have faced the threat squarely have begun to
see reductions in their infection rates.
However, in order for these reforms to take place, Africa must have
sustainable stability and peace. I have said repeatedly that our
involvement in peacemaking in Afghanistan and Iraq, East Timor and
elsewhere around the world is not an excuse for inaction in Africa. It
is a challenge to do better. Crises in Congo, Liberia, or Sudan are
serious roadblocks to the way of Africa's development, and ending them
will be crucial to securing long-lasting prosperity.
One of the areas where the international community must improve is in
developing the resources of our African partners--so that we can move
together, quickly and effectively, to prevent and respond to crises.
Mr. Speaker, there is an Arab proverb that says, ``He who drinks of
African waters will drink again.'' Africa is too big to ignore, and too
rich and too important to be the object of our pity. Africa matters. We
will drink, and drink again.
Africans will determine their own fate, but our help can make a
difference. Our support for democracy, conflict resolution, market
reform and sustainable development--these policies serve our national
interest and help give Africa hope.
____________________
LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every day we read about a
young American soldier being killed in Iraq. Three were killed in a 24-
hour period from Sunday to Monday. In its November 25 issue,
``Fortune'' magazine, long before the war started, said an American
occupation would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and that it ``could
turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.''
Unfortunately, this prediction has turned out to be deadly accurate.
This past Saturday, the top of the front page of The Washington Post
had a headline reading ``Attacks By Iraqi's Growing Bolder.'' The next
day a young American soldier was shot in the head at point blank range
as he stood in line to buy a soft drink.
A few days ago, the leading Shiite cleric, the most respected figure
of the largest population group in Iraq, demanded that the U.S. get out
and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. It is so politically correct today and
sounds so fashionable and intellectual to say that the U.S. will have
to be in Iraq for several years and that it will not be easy and that
we must be prepared for the sacrifice and the difficulties ahead.
Well, someone should ask why. Saddam Hussein was a very evil man, a
tyrant, a dictator; but his total military budget was only about two-
tenths of 1
[[Page 17178]]
percent of ours. He was no threat to us, as this 3-week battle, with
almost no resistance, proved. Our military did a great job, as we all
knew they would. Now we should bring them home.
President Eisenhower, as everyone knows, was a retired Army general,
a graduate of West Point. He loved the military. Yet he warned us as
strongly as he possibly could against what he call the military
industrial complex. Pressured by this complex, we have now spent over
$100 billion on the operation in Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office
originally estimated that a 3-month war followed by a 5-year occupation
would cost us at least $272 billion. Most estimate that we will stay in
Iraq for 5 to 10 years, at a cost of 200 to $300 billion, or more. And
because we already face a $400 billion deficit for this year, and
hundreds of billions more in the years ahead, we will have to borrow
the money to do all this. Once again, we should ask: Why?
Already we have had demonstrations by Iraqi soldiers demanding back
pay, and similar demands from Iraqi retirees. Why should Americans
taxpayers borrow hundreds of billions to pay the Iraqi military or
Iraqi retirees to rebuild Iraq? We are jeopardizing the futures of our
children and grandchildren. I believe our Founding Fathers would be
shocked if they knew what we were doing today.
I remember reading a few years ago in the Washington Post that we had
our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes.
Later I read that we had our troops in Bosnia building latrines and
giving rabies shots to Bosnian dogs. I have nothing against the people
in either Haiti or Bosnia, but they should pick up their own garbage
and build their own toilets.
Now we are told that the military will build or rebuild 6,000 schools
in Iraq and give free basic health care to any Iraqis who need it. We
will stay in Iraq for many years, at great expense to U.S. citizens,
because several large multinational companies will benefit from large
contracts there. We will stay there because all the pressures and money
and power and glory within the Department of Defense, the State
Department, the National Security Council, and our intelligence
agencies are to continue to do more and more in other countries.
These people are not seen as world statesmen and men and women of
action unless we get involved in every dispute around the world. They
never debate or discuss the merits of all this; they just label all
opponents of an interventionist foreign policy as isolationist.
However, whenever anyone uses this term, they are simply resorting to
mindless name-calling.
Now I suppose we are going into the chaos in Liberia, as we have
Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Lord knows where
next.
What we really need are more Calvin Coolidges, more people in
government who believe in a humble foreign policy. None of these
countries were any threat to us. Should we now change the name of the
Defense Department to the Department of Foreign Aid or the Department
of International Social Work?
I believe in and have always supported a strong national defense, but
I do not believe in massive foreign aid. Most of our foreign adventures
are creating great resentment toward the U.S. around the world.
The Iraqi people may have hated Saddam Hussein, but they do not want
Americans or our puppets running their country either. They have
humongous oil wealth. Let them rebuild their own country. The only
Iraqis who want us to stay there are the ones we are paying or who
believe they can get money from us in the future.
Our first obligation should be to America citizens, and the lives of
American soldiers should be precious to us. Let us bring our troops
home before more and more of them are murdered. We can be friends with
the Iraqi people without making our soldiers sitting ducks for Islamic
terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO TOMAS SOTELO, JR.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay a
posthumous tribute to Tomas Sotelo, Jr., one of the fallen sons of the
18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas, whose funeral today was
commemorated and celebrated by his family and friends and by the city
and by those who loved him.
Tomas Sotelo, Jr., Army corporal, lost his life in Iraq on June 27,
2003, fighting for the values and virtues of this Nation. This young
man, barely 21 years old, lost his life in battle. Today was his
funeral at his beloved Reagan High School, and I had the honor of
saluting him at that service.
But more than that, I think it is appropriate to come today to raise
up this young man for he was well admired and respected. In getting to
know his family during this very troubling and trying time, I can say
they love this country; and this family gave the ultimate sacrifice,
their loving baby son.
Corporal Sotelo is immediately survived by Mr. and Mrs. Tomas Sotelo,
Sr.; his brother, Jose; and his sisters, First Lieutenant Flor Lopez
and Erica. Sitting in their living room, I got to know the family and
heard them talk about the love and friendship and fellowship that this
family engaged in. I heard the mother tell me that she had spoken to
her son just 3 days before his death, that he always told them that he
missed them and he loved them. He was never far from their hearts and
minds.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we be reminded as we stand in this
body that we have an obligation to those young men and women who now
are in Baghdad. We have an obligation to them to be reminded of their
willingness without question to give the ultimate sacrifice, and we owe
them not only the tribute and salute on the day of their death and
funeral, we owe them a tribute as we conduct ourselves in determining
the future that holds for this country and for Iraq.
I am told by Tomas' friends that he was a person of great humor,
always lively and always engaging in some activity to make people smile
or laugh. He loved Reagan High School, and graduated in the year 2000.
He was a member of the ROTC. Let me say how proud I was to be able to
have worked with the family to hold his funeral ceremonies at Reagan
High School. I thank the Houston Independent School District for their
courtesies in making every arrangement for that to be possible today.
{time} 2000
Let me acknowledge his grandparents, who traveled more than 24 hours
by bus from Mexico to be with his family. And let me acknowledge the
fact that though this family may not have had its original origins in
this Nation, they stand equal to any of us by having given the ultimate
sacrifice, the loss of their young and their most beloved son.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great humbleness, great sorrow that I
express on behalf of the United States Congress our deepest sympathy,
for on this day there are conflicting emotions, the emotions of having
lost its fallen son and hero, a recipient of the Purple Heart and
Bronze Medal for his heroic achievements, and, of course, the ultimate
sacrifice. And yet I stand here representing the fact that this young
man, this Army corporal, Tomas Sotelo, Jr., was a hero of the 18th
Congressional District of the State of Texas and, yes, the Nation. And
might I say as he was a member of the Howitzer Battery, Squadron 2,
Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Polk, Louisiana, that as he lays
with the angels, we will not forget him, and we will simply thank him
and bid farewell to this young man, dying in the prime of his life,
being reminded that we will never forget him and that we will continue
to thank his family for the ultimate sacrifice that they made.
Might I say, Mr. Speaker, in closing that he remains a true American
hero,
[[Page 17179]]
and we will tell his story over and over again so the young people of
his high school will know that a hero walked this way.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Corporal Tomas
Sotelo, Jr., a hero to the people of the 18th Congressional District of
Texas and to the people of the United States of America.
Corporal Sotelo died last week while valiantly serving his country in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Corporal Sotelo served his country as a member
of the Howitzer Battery, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment,
from Fort Polk, LA. Corporal Sotelo is also a cherished resident of
Houston, TX.
Since his days as a youth in Houston, Corporal Sotelo has been
dedicated to serving Americans as a member of our uniformed services.
He was a member of the Reserve Officers Training Corps at Reagan High
School in Houston, TX, where he received his high school degree.
Dedicated service runs deep in the Sotelo family. Corporal Sotelo's
sister is a First Lieutenant in the Armed Services as well.
As with every brave member of our military who has died in service to
our country, the United States of America owes Corporal Sotelo an
immeasurable debt of gratitude. His willingness to put himself at risk
to create a world of peace will never be forgotten. He made the
ultimate sacrifice by giving his life in service to our Nation during
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he has contributed immeasurably to the
freedom and security of both Iraq and the world.
Corporal Sotelo epitomizes the best of the United States of America--
bravery, selfless service, dedication, and honor. Corporal Sotelo
possessed all of these attributes, and many more, in abundance.
Corporal Sotelo's life and sacrifice should be celebrated by all
Americans, and his contribution to this country should be remembered
always. He will truly be missed.
To the family of Corporal Sotelo, I extend my deepest condolences and
sorrow at the loss of their loved one. The memory of his bright life
will remain an inspiration to all of us.
So today, Mr. Speaker, I ask every Member of Congress, and every
American to join me in paying tribute to the life and courage of Army
Corporal Tomas Sotelo, Jr.--a true American hero.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY'S COMING CRISIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Social
Security's coming crisis. The actuaries and trustees of the Social
Security Administration have long understood, at least for the last 15
years, the challenges facing our Social Security program. With the
impending retirement of the large baby-boom generation starting around
2012, there will be a shift in the proportion of workers paying into
Social Security compared to those retirees drawing benefits. As a
result, there will not be enough money as benefits going out will
exceed taxes coming in by about 2015.
Recently I met with White House staff and political director Karl
Rove to encourage Presidential leadership and Republicans and Democrats
in Congress to deal with the coming crisis. It is easy to put off.
There is even a greater need to face up to the Social Security problem
now with the probability of more money being spent for a very expensive
prescription drug benefit that probably is going to be added to
Medicare.
Let me talk about what is happening to the population 65 years old
and older. It is going to increase from currently 37 million today to
75 million in 2035 and to 95 million by 2075, so a huge increase in the
number of retirees while the birth rate is going down, so fewer workers
to pay their in taxes to cover those benefits. This population will
grow much faster than the workers due to increased life expectancy for
seniors and lower birth rates. Because Social Security is a pay-as-you-
go system, with workers' payroll taxes going immediately to pay
benefits to seniors, these demographic changes are going to lead to the
program's insolvency in a little over 10 years unless something is
done.
The options for Social Security are straightforward, I think. We can
increase payroll taxes, which are already too high. Seventy-five
percent of American workers now pay more in the payroll taxes than they
do the income taxes. We can cut benefits, or, instead of using all the
extra money coming in now from Social Security taxes for other
government spending, get a real rate of return on payroll taxes we
already collect.
It is obvious, to me at least, that the last option is best, but it
cannot work unless we give money time to grow with interest. If we wait
another decade to act, there will be no choice but to take drastic
action.
I have introduced my own reform proposals in each of my last five
terms in Congress. They have been based on slowing down the increase in
benefits for high-income retirees and having a real rate of return on
some of that extra money coming in. I am working on the final aspects
of this year's bill, which I plan to introduce in the next 2 weeks, and
as I finalize provisions to make the system more fair for women in this
bill.
One thing I have learned over the last decade is that time is running
out for reasonable solutions. As I have introduced each new bill in
each new session of Congress, the way to solve the problem has been
more drastic as we have been giving up the extra funds coming into
Social Security that are dwindling, that are running out. It is this
situation that gives me such a sense of urgency to act so we can avoid
burdening our children and grandchildren with more debt, more taxes,
and a failing Social Security system.
Many people are concerned that a Social Security system with worker-
owned accounts is unsafe because people might invest poorly or lose
their savings. I have studied the problem as chairman of the bipartisan
Social Security Task Force and think that investments can be limited
and protected as they have been in other countries such as Britain,
Australia, New Zealand, Chile. My bill requires the government to start
paying back what has been borrowed from the trust fund, and that
current payroll taxes go someplace safe, earn interest and end up
keeping Social Security solvent.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, government officials here in Washington
need to act on Social Security, but they are too often focused on the
next election to deal with problems that are still a decade away. The
truth is that Social Security is headed for a cliff, and if we begin to
turn and slow down now, we can avoid it smoothly. If not, a panicky
swerve and screeching brake is coming. Let us avoid that. Let us stand
up to our responsibility and deal with Social Security.
____________________
AFRICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, we are members of the Congressional Black
Caucus here tonight, and we stand here tonight to speak on the state of
Africa as the first day of President Bush's trip concludes. The
President's trip shows a level of commitment that surprised many of us
when we read in the newspaper that he was intending to visit Africa,
but African journalists recently said Africa appreciates the words, but
is awaiting the deeds.
Many people have written Africa off as a place that has too many
grave problems, and that it is irrelevant to the United States'
interest. Indeed, there are still a lot of people whose views of Africa
are certainly limited by disasters and civil wars. However, engagement
with Africa is a vital U.S. interest. From the war on terrorism to the
supply of critical resources, from the campaign against threatening
diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa
is a global player. We ignore the continent at our own peril.
If we had paid a little more attention to Africa and Sudan, where
Osama bin Laden lived from 1993 to 1997, recruiting and planning the al
Qaeda movements that terrorized our U.S. Embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania and then
[[Page 17180]]
went on to organize the Taliban and to have havoc wreaked through
Afghanistan, if we had paid attention to Africa, if we had looked at
some of the requests for us to intervene in some way by assisting John
Garang and the Sudanese Liberation Movement with trucks and telephone
equipment and other things they were appealing to, perhaps Osama bin
Laden would have been put out of existence, because the liberation
movement from John Garang and his organization could have defeated the
Khartum government which gave haven to Hamas and to al Qaeda and many
of the other terrorists. By our ignoring Sudan, where 2 million persons
have died and 4 million have been displaced, where food has been used
as a weapon, if we had decided that that was an important country for
us, then we perhaps could have avoided many of the things that we see
today as our soldiers are in harm's way in Iraq and we continue to move
through Afghanistan and Africa towns.
I will talk briefly between our speakers, but I do want to quickly
bring focus to our main concern, my main concern tonight, and that is
the situation in Liberia. On July 2, I wrote a letter to our Secretary
of State and a week before that had the opportunity to be in his
presence and asked the Secretary of State if attention could be given
by the Bush administration to the country of Liberia. First of all, the
Liberians have been asking us to come in and assist. People are in the
streets with American flags and signs asking President Bush and
Secretary of State Colin Powell to come to their aid, and people are
saying, why should we be concerned about Liberia? There are 50 sub-
Saharan African countries on the continent. Why should we be concerned?
I think many of our citizens in this country and it appears many of
our lawmakers in the House and in the Senate have no knowledge at all
of where Liberia's beginning came from. It was in 1822 that President
Monroe, the Monroe document, President Monroe said that we should have
a return to Africa movement and free black men. Many people have the
opinion that these were simply illiterate slaves, ex-slaves that went
to Liberia, but these were free men, some slaves, but free men, lawyers
and businessmen, who went to Liberia to start that country in 1822. And
in 1847, Liberia became a republic, started by African Americans who
returned to Africa, to Liberia, to start this republic.
Their Constitution was based after the United States Constitution.
Their laws were based on laws of the United States of America. There
were very strong ties between the United States and Liberia. In World
War II, the West African country allowed American troops to be
positioned on their soil. Again during the Cold War Liberia was an
important ally when it served as a leading U.S. base for intelligence
activity against Moammar Ghadafi of Libya and other threats to the
United States. Even Samuel Doe, even though he came to power in a
bloody coup, the United States in the midst of the Cold War supported
the government because Liberia served such a great interest to the
United States during World War II when the Pacific region was cut off
for rubber supplies. Liberia with Goodyear Rubber Company that had been
established in Liberia for decades, for perhaps close to a century,
Liberia was there to help the U.S. war effort.
So when people say why should we go there, there are many problems
around. We should go there, and the reason that the British have asked
us to intervene, the reason that President Kofi Annan of the United
Nations have said the United States should lead a peacekeeping force,
these are because Liberians, the world, look at the United States as
the power that could come in and change the situation.
{time} 2015
So I wanted to give that brief background of the country of Liberia
and to say that is why this particular country is different, if we want
to remove ourselves from other countries in Africa.
As I conclude my portion and will yield to the chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I would like to say that in Sierra Leone
currently the British went in. They went in and they prevented the RUF,
the terrible group that terrorized people in Sierra Leone, the British
went in, because that was a former colony of theirs, and they made
peace; and now Sierra Leone is on a peaceful track.
In Cote d'Ivoire, the French troops went in several months ago
because of disorder there, and they have saved thousands of lives and
are still there.
Just last week, the French, British and Belgian troops went into
Eastern Congo, the city of Bunia, where there had been a civil strife
between two ethnic groups. The French came in and said that this must
stop, we are coming in; we give you 3 days to get out. And they have
saved thousands of lives just last week.
So why the United States? Why Liberia? We are in Iraq right now and
are receiving a terrible time. It is because we are being asked.
President Taylor said he will step down, he will leave the country. We
could really save lives there. It is a totally different situation.
With that, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to the
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings), who has done an outstanding job in his chairmanship of
the Congressional Black Caucus, bringing us to the floor on every
important issue to America in general and African Americans in
particular.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding. I want to also thank the gentleman for his leadership. It is
no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)
is by far the most expert in the Congress on Africa and international
affairs. His expertise certainly extends to Europe, Asia, Latin America
and the Caribbean, just to name a few places around the world. His
expertise is invaluable; and he is a very, very valuable asset to both
the Congressional Black Caucus and this Congress.
I have often said of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that
so often people, Mr. Speaker, determine their response to a crisis by
whether they will be uncomfortable. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) consistently travels around the globe, not concerned about his
comfort, but more concerned about the comfort of those he touches. So I
want to thank the gentleman for leading our discussion this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come to the floor this evening to
discuss the state of Africa. Africa deserves and America needs a real
strategic alliance with the continent of Africa. It is in the national
security of the United States for us to have a strategic alliance with
this great continent.
Just some brief facts: Africa is the second largest continent in the
world, behind Asia. There are 54 countries in Africa. The population of
the continent exceeds 770 million people.
Mr. Speaker, the economic potential and the natural beauty of the
continent is extraordinary. Just this past May, Mr. Speaker, several
members of the Congressional Black Caucus visited the nation of Nigeria
on the West Coast of Africa. These distinguished members included the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Corrine Brown), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
Although we mainly went there to attend the presidential inauguration
of the Nigerian President, Obasanjo, we gained some valuable insights
from our visit.
The people of Nigeria admire the people of the United States for how
our democracy works. They also admire our form of government. As such,
they expressed shock regarding the controversies surrounding the 2000
Presidential elections. They also noted their disappointment regarding
the gradual decline in civil liberty protections post-9/11. In this
regard, many of these citizens and government officials pleaded with us
to defend the true meaning of our democracy because, as they put it,
the best way to impact the world is through what America stands for,
not
[[Page 17181]]
by using our unilateral force as the world's only superpower.
But this feeling is not just present in Nigeria. The many countries
of Africa, 54 in all, their governments and the people of Africa are
looking to the United States for leadership and a real partnership.
They do not just want rhetoric.
Contrary to what many people believe, the people of Africa do not
want aid or a handout. What they want is opportunity for a level
playing field from the United States, Europe, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund as they pursue economic progress.
For many countries, the overwhelming financial debt from loans that
were in some cases misused by governments in Africa is now stifling the
economic progress of these countries. The payments on these debts are
also diverting significant funds away from infrastructure improvements,
education and other health needs for the people of Africa.
Through all of this, though, Mr. Speaker, the people of Africa are
cautiously hopeful about the future. The African Growth and Opportunity
Act, AGOA, legislation that was signed into law by President Clinton,
embodies the philosophy that the United States, as the world's largest
and most technologically advanced economy, can and should do more to
contribute to Africa's economic development. It is one of the most
significant pieces of legislation on Africa to be enacted into law in
many years. Now the continued implementation and expansion of AGOA
offers our country an opportunity to consider how this Nation can
construct a comprehensive African policy that will facilitate Africa's
success in the 21st century.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I must mention the issues of conflict
resolution, hunger and disease in Africa. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker,
the violence and civil war that has torn so many countries apart,
displaced hundreds of thousands of families, killed countless others,
and, in my opinion, is one of the biggest impediments to progress on
the continent, must end. The people and governments of Africa need to
know that it is difficult to make progress if we do not have an end to
war and an end to violence.
The United States also has a role and our government and State
Department should put forward every effort to help bring an end to the
wars and conflicts that trouble so many African countries. The
Congressional Black Caucus will also continue our efforts in this
regard.
I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); and I applaud
him for all of his efforts over the last several years with regard to
Liberia, and wholeheartedly support his opinion and his conclusions
that we must have peacekeeping forces from the United States in
Liberia.
With regard to hunger, the Congressional Black Caucus has been at the
forefront of advocating for hunger relief efforts all around the world,
and we will continue to press the issue. In a world with plenty of food
for everyone, we have a moral obligation to feed those who are hungry.
I am so honored that our former colleague, Congresswoman Clayton, has
continued her battle against hunger around the world since leaving the
Congress at the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization in
Rome.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the medical diseases. HIV/AIDS, malaria,
tuberculosis and countless other diseases that plague millions of
Africans must be addressed. The Congress, following years of advocacy
by the Congressional Black Caucus, passed what I would characterize as
a 5-year, $15 billion down payment toward addressing these diseases in
Africa. Now we must actually come up with the actual funding to make
this commitment a reality. The world is watching, and we must provide
the resources to eradicate these diseases.
So, Mr. Speaker, I call on this Congress and this country to renew
our commitment to working with the people of the great continent of
Africa for our mutual benefit. As I have said, it is in our national
security and our strategic interests for the continent of Africa to
succeed and prosper in our global community.
I also take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank all the members of the
Congressional Black Caucus who have taken time out tonight to express
their feelings about Africa and for their hard work over and over and
over again, giving their blood, sweat and tears to lift up the people
of Africa.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Baltimore for
those remarks. As he has indicated, for example, in 2002, the United
States exports to Africa totaled over $5.8 billion, while the U.S.
imported over $18 billion from Africa, more than all of the USSR put
together, including Russia. So many people do not realize the
importance of Africa to the U.S.
While oil is clearly a source of U.S. interest, it is also something
that must be dealt with closely and carefully as we discover new finds
of oil. The Chaad Cameroon pipeline, in addition to Nigeria and other
places in Africa, 16 percent of U.S. consumption of oil comes from
Africa today; and it will grow to 20 percent in the next 5 years. It
may exceed the point of being one-fourth, or 25 percent, of oil
imports. So Africa is extremely important to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) who 2 weeks ago helped organize a
rally of Liberian Americans here and has been very vocal on the issue
of Liberia.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank
the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership on
African issues and particularly on this Liberian issue; and let me
thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who has been one of
the leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus and Chair of our African
subcommittee, for his leadership.
The Bush administration sent troops to Iraq, for, so they claim, so
they claim, humanitarian reasons. Our troops went over there to
alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, to liberate the Iraqi
people from a tyrant, to bring justice to the people of that nation, so
they claim.
At this very moment, leaders in the United Nations, leaders in
various African nations, members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
members of the human rights community worldwide, are pleading with the
President to send peacekeeping troops to Liberia. Yet the President set
off for Africa without any intentions of even visiting Liberia and
without bothering to consult with members of the Congressional Black
Caucus about his trip, many of whom have worked on issues pertaining to
Africa for decades.
As you know, Liberia has always been a faithful ally of the United
States. Both nations share close historic ties. Liberia in fact was
founded by free slaves from the United States in 1820. The capital,
Monrovia, is named after a United States President, James Monroe.
Unfortunately, the situation in Liberia has turned chaotic. Non-
emergency staff at the United States embassy were evacuated when
fighting broke out in the capital between government troops and rebels.
Hundreds of Liberians have been killed and thousands have been wounded.
The fighting is not over. Tens of thousands of others have been driven
from their homes and aid workers say that up to 1 million Liberians may
end up displaced.
This recent conflict is nothing new. This is a country that has been
suffering from civil war for years. About 200,000 Liberians died in
fighting during 7 years of war in the 1990s. We have been successful in
drawing attention, thanks to the leadership of the Congressional Black
Caucus and others, both nationally and internationally.
The CBC has been strong in its efforts to encourage the Bush
administration that the United States play an active role in the
conflict in Liberia, especially before it spreads to other nations in
West Africa. We do not want this fighting to spread to other West
African countries.
Let me repeat that. Liberia is now making headlines in newspaper and
TV news across the country, making people around the United States
aware of
[[Page 17182]]
the conflict and forcing the administration to put it on their radar
screen. Recently the U.N. secretary asked the U.S. to play a bigger
role. African countries and others have pledged up to 3,000 troops if
the United States helps out.
On all borders of Liberia, the Europeans are showing that
peacekeeping missions can be successful. Clearly, our Nation plays an
influential role in world politics. We saw that many times in the past
and recently in Europe. And, remember, the State Department, when they
argued for intervention for a European country, they always say it is
for humanitarian reasons.
{time} 2030
We do not want it to spread to other countries. So why should Africa
be given the same treatment? The situation in Liberia is critical, and
this is a perfect time for the United States to play a leading role in
bringing about an end to the misery and suffering of the Liberian
people.
In closing, my favorite scripture is ``To whom God has given much,
much is expected.'' We are expecting that the administration will come
forward and help the suffering Liberian people.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her continued
support.
Democracy is moving through Africa. Mr. Speaker, 1990 saw the spread
of democracy in many African countries once dominated by military
dictators. As the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus indicated,
many of us recently went on May 29 and spent several days in Nigeria to
see the reelection and inauguration of President Obasanjo. It was
Moshood Abiola that started the democracy movement, but it took General
Abubakar to say, the time is up, and now we saw the election of
President Obasanjo.
We saw in Zambia's recent elections where the former President and
member of the same party as the new President was elected, who said he
wanted the courts to look into the books to see whether the former
President had run the country legally, and has now had an indictment on
the former President Chiluba to look at the books to see if there was
illegal activities.
This is a new breed of African leaders. In Ghana, the popular
President Rollins stepped down after two terms. He could have run again
and probably gotten reelected. President Moya, after many years being
the Vice President under General Uhuru Kenyatta during the first
movement of the Mau Maus in Kenya where colonialism was fought, stepped
down. And, as a matter of fact, the grandchild of former President
Kenyatta was the candidate and supposedly was supposed to win as a
member of the Kenya Party. However, he was defeated because people
wanted a new life, and it went on well. In South Africa we saw Mr.
Mandela change from a white majority government.
So there are successes in Africa. In Timbuktu in Mali we have seen
great strides going on. So we hear about the negatives, but so many
positive things are happening, and that is why it gives me great
pleasure to continue our Special Order. We will hear now from the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to have his comments.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding. I also want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) for the tremendous leadership that he continues to display as
he projects thoughts, ideas, and helps to focus the activities of the
caucus.
I would agree with the gentleman from New Jersey that Africa is
indeed changing, and that change is seen throughout the continent in
many places that one goes. But even as the changes occur, problems have
been so profound and so severe until it is difficult to stabilize, it
is difficult to have the kind of economy, it is difficult to have the
opportunities to grow and develop, and that is one of the reasons why
we continue to have instability, one of the reasons why we see the
inability to shape governments and hold those firmly in place.
I would also agree with my colleagues who have suggested that if we
can spend much of our time, energy, and effort trying to make sure that
there is a world order with peace and security, then the African
continent is one of those places where our resources and our efforts
are needed most.
Yes, I am in agreement that we need to intervene in Liberia, and we
need to do it immediately. We need to do it now. We need to make sure
that there are peacekeeping forces. We also have to make sure that we
do it with a level of sensitivity, that we do it with a level of
humaneness, that we do it in such a way that we do not overshadow,
overpower; and that we make sure that the local indigenous people have
control of the operation and further development of their government,
and that they continue to be liberated and be able to produce for
themselves the kind of government and the kind of governmental
structures that they find desirable.
So, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I am pleased to have been
able to join with him and other colleagues to come and simply say that
the time is now. It is critical that intervention must come immediately
before things escalate and before they reach other countries
surrounding Liberia. So I thank the gentleman again for his tremendous
effort and for his leadership.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois for
his long years of government service in the great State of Illinois,
and we look for his continued support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a
real fighter on HIV and AIDS, and a person who has served as an aide to
the former Congressman and took over from Congressman Dellums and made
her own footsteps; smaller feet, but very pronounced footsteps.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for his
consistent leadership, his vision and his real purpose as a Member of
Congress in terms of really making sure that this Congress understands
the connection between our United States foreign and domestic policy,
especially as it relates to Africa.
Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing Africa this evening, I am
reminded now of the first day that the President has had in Africa.
Now, let me just say, I believe it is always helpful when the President
of the United States really visits neglected parts of the world,
especially Africa. So I am glad that he finally made it.
Now, one of his first stops on this trip today was Goree Island off
the coast of Senegal. It is important, I believe, that the President
saw firsthand this real jumping-off point to the murderous Middle
Passage. For centuries, millions of Africans were placed in chains and
shipped off to generations of enslavement in the United States and
elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, and I am certain the President
understands that now. Many of them passed through Goree Island on that
very terrible journey. Millions upon millions died along the way.
Families were destroyed. Men, women, and children were locked in
chains, forced into the cargo holds of ships, and transported thousands
of miles to a life of slavery. They were kidnapped, raped, murdered,
and sold into bondage in an enormous crime against humanity. The bodies
of those who died were tossed overboard as lost cargo.
But these were human beings. On Goree Island, President Bush stood in
their footsteps, peered into their cells, and glimpsed the horror that
was slavery.
This morning the President denounced slavery as one of the greatest
crimes of history and called it a sin, which it was, but he failed to
offer an apology on behalf of the Government of the United States that
engaged in this deplorable, despicable institution for hundreds of
years.
It is extremely important that the President understand the history
of slavery. It is also extremely important because the vestiges of
slavery are still with us in the United States. On Goree Island,
President Bush stated that history moves in the direction of justice.
But then I had to ask myself, why does he oppose affirmative action?
So let us just look at the facts for a minute. African Americans'
income is lower than that of whites. Black Americans have fewer assets
and experience
[[Page 17183]]
far higher unemployment. Economic injustices have persisted long after
emancipation. African Americans, on average, make 95 cents for every
dollar earned by whites doing exactly the same jobs.
These disparities in the workplace and on the unemployment line are
echoed in the health care system. African Americans are less likely to
have health insurance and receive poor health care when they do finally
see doctors. As a result, of course, our lives are shorter.
In this country, life expectancy projections are profoundly shaped by
race. Racial disparities literally follow a cradle-to-grave cycle,
beginning with infant mortality, continuing with workplace hazards and
increased exposure to toxins, and ending with disparate access to
health care, diagnosis, and medical treatment.
Asthma, one of our latest epidemics, is one more example of racial
disparities in health care. Death rates from asthma and a host of other
treatable diseases are significantly higher among African Americans
than any other ethnic group. African American children are also more
likely to suffer from lead poisoning, which can have devastating
effects on mental development. More than one out of every four low-
income African American children suffers from lead poisoning.
Now, some of these realities are realities that I hope the President
really understands while he is in Africa. These are still realities of
American life in the 21st century, and these are legacies of past
oppression and continuing injustice.
In presenting the Bush administration's arguments to the Supreme
Court opposing affirmative action on behalf of the President, Solicitor
General Ted Olson called for race-neutral admissions policies. That is
because the administration apparently believes we live in a race-
neutral society, but that is a dangerous fantasy. It means that the
administration is blind to the legacy of slavery in our own country and
does not really get what the current ramifications are.
So maybe this visit to Goree Island will help the President better
understand the legacies of slavery and racism, both in Africa and here
at home. It is my hope that this African trip, short though it may be,
will also drive home to the President the importance of following
through on his welcomed rhetoric with real dollars. We need him to
exert the power of his office to ensure that the HIV/AIDS initiative,
the Millennium Challenge Account, and other promises for foreign
assistance and development aid will be fully funded. He must support
our request for a supplemental appropriation to meet the meager, which
is really meager, $3 billion authorization with regard to the HIV/AIDS
pandemic.
Goree Island was the start of a terrible journey for our African
ancestors. Hopefully, it will be the start of a journey of
enlightenment for this American President.
There is an Akan word called ``Sankofa.'' This means that we must go
back and reclaim our past so, of course, that we can move forward, so
we can understand why and how we came to be who we are today. When
African men, women, and children were dragged into the Slave House at
Goree Island where the President was today, they went through the door
of no return. As the word ``Sankofa'' evokes, we have to understand
that journey.
This President must understand that journey, and he has to understand
what destination we have reached in the United States and in Africa,
and how far we still have to go.
I close by thanking all of the Congressional Black Caucus members who
have come before all of us in this Congress, who help strengthen the
bond between Africans and African Americans, who represented the voice
of Africans who were left out of the democratic process here in our own
country in terms of foreign policymaking. Especially I would just like
to thank the great gentleman from the State of Michigan, Congressman
Charles Diggs, who not only chaired the Subcommittee on Africa as the
first African American Member, but really did provide an opportunity
and an avenue for other African American staff and Members to get
involved with international relations issues, especially relating to
the continent of Africa.
I also want to thank Congressman Ron Dellums and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who took risks and fought against racist
regimes in South Africa and Namibia and Zimbabwe, even when our own
government supported those policies. We must not forget that, because
the Congressional Black Caucus has to move forward, and the President
must understand that we will not rest until Africa flourishes, and
those who came before us really charted the course. Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, if it had not been for them, there would be
no foreign policy as it relates to Africa.
So I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) again
for continuing with that legacy and for continuing to ensure that our
Black Caucus and the entire Congress understands and really begins to
come to grips with the fact that Africa matters in terms of our
policies and our funding.
{time} 2045
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentlewoman for the
outstanding work she has done.
Quickly, as I talked about how democracy was taking over, we also
have seen Africans step up to the plate, the Egat process led by
President Moi has dealt with the problem of Sudan; and the peace
accord, even though fragile, has been done by the Egat countries of
Ethiopia and Eritrea. South Africa's Nelson Mandela took over from the
late President of Niari, from Tanzania, negotiating the Burundi
situation where now President Thabo Mbeki has sent peacekeepers from
his country to Burundi to see the new transitional government, and it
is working.
We have seen Nigerians go into Sierra Leone and into Liberia, taking
leadership on their own. And so when we say why is the U.S. in Liberia,
it is because of the ties, as I mentioned, the British were in Sierra
Leone just recently to save lives, the French in Cote d'Ivoire and in
the Congo right now with Belgian troops. The Australians are going into
the Somalian islands right now, as we speak, and we are in East Timor
because they are the regional powers. No, we cannot go anywhere and
everywhere; but I think that with the traditional history between
President Monroe, the whole country of Liberia, it is the
responsibility of the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters),
who has done outstanding work for many years. We all know her. She
needs no introduction.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership, for his years of commitment to
the continent and for the constant effort that he puts forward in this
Congress to draw attention to Africa and to try and negotiate funding
to help not only this administration but past administrations
understand the role we could truly play in helping Africa to become the
continent that it could truly become.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on Africa. Clearly
everyone is watching because the President of the United States is
visiting five countries in Africa. We are pleased that the President of
the United States has decided to go to Africa. As a matter of fact, the
members of the Congressional Black Caucus truly believe that there will
never be another President, no matter Democrat or Republican, who can
avoid Africa. We are very pleased about the leadership that Bill
Clinton provided, and we are proud that this President is following in
his footsteps.
We are in a state of confusion about this President and his policies
toward Africa. While he is visiting five countries in Africa at this
time, it was just a short while ago right prior to his election in a
debate that I believe he said something to the effect that we have no
strategic interest in Africa and, no, I would not have intervened in
the genocide that took place up in the Congo there with the Tutsis and
the Hutus. And so we are perplexed by this
[[Page 17184]]
visit, that comment; but we are pleased also that we have moved this
government to the point where this President came forward with
significant funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, and we hope that it
gets into the budget and that that funding will become a reality.
We are perplexed by the recent revelations that, in fact, the
President made an announcement in his State of the Union that a country
in Africa had supplied Saddam Hussein with materials for biological
warfare. We now know that that is not true, that that statement was not
based in fact. And while we are pleased that the President is providing
some funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, we are perplexed by the
statements and the accusation of the President about a country in
Africa supplying Saddam Hussein with dangerous materials, materials for
biological warfare, and we expect the President to explain that to us.
The President is visiting South Africa, but the fact of the matter is
we do not have, as one of the countries in Africa, we do not have an
Africa policy. We do not know where the President is going with all of
this. Today he gave a stirring speech from Goree. He went to Dakar, to
Goree Island where he said he understood what had happened at Goree
Island. He understood that slaves had been sold there, that they had
been beaten there. They had been housed and stored and stacked like
animals there, and that they had gone through the door of no return
where many of them were simply just dumped into the ocean because they
were sick or too weak to be sold into slavery from that point.
We listened and most of us read very carefully the words in that
speech. But we are wondering as we stand here whether the President
truly understands that we are the descendents of those slaves that he
talked about. We wonder if the President really understands the
connection between our work and our history. We wonder if the President
of the United States truly has an appreciation for what we have been
trying to do for so many years.
Most of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been
working on the problems of Africa for years. Long before I came to the
Congress of the United States, I was involved, as were others, in
trying to dismantle the unconscionable apartheid regime of South
Africa. We worked to free Nelson Mandela. There are those who are
wondering why Nelson Mandela may not be meeting with the President on
this trip. The President certainly needs to get to know Nelson Mandela
and understand who he is and where he came from. He needs to understand
the struggle that Nelson Mandela was involved in. But he needs to
understand why we work so hard to dismantle apartheid in South Africa.
He needs to understand why we urge this country not to support Mobutu,
not to have a puppet up in the Congo that would dance to the music of
the United States and kill his own people.
We tried to get the Presidents in the past to understand why we were
opposed to Savimbi that was supported by Reagan and others who were up
in the bush causing displacement in Angola. We tried to get them to
understand. We visited these places. We have been to Dakar. We have
been to Benin. We have been to Botswana. We have been in Zimbabwe and
Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda and many
countries in Africa. We understand.
The President of the United States needs to talk to the members of
the Congressional Black Caucus. We are pleased that he is now paying
attention to Liberia, and we believe that Charles Taylor needs to be
dealt with. We do not know if the President is dealing with him in the
proper way. And the President does not know whether or not he is
dealing with him in the proper way, but he ought to talk with us.
Should he be working out an agreement with Obasanjo of Nigeria to give
him asylum?
There is a warrant out for Charles Taylor's arrest. He is responsible
for working with RUF and the chopping off of the limbs of the people of
Sierra Leone and other places. He is responsible for children being
soldiers in the war. He is responsible for the rape and the pillage of
many people. Should he not have to stand before the bar of justice in
the U.N.-supported and -backed court that has a warrant out? Should he
be allowed to have asylum and just go off up into Nigeria somewhere
with the billions of dollars that he has stolen, the wealth he has
reaped from the blood diamonds that came out of Sierra Leone? The
President of the United States needs to talk to the Congressional Black
Caucus because we understand the complications, and we understand what
has been taking place in many of these spots. We would like to engage
him on the future of Liberia and what should happen with Charles
Taylor. We would like to help this President to build a real policy for
the continent of Africa.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working on HIV/AIDS, and we are glad that
the President has gotten involved in it and we will continue to do this
work. We have got a long way to go.
I have been involved for years in working on debt relief for Africa.
Africa needs assistance in many ways, but Africa is rich in resources
and talent that needs to be developed by people who have Africa's best
interest at heart.
Africa has been exploited, not only in many ways by our own
government, by other governments and other countries. Everybody comes
to Africa to get a little bit of gold and a little bit of diamonds.
Everybody comes for the rich resources of Africa without real thought
and planning and work for the development of Africa and the utilization
of those resources for the benefit of the people. We can do better.
If this President is not simply reading a speech written for him by
others in a photo opportunity, talking about that which he may not
really understand, if he really wants to understand what is going on,
the President of the United States needs to talk to the members of the
Black Caucus. It seems to me that if the President can go to five
African countries and talk to Africans about what is going on in
Africa, he ought to be able to talk about the descendents who are here
in the United States, who are just a few blocks away from him that he
refuses to meet with. Yes, some of us are concerned about why the
President has not engaged us in any discussion.
I do not believe that the President would travel to Israel, would
take actions on Israel without speaking with the Jewish Members of the
Congress of the United States of America. We need to talk with the
President not only about what he is doing in Liberia, but about the
future of that continent and about the possibility, about the
importance, yes, there is oil, and, yes, there should be the kind of
trade relationships that would help us to benefit from some of those
natural resources and oil so that we are not dependent just on one
section of the world. But this will never happen unless we go to the
continent with good intentions, not unless we are all engaged as a
family working in the best interest of our country.
I am not happy about the fact that the President took this as an
opportunity to say simply, Mr. Charles Taylor, I want you out of
Liberia within so many hours. That is not the way to handle this. We do
not want to simply see American soldiers deployed there. This should be
an international effort. But there should be international peacekeeping
efforts not only in Liberia but in Iraq and other places because we do
have to be concerned about stretching ourselves too far and too thin.
We do have to be concerned about protecting our soldiers wherever they
are. We want to help. We want to help frame and shape how that help
should be given.
With that, I know that there will be those who will say perhaps there
should be no challenging of the President at this point, no criticism
of the President at this point while he is traveling in Africa. If the
President wants to talk about Africa, now is the time for us all to do
it.
{time} 2100
We have been working too long and too hard to get this debate on
Africa.
[[Page 17185]]
We have fought and worked. We have tried to leverage and do everything
within our power to get Africa on this President's agenda. Now perhaps
we can do it, and we welcome the opportunity.
Mr. President, we are waiting for you.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California.
As I indicated, she needs no introduction. We appreciate her comments.
At this time we will hear from the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who is, as we know, our health expert, a
physician, and a leader on HIV and AIDS and other health issues around
the Nation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. I thank him as well for putting together this Special Order and for
the leadership that he provides to the Caucus and the Congress on
issues concerning Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say something briefly about three different
issues because of the tremendous and tragic toll they have taken on the
people of the countries involved, because they are representative of
the challenges facing Africa, and also because of the relative
indifference of this country and the global community to addressing
them.
The first is the 5-year civil war in the Republic of the Congo,
Africa's third largest country and the native country of one of my
closest friends and medical school classmates, Dr. Louis Kanda, who
often shares the grave concerns he has over the ongoing conflict and
his and the frustration of many others over the lack of attention it
has received from this country despite repeated calls from members of
the Congressional Black Caucus.
With many of its bordering countries involved in the conflict, it has
become Africa's first continentwide war. Just today, The New York Times
reported that an estimated 500 civilians have been killed in just one
province in the northeastern region between July 2002 and March 2003.
There is elsewhere children as young as 10 who have been robbed of
their childhood and trained as guerilla fighters and terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I join the U.N. Deputy High Commissioner Bertie
Rancharam in his call for a speedy investigation of the massive abuses
and appropriate intervention in northeastern Congo, and I would add
that this country should not only support such action, but be fully a
part of it.
I also want to call attention to the longstanding drought, severe
food shortages and suffering of the people of Ethiopia. The groups of
caring people raising funds, many of whom are from Ethiopia, can only
go so far. Despite donations of wheat and other food products from this
country and others, Ethiopia still needs much more food. There is no
telling when the drought will end, and so the urgency to act and act
appropriately to that need is now.
I would be remiss if I did not also support the words and works of my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), on HIV/AIDS and
the other illnesses plaguing the continent and our need to be, at the
very least, appropriating the full $15 billion and all related funding
now, and then to release those funds without condition. To wait here,
as in the case of widespread starvation, is to wait until it is too
late in the process, and that would mean millions more lives being
lost, and the cost to bring this global pandemic under control would
multiply.
Lastly, I want to say a word about Liberia, as we in the U.S. Virgin
Islands have specific ties to that country, in addition to those shared
by African Americans here on the mainland, and all Americans. One of
our most esteemed native sons, Edward Wilmot Blyden, born in St.
Thomas, became an important Liberian educator and statesman, having
served as Secretary of State and Ambassador to Britain and France from
that country in the 1880s. He also became president of Liberia College.
And there were others, such as Dr. John Moorhead, another of our local
treasures, who lived there with his family and practiced medicine
during the 1950s.
So I want to join my colleagues on calling on President Bush to work
with President Obasanjo while he is in Nigeria to work towards a
satisfactory agreement for the departure of President Taylor and peace
and recovery for this war-battered and torn country that we helped to
establish.
What I would want to leave my colleagues with this evening, though,
Mr. Speaker, is a picture of a continent that is rich not only in
natural resources, but also in people and in culture and in spirit. On
this continent, despite the great and many challenges, democracy is
growing, and the standard of life and level of civil liberties are
being raised. Africa needs our support, either alone or within the
context of multinational groupings, whatever the case might require.
It is my hope and prayer that not out of interest and what we can get
from Africa, but in the interest of seeing those on that continent who
are brothers and sisters to all of us prosper and develop in ways that
are in their best interests, and that this country would continue to
increase involvement begun during the Clinton administration and not
just mimic a Presidential visit.
Mr. PAYNE. As we conclude, Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will be allowed to speak
for 5 minutes on this Special Order, and we certainly appreciate the
participation of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
We hope our message is getting out loud and clear. We think that
Liberia has a special place in this country with African Americans who
feel very close to this situation. Our young men have fought in every
war, from Crispus Attucks, the first person that died in the
Revolutionary War, up to just a week ago, when they buried a young
Haitian soldier from my district who was one of the two men who were
kidnapped and murdered. So we have fought in all the wars.
We hear people say that there should be a vote in Congress regarding
sending 2,000 troops to Liberia. We have not heard that for the
Colombians or for Panama. We did not hear that where the President is
attempting to go into the Philippines now. Is there a different
standard for Africa? Is it that 435 Members must get up and talk about
2,000 troops going into a country that we founded, that we colonized,
that we have close ties with, that asked us to come so that the
fighting will cease, and that other African countries will be there at
our side? Is there a double standard? I hope not.
We have had failures before. There was a failure in Somalia. That did
not mean we should no longer then go in on humanitarian issues. I hope
this President and administration will have the same standard as we
have had throughout this world, whether it was in Panama, whether it
was in Colombia, whether it was in the Philippines, whether it is in
places like even Haiti, where we went and were not asked to come. I
hope that we will send those few peacekeepers, 2,000, to go in and lead
the ECOWAS troops so that the cholera can stop, the children can stop
dying, and the women can stop dying. They are asking us to come in. I
think we have an obligation and a responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to present this Special
Order to the House.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 438, TEACHER
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ACT OF 2003
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 108-189) on the resolution (H. Res. 309) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 438), to increase the amount of
student loans that may be forgiven for teachers in mathematics,
science, and special education, which was referred to the House
Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2211, READY TO
TEACH ACT OF 2003
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report
[[Page 17186]]
(Rept. No. 108-190) on the resolution (H. Res. 310) providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2211) to reauthorize title II of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, which was referred to the House Calendar
and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2657,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 108-191) on the resolution (H. Res. 311) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2657) making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2660,
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 108-192) on the resolution (H. Res. 312) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2660) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for
other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
COLOMBIA AND THE ANDEAN INITIATIVE ON NARCOTICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order this
evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The State of Africa
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his kindness,
because I am joining the Congressional Black Caucus in their Special
Order regarding the State of Africa.
It is this time, Mr. Speaker, that many of us have come to the floor
of the House to discuss foreign policy issues that have great concern
to us, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his
leadership over the years as the chairman and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Africa on the Committee on International Relations, and
for his leadership and consciousness about the continent of Africa.
Likewise, let me thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus
for his wisdom in having us be pointed this evening, pointedly speaking
about these very vital issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this floor tonight to speak globally about
what the continent represents to the United States of America. Besides
the historical perspective of Africa's desire to be an ally and a
friend with the United States over the years, throughout the 20th
century, from World War I to World War II, it should be known that
after 9/11, as many of us were quite aware of, some of the loudest
voices in opposition to the horrific incidents that occurred in New
York on 9/11, in Washington, and in Pennsylvania was the continent of
Africa. Their voices were those of support of the United States in our
fight in the war against terrorism. So this bond with Africa and the
United States is deep, it is strong, and it needs to be further
cultivated.
Clearly, President Clinton established one of the strongest bonds in
his long and extended visit just about 4 years ago. It was a visit to
not only develop friendships, but to develop economic partnerships in
the fight against HIV/AIDS. So I rise today to say that this momentum
has not been carried forward, and it disturbs me that we are now
debating why a friendship with Africa; why the intrusion, if you will,
or the assistance in the issue of Liberia. Why? Because there are 700
million individuals, and that number is growing, who desire a strong
and related friendship.
I am very impressed with the Global Business Council, headed by
Ambassador Holbrooke, that brought together businesses from the private
sector to fight the devastation of HIV/AIDS. I think it is important
for Americans to be aware of the fact that so goes the continent of
Africa, so goes many of the issues here in the United States. Of the 42
million people infected worldwide, over half, 29 million of them, live
in sub-Saharan Africa. Also a higher proportion of women are living
with HIV infections or suffering from AIDS than men in Africa. As of
2002, women in sub-Saharan Africa represent more than half,
approximately 58 percent, of all adults living with HIV/AIDS.
We can applaud the work that has been done here in this country, as I
said, with the Global Business Council; also with the work in this
Congress, where we passed legislation in a bipartisan manner to give
$15 billion in aid, as well supporting the Millennium Fund to help in
our fight against HIV/AIDS and to help in Africa. But it cannot be
continued if we do not embrace the momentum and embrace it in a
collaborative way. The President needs to consult with the members of
the Congressional Black Caucus and the African American community and
others on policies dealing with Africa.
It is sad that on this trip we have not found an opportunity to
collaborate and not recognize the voices being raised in the media
proclaiming that Africa is a strategic partner. So I rise today to be
able to reinforce the fact that we are stakeholders in the continent of
Africa. One of the largest oil-producing nations is Nigeria, and just a
week ago I hosted the chairman of OPEC, the distinguished chairman from
Qatar, who responded that Nigeria and Africa is a very vital partner,
just as Iraq is an important partner, as relates to oil production in
the world.
There was no hesitancy, no question of whether there should be a vote
as related to going into Iraq. And now, not recognizing or maybe
failing to recognize the strategic relationship we should have with the
continent, and particularly Liberia, there seems to be some debate. I
happened to have been one who opposed the war in Iraq, and I can
distinguish this. I would hope these troops would be peacekeeping. I
would hope they would be a collaboration with the United Nations. I
would hope they would be a collaboration with African troops. And I
would hope we would recognize that Liberia has asked for us to come.
So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the state of
Africa that we discuss and say that Africa has had many successes; that
we have seen the growth in Nigeria. We understand their stock exchange
gives a 30 percent recovery on investments. We have heard from the
President of Botswana just a few weeks ago speak about democratization
and stability, and that country has been a stable government for more
than 25 years.
We realize we have work to do, and that means to help them fight in
the war against terrorism, help them fight in the war against HIV/AIDS,
and help them fight, as our distinguished colleague in Rome, Eva
Clayton, has said, help them fight with the issues of food and
nutrition. And, yes, we must help Africa build its growth and its
opportunities for jobs and give resources for the young people who want
to be educated.
There is much that we can do as partners with Africa. Let us not
stand a distance back while many are slaughtered and ask the question,
why Africa? I would hesitate to say, Mr. Speaker, that it should not be
a question of
[[Page 17187]]
race, whether or not Africa happens to be a continent that is filled
with Africans, people of color, black people. I hope that is not the
dividing line that gives us reason to question when we ran without
being invited to Iraq.
So I hope that as we look at this, and I thank the distinguished
gentleman once again as I close, let me just simply say the state of
Africa is good, it is a partner, it is a friend. And I would only hope
that we look at Africa in our fight on the war against terrorism, in
our fight, of course, for the opportunities to fight against HIV/AIDS,
and, yes, to fight for peace and stability, and, of course, Mr.
Speaker, to be able to say that Africa is our friend because it has
stood with us. It is now time for us to stand with Africa and as well
to stand with it as it fights for peace and stability for its people.
I thank the distinguished gentleman for his kindness.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, for calling this special order to discuss
the very important issues that are facing Africa. The most perilous of
those issues is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has
claimed more than 28 million lives in Africa. Current estimates suggest
that 42 million are living with HIV in Africa.
Sadly, as a region, Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest number of
individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the world. Of the 42 million people
infected worldwide, over half 29 million of them live in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Also, higher proportions of women are living with HIV infection
or suffering from AIDS than men. As of 2002, women in Sub-Saharan
Africa represented more than half, approximately 58% of all adults
living with HIV/AIDS. The infection rate is particularly high among
young girls.
In some African nations, infection rates are five times higher in
young women then young men. What is more, AIDS now ranks as the number
one cause of death in Africa and the fourth leading cause of death
globally. These numbers are staggering and should strike a nerve in you
each time you hear them. You have likely heard these figures before.
However, these facts should constantly be reiterated in order to
emphasize the dire situation that Africa is in today.
We must recognize that AIDS is not only a threat to the health of
populations; it is a threat to the social, economic, and political
stability of nations as a whole. In the past, what we had failed to do,
particularly in Africa, was to chart a plan of action to address HIV/
AIDS as a social crisis that affects all spheres of everyday life. Now
we have allocated funds to provide for the prevention of the disease in
Africa. Now is the time for a targeted response that aims to address
the multiplicative effects of HIV/AIDS in each sector. This includes
making sure that young girls have access to educational opportunities
and trying to develop methods by which women do not have to rely on
their husbands for their economic stability. It is time to stop placing
old bandages on fresh wounds and to begin the process of healing our
beloved Africa.
conflict resolution in liberia
Mr. Speaker, another great challenge facing the continent of Africa
is armed conflict. Clearly, many countries have the need for effective
conflict resolution. Liberia is one of the countries. It is on the
front page of our paper and it should be at the front of our minds.
Liberia was founded during the nineteenth century by freed American
slaves. Once a nation founded on the premises of freedom and
opportunity, the Liberia of today is wrought with political upheaval
and social unrest. Liberia has been the site of intense devastation and
profound loss due to years of civil war. The latest war has lasted for
approximately three years and has caused immense disruption to the
social and political fabric of the region.
The health infrastructure in Liberia has crumbled, schools have
become refugee camps, and people have taken the law into their own
hands. Nearly half of the Liberian population has been forced to flee
to neighboring countries or to internationally assisted refugee camps
in Liberia. Large numbers of innocent, young children are being made
into child soldiers. Those children that are able to escape the life of
forced military service are often left with little to no options aside
from living on the streets. This conflict has brought about political
destabilization on a mass scale, increased economic disparity, and what
can only be described as societal chaos. And although a cease fire was
recently agreed upon, fighting and civil disobedience within the
country has yet to subside.
The United States has had a long historical relationship with Liberia
dating back to its original founding. Liberia has served as an
important ally for the U.S. particularly during the Cold War era. It is
in recognition of this long-standing relationship that the U.S. should
serve as a vigilant presence in the efforts to bring calm and civility
to this war ravaged country.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) should work
diligently to ensure that the basic human rights of those seeking
refuge from the war in Liberia are preserved at all costs. A consistent
supply of humanitarian aid in the form of shelter, food, water, and
medical care should be supplied to the region as well. We must do all
we can to ensure that peace and stability return to Liberia.
trade and economic investment
On the matter of economic development, Africa is a continent rich
with some of the most sought after natural resources in the world. Yet,
this region has not been able to use its natural resources for
activities that will stimulate growth in domestic economies and
generate increases in national profit. Mr. Speaker, to create a stable
Africa we need to promote the competitiveness of African goods and
services. We need to create avenues by which these products can become
profitable in the global market economy.
Mechanisms need to be established to promote increased working
partnerships between U.S. and African businesses and organizations.
Ideally, these initiatives should be directly targeted through existing
trade and investment programs like the African Growth and Opportunity
Act (AGOA) but other possibilities also exist. Established in 2000,
AGOA offers tangible incentives for African nations to continue their
efforts to open their economies and create free markets. If we hope to
encourage our partners in Africa to strive for economic strength, then
we need to ensure that they receive the training necessary to comply
with the rules and regulations of both AGOA and the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
Finally, in regions where conflict and civil war have decimated local
economies, efforts should be made to provide the necessary technical
assistance to help troubled African states, like Liberia and Sudan,
transition out of conflict by fostering feasible economic activities
that may ultimately lead to effective resolutions.
{time} 2115
Colombia
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, tonight's Special Order is going to be on
Colombia in particular and the Andean Initiative on Narcotics. I
appreciate the gentlewoman's assistance over the years and having gone
on a Codel with us down in the Caribbean last summer when we worked on
the narcotics issue, and while we may have nuances of differences on
the African question, Members are aware we cannot have superficial
involvement in any area of the world anymore; and Africa is, indeed, a
key area.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the
Committee on Government Reform, and myself as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Drug Policy and the co-chair the Speaker's Drug Task
Force and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) just returned
yesterday from Colombia, and I would at this time yield to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder)
mentioned, this past weekend I had the pleasure of going to Colombia by
invitation of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). I am a member of the Speaker's Drug Task
Force, and we are going to celebrate the third anniversary of the
Colombia Plan. We have spent a lot of money in Colombia; and we have
tried to thwart the growing production and distribution of drugs,
primarily heroin and cocaine. I really wanted to see firsthand if we
were being effective, if we were spending our money wisely.
What I saw was beyond my expectation. I think we are doing very, very
well in that area. The Colombians, with our help, are working very hard
to eliminate the illegal drug production. They do this by spraying, by
intercepting drugs by land, sea and air, and are actively breaking up
drug laboratories, places of production.
I had an opportunity to ride in the boats that they use to intercept
the drug traffic on the high seas. These are little speed boats. They
will basically
[[Page 17188]]
be watching the radar and they will see a little blip. They run out and
jump in the boat and race out and intercept the ship, the boat,
whatever. We had an opportunity to do this, and it was a lot of fun to
see these guys in action, and they did a great job. I was very, very
impressed with their professionalism and the fact that they were doing
such a good job. And yet after we left, after the Americans left, the
Colombians were there and went about their business. Since then, they
have intercepted trafficking in cocaine, heroin, whatever.
The Colombians are fighting this battle. Certainly we are providing
some help and resources. We were able while I was there to go to a
Colombian hospital and see some of the soldiers that had been injured
in the last few weeks. One of them had lost a leg. One of them had
shrapnel blow up in his face and lost an eye and part of his face. But
their spirits were high. The young man that lost his leg was talking
about going ahead and trying to remain in the military and continue to
fight the battle.
So the Colombians are making great headway. They are taking back
their country from the terrorists and thugs that are financing this
effort by kidnapping their own people and ransoming them and producing
illegal drugs. I think what I like about the way that the Colombian
Plan is structured is in the sense we have an exit strategy. We are
providing a lot of resources, a lot of know-how, but the Colombians
have done a tremendous job of picking up on that.
I have a good friend that is an ophthalmologist, an eye doctor; and
he will go to Africa and he will work on the natives and do cataract
surgery and glaucoma surgery. And while he is there, he will help a lot
of people; but where he really helps is while he is there, he teaches
the surgeons there how to do the procedures so when he leaves, the
surgeons that are there go on about their business and continue to care
for people, continue to do a good job.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for
asking me to go on the trip. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in
this area, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for
taking on this scourge that is a problem to America and so many other
places in the world. I really feel like the Colombia Plan is doing just
what we want it to do.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Boozman) and thank him for his leadership in the meth issue. I know
that is very important in northwest Arkansas. We are trying to work out
doing a hearing on a new initiative on that possibly next week partly
because of the gentleman's leadership in encouraging us to do that. We
are all trying to deal with cocaine and heroin, meth, and Oxycotin
hitting our districts.
Mr. Speaker, let me put this in context. From the world map, Members
can see South America just south of the United States. Panama is
connected to Colombia, and at one time in the Andean countries, which
include Peru and Bolivia straight south of Colombia, that was at one
point nearly 100 percent of the world's coca production and a large
percentage of the heroin production. The other parts of the world that
heroin is predominantly coming from, a little bit from Mexico and a
little from the Golden Triangle, that is still significant in
Afghanistan and that region kind of northwest or to the left of India,
the far part of the map, that Hamas and Hezbollah are using to finance
their efforts. Most of the heroin on that side of the world is flowing
to China and Europe. But all of the coca in the world is coming out of
this region. At one point it was fairly evenly split between Peru,
Bolivia, and Colombia with Colombia being mostly a processing country;
but it is increasingly concentrated in Colombia, taking one of South
America's oldest democracies and turning it into a battle zone.
One other thing we can see from this is why we have a Plan Colombia
and an Andean Initiative. If we look at that as a funnel, as it comes
out of Colombia, if we do not get it when it is being grown and it gets
to the border, it can go to the north side of Colombia into the
Atlantic or to the southwest side of Colombia into the Pacific. Once it
gets up to the United States border, it becomes even harder to stop. Or
it can go across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe, across the Pacific Ocean
to Asia, and the farther one gets from the actual poppy and coca
fields, the harder it becomes, which is why we have dedicated and made
Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid in the United
States behind Israel and Egypt because the drug problem in the world
right now is centered in that zone; and if we cannot tackle it there,
it becomes far more expensive and far harder to tackle the problem as
it moves out of Colombia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who
has been leading an effort for Members of Congress to learn Spanish.
The gentleman has taken an aggressive interest in that region along
with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) and commend the gentleman for his leadership and efforts to
eradicate the threat of narcotics coming onto American soil. I commend
and am thrilled to participate tonight in this Special Order.
Imagine this here in the United States, if our judges were
assassinated, our candidates for Congress, our candidates for President
were threatened with kidnapping and assassination. Imagine if our
elected officials were threatened and ordered to resign their positions
at gunpoint, and this threat emerged from narcotraffickers here in the
United States. Imagine how the American people would feel about the
need to deal with this threat to our democracy and such a threat to our
Nation's security.
Well, the people of Colombia have been threatened with these types of
threats for decades where you have narcoterrorists organize military
groups, in fact three groups, two left wing, one right wing, who are
funded through the trafficking of narcotics, cocaine and other drugs.
And, of course, they threaten something we hold very dear, which is
freedom and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, Colombia is a wonderful country. It is a country of
great history, great heritage; and today its democracy is threatened at
gunpoint by those who make their means through the trafficking and
production of narcotics.
I support Plan Colombia. I support President Bush's Andean Regional
Initiative. Colombia is important to the United States. Not only does
Colombia share our values of freedom and opportunity and free
enterprise, but Colombia is an important partner in the western
hemisphere for the United States. It is a trading and economic partner.
We share a culture and heritage. Latin America is important to us, and
Colombia is an important part of Latin America. Colombia continues and
has always been a strong ally and friend of the United States. It is a
significant U.S. trading partner and supplier of oil.
In fact, Colombia, as I noted, is today the longest-standing
democracy in Latin America, and it is currently under siege by a number
of guerrilla and paramilitary groups that we in the United States have
designated as terrorist organizations, designated terrorist
organizations by the United States Government. These terrorist groups
today obtain their primary means and monetary support by the
destructive drug trade.
Unfortunately, our friends in Colombia suffer from this; and today
Colombia serves as a source of 90 percent of the cocaine and a majority
of the heroin found on the streets of America, significantly
contributing to the 19,000 drug-induced deaths in the United States
each year. And many of those 19,000 drug-induced deaths here in the
United States are children, kids in our home communities back in
Illinois and Indiana and Arkansas and all 50 of our great States.
Today, Congress needs to support Plan Colombia. We also need to
support President Bush's Andean Regional Initiative, legislation that
recognizes the
[[Page 17189]]
importance of Colombia. Today, as we approach the 3-year anniversary of
Plan Colombia, it is important tonight to review the progress being
made by the United States' support for the freely elected government of
Colombia.
I am proud to say and pleased to say that our support of Plan
Colombia has given us positive results that we can point to. In fact,
there are many strong indicators that Plan Colombia and the Andean
Regional Initiative programs are beginning to bear fruit.
Eradication of coca plants has led to major decreases in cocaine
production, and purity of the drug has dropped as well. Law enforcement
efforts have led to increased seizures on land and sea. Extraditions of
drug traffickers to the United States is at an all-time high, and I
note something that is so important for us, and that is the
professionalism and the performance and the human rights record of
Colombia's armed forces, and in particular that the counterdrug
battalions and the Colombian National Police have shown tremendous
improvement, as well as getting results.
{time} 2130
I would also note that alternative economic development programs are
also beginning to show great promise, and utilization of expanded
authorities are being fully leveraged by our friends in Colombia to
more effectively attack both drugs and terrorism. These are positive
things that we can report happening right now today in Colombia, and
there are many others. But the job is not done yet, and that is why we
stand here tonight to continue our support for Plan Colombia as well as
the Andean Regional Initiative. Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional
Initiative has put Colombia on the road to success, but as I noted, the
road is long, and we must continue to support Plan Colombia.
I would note that Colombia today is in much better position to win
this fight against narcoterrorism than they were 3 years ago, not only
because of U.S. support, but also because of Colombia's freely elected,
democratically elected President Uribe. Since taking office in August
of 2002, President Uribe has shown an unwavering commitment to
achieving democratic security and has brought new hope to Colombia. He
has acted quickly and decisively to address terrorism and narcotics
trafficking while also promoting human rights. His national security
strategy shows his determination to deny terrorists the drug-related
resources they use to finance their operations against the people of
Colombia. And President Uribe has made tough decisions necessary to
improve Colombia's economic prospects, moving forward and ahead on tax,
pension and labor reforms.
Overall President Uribe has energized Colombia, receiving high praise
and high job-approval ratings from his own people, the Colombian
people. No doubt with President Uribe's leadership, Colombia is on the
right track to restoring security and prosperity, and we in Congress
applaud Colombia's efforts of late and recognize the sacrifices that
Colombian people have made over the last few decades.
Again, Colombia matters, Latin America matters, and I know there are
meetings that will soon be held in Europe, and my hope is our friends
in Europe will join the United States in supporting the people of
Colombia and supporting the freely elected democratic Government of
Colombia. And again, I note that no Latin American country has a longer
history of democracy and freedom than Colombia. They are our friends.
They are our allies. They stand with us in the values that we as
Americans stand for, freedom and democracy and free enterprise. We in
this Congress want to ensure that the people of Colombia continue to
have freedom and opportunity, and that democracy grows and flowers and
blooms, and that the people of Colombia have the opportunity to enjoy
economic freedoms and free enterprise. So I would urge our European
friends to join with the United States in supporting Colombia in its
war against terrorism and to support Colombia's war against
narcoterrorism which is threatening democracy right in our own
neighborhood.
I again thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership in the
war against drugs which finances, and let us remember the primary
source of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere is narcotrafficking. That
is why his leadership is so important, my good friend from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois,
and as he knows, as a long-time close personal friend of the Speaker,
from the State Legislature in Illinois, and since we have been to
Congress that our Speaker has been a leader on this issue, and he asked
us to do this Special Order tonight. He asked us to go last weekend
down to Colombia and has stood firm in making sure that this initiative
was funded, make sure that we stayed focused on the narcotics issue.
And it is our appreciation for his leadership in addition to each of us
trying to take responsibility and work to help solve these problems
that are big. Whether it is the streets of Joliet, Illinois, or the
streets of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and throughout the rural parts of his
district and the rural parts of my district, we see that drug problem,
along with alcohol, as being the number one problem of crime and
breakup of families, the reason people lose jobs. It is a problem that
is not only a world problem, but it is a problem back home where the
people are talking about it at their dinner tables, they are talking
about it with their kids hopefully, but they are certainly talking
about the byproducts of illegal narcotics. So I thank him also for his
leadership.
What I would like to do is lay a little bit further out how we got
into the Andean Initiative and the Colombian problem, how some of it
has evolved over the years here in Congress and with our funding, some
of the primary questions that have been coming up often in the news
media, but with my colleagues here in Congress and address some of the
myths that have been plaguing us in these debates.
First, let me describe a little bit what our Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee was working with. When the
Republicans took over Congress in 1995 and reformulated the committee
that I now chair to focus on drug policy so we had one committee that
pulled together oversight from what was 23 different committees looking
at the narcotics problem, as we looked at this, we saw certain basic
things that needed to be addressed. One was eradication. Two was
interdiction. If we failed to eradicate it, we had to try to intercept
it before it got to our borders. If it got inside the United States, we
needed to do law enforcement, which explains the DEA, local police
forces, State police. Then if we could tackle the problem at either end
through prevention or treatment, we could try to reduce the demand
side, too.
So there were five prongs: Eradication, interdiction, enforcement,
along with prevention and treatment. And in that part it became
apparent that the Andean region and the Colombian region was most in
danger because of the drug habits of the United States and particularly
Western Europe.
Myth number one is that there is a civil war going on in Colombia.
There is not a civil war going on in Colombia. The FARC as well as the
ELN, and even counting the paramilitaries, we are talking about a
percent of the population that is, quite frankly, less, far less, than
the prison population in the United States. What we are basically
talking about are terrorists and criminals who have not been captured.
Some of them early on may have started with the revolutionary idea that
they wanted power and did not want to get it through a democratic
process.
We have already heard from my colleagues that this is the oldest
Latin American democracy, that has had many stable elections. They have
had a history of some violence for numerous geographical reasons and
others, but so have we in the United States. So have we in other parts
of Western Europe. But a few dissidents that are a tiny minority of a
country do not constitute a civil war. It is a rebellion of people who
want to take the law into their own hands.
Over time, as we had the ELN which used kidnapping as its main route,
we
[[Page 17190]]
saw the FARC, which was the largest of the groups, decide to finance
themselves by providing first protection and then actually running the
growing operations after some of the big cartels were broken up; the
Medellin and the Cali cartels, for example. Then we saw communities try
to form a contract with so-called paramilitaries. Sometimes they were
former members of the military. Sometimes they dressed like military
and they were really kind of like Pinkerton detectives on steroids,
that people wanted to protect themselves, so they hired them. Pretty
soon that group got corrupted as well by narcotics, at least much of
them, whatever their original intention was, to protect themselves from
others because they could not establish order in the community, and the
government was not strong enough to do so or whatever. Now we have
three groups, still a tiny percentage, maybe numbering 40,000 in a
country of 28 million, a tiny percentage of the country. It does not
constitute a civil war. Their motives are not civil war. Their motives
are to make money on narcotics.
Some of them now would like to buy peace and get power without having
to go through a democracy, but President Pastrana, who more than bent
over backwards, who turned every cheek times three to try to negotiate
with them and wound up with what? Nothing. He had the right motives. I
and others backed him in that effort to try to do that as we tried to
rebuild and organize the Colombian military and the Colombian national
police. But the bottom line is they did not want to come to the peace
table. They are not interested in peace. They are terrorists, they are
interested in selling narcotics, protecting narcotics and terrorizing
villages.
We were sold to the United States Congress that Plan Colombia and the
Andean Regional Initiative was going to be a joint effort, and while I
have talked about the United States using the narcotics, the truth is
we only consume about 50 to 60 percent of the cocaine production coming
out of Colombia. Europe is consuming huge quantities of that, but also
Canada, the region itself, and others, and Asia, because that is where
they are getting their cocaine, and this should not all be the United
States' problem. But some of the European countries and other countries
who in the beginning promised huge amounts of dollars to help Colombia
have not followed through. Their argument was they did not want to
spend money on the military and law enforcement violations.
Okay. Let us accept that premise, which I do not think it was a very
good premise, but let us accept that premise. Now as we are making
progress in Colombia, and as villages are finally getting stabilized
where people are again ready to be a judge or to be a mayor, where is
Europe? Where are the alternative development dollars that they said
were coming? Where is the help with setting up those law enforcement
systems? If the United States has been willing to bear, along with
Colombia, 100 percent of the burden even though 50 percent of the
problem is not ours, and none of this basically is Colombia's, these
groups would not be armed if it was not for drug abusers in the United
States, and Western Europe, and Japan, and Canada and other places
using cocaine and heroin.
We stimulated and funded the terrorism that is occurring in Colombia,
the thousands of deaths, the police who are getting massacred, the
individuals who are getting massacred. They are getting massacred with
our money. It is our problem, not Colombia's problem. They need the
help with it. Their people are using this. Their people are growing it.
But they met our market demand. We have an obligation to help put order
back and to help them reestablish their country.
The United States is helping Colombia, and Colombia has taken
tremendous efforts, particularly under President Uribe, to go after the
eradication, to go after the law enforcement, to get some stability in
these areas. We need partners around the world now to follow through on
their commitments, because if we cannot provide alternative
development, if we cannot provide jobs, if we cannot make decent
schools, if we cannot get a legal system that works with local police
and mayors, we will go back to chaos with our money, because we have
been the drug abusers and we need allies around the world.
Let me step back again and illustrate. Earlier I talked about the
funnel, and let me in particular here show one of the problems that we
face in the United States before I get into some specifics. My
subcommittee has been holding hearings on the borders in the north and
south border. We just did a hearing in El Paso. We spent 3 days here in
this region of Texas. We did a hearing over here in Sells. We have had
a hearing over here at San Isidro. We did a hearing and visited
multiple times in Nogales and the area of Douglas, Arizona.
Let me guarantee the Members something. If the American people are
saying it is not working, and we are not getting it stopped in
Colombia, let me assure the American people something. We cannot get
control of that border, and this is the easiest border to control in
the south. We have virtually no control over the water coming in from
the Caribbean. We have had to pull our boats in for homeland security,
but once they are coming in water and going up the coast, it has been
very difficult in the Caribbean region. It is even worse in the
Pacific. As they come in with little boats up the California coast and
out into that water, it has been very difficult to intercept.
We have 1 million plus illegal immigrants making it across the border
every year in the south border, 1 million. That is a huge number. Some
of them are running small amounts. Most of them are not. But it shows
how porous the border is. We have thousands of Border Patrol. We are
doing everything we can to control that and will continue to try to
close it, but as we start to close the border, let me tell the Members
about a hearing we had here in the Tohono O'odham Reservation. That day
while we were having a hearing, one person was interdicted. It is a
town of maybe 2,500 on an Indian reserve, the Tohono O'odham. Their
police did one seizure of 200 pounds, one seizure of 300 pounds, one
seizure of 500 pounds, and one of 400 pounds; a total of 1,500 pounds
in 1 day. Then seven SUVs went through later in the day, of which one
got through, but they managed to catch a number of them. They found a
hole in this zone. A National Park Ranger was killed in the Organ Pipe
National Monument, and as we squeezed other parts of the border, they
moved to that hole. This is important because the previous 3 months
they had 1,500 pounds, the previous year they had 1,500 pounds, and in
that day between 9 and 2 o'clock, they got 1,500 pounds even though we
had Federal people around.
There is so much stuff moving across, we cannot even intercept it
all, even though we keep boosting the number of Border Patrol people.
We will continue to make the efforts because when that comes in, the
two biggest cocaine busts in my district's history, or it appears to be
two of the biggest, if not the two biggest, occurred last 3 weeks in
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
{time} 2145
One of them came from Texas, and I believe the other through Arizona,
and it was Colombian.
Now, as that moves through, it is not a theoretical exercise we are
talking about here. When you are driving down the road at night and you
do not know whether somebody is whacked out on coke or whether they
have injected themselves with heroin or are high on this high-grade
marijuana, that has nothing to do with the historic marijuana that you
hear about from the sixties and the news media jokes about. That is not
what we are talking about in marijuana. We are talking about THC
content; in my hometown a lot of the marijuana is selling for more than
coke and heroin. This stuff is potent.
Think about it. When you get behind the wheel, whether you want to
legalize drugs and whether you think we should back off from the drug
war, do you feel safe? Does your family feel safe, knowing that the
more that pours across there, the cheaper it is, the more of it there
is, the more you could be killed driving home or there could
[[Page 17191]]
be a robbery at the bank where you get caught in the shoot-out, or
watching neighborhoods in your communities get sucked under, or people
operating a bus or truck or equipment as they are building, using this
drug?
Harmless crime? Harmless drug? Baloney. This is the biggest threat to
the United States, 30,000 people dying because of illegal narcotics. We
talk a lot, and I am on the Committee on Homeland Security, but the
numbers we are looking at on an annual basis dwarf what we have seen
yet.
Yes, one nuclear weapon and we could all be destroyed; but the fact
is, while we are talking about that, we are watching people get killed
every night. Tonight, in every city of the United States, somebody is
going to be impacted. Maybe shot in some cities; in other cities it
will be a dad or mom who use their money for drugs when they should
have been supporting their family, or not being with their kids or
abusing their kids or spouse abuse or not making their child support
payments because they used it on illegal narcotics. Those are the real
problems with that, and we are not going to be able to control, no
matter how hard we try, enough of our borders; but we will improve
that, but we have to get it at the source.
Now, let me deal with a couple of other questions. We heard a little
bit from my colleagues about is it working? Let me start out with,
first off, how do you define ``working''? I constantly hear Members
saying, well, there is still drugs.
Well, should we stand up when we deal with spouse abuse and say, you
know, we funded spouse abuse last year and there is still spouse abuse.
In fact, we funded spouse abuse programs for the last 10 years, and
there is still spouse abuse. In fact, we have tried to deal with spouse
abuse ever since the American Republic was started, and there is still
spouse abuse, so we should give up?
On child abuse, when we come down here on Labor-HHS later this week
and talk about funding for child abuse, could you imagine if somebody
stood up and said, well, you know, we have been fighting child abuse
the last few years. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars over
decades here, and there is still child abuse here in America.
Of course there is. There will always be drug abuse. The root problem
in my opinion is sin. It may be different variations and different
people have different problems; but every day, somebody is newly
exposed to the temptations of narcotics, and no matter how much we try
to prevent it, and treatment is after the fact, and treatment is very
important and I am pretty much on most treatment bills that are moving
through Congress, but the truth is, that is treating the wounded.
We cannot just treat the wounded; we have to get into prevention. But
there is a funny thing about prevention. You can convince people they
should stay off drugs, and then they break up with their girlfriend and
go to a party and all of a sudden they forgot everything they learned
in the drug prevention program. They lose their job. Somebody packages
something more potent or they are smoking cigarettes or having a beer
and somebody says you want a little bit bigger high? And all of a
sudden, at the very least, they are psychologically addicted, if not
physically addicted. New people are exposed by the minute and by the
hour. It is not something that you can ever fully eliminate.
But we can control it. And we have made successes. Even though we had
a surge between 1992 and 1994, of which we are only making a little
progress, the truth was that its peak was at 1994.
Let me briefly mention another method. ``Just Say No'' does not work.
Under Just Say No under the Reagan administration, we had 8 straight
years of decline that carried through the first 2 to 3 years of the
Bush administration, 11 years of decline.
In that 11 years of decline, it went down so far that even in the
surge up in 1991 to 1994, in the last year of the Bush administration
and the first two of the Clinton administration, where now we would
have to have a 50 percent reduction to get back to Reagan, even that
peak in the United States was less than the peak in 1980 before Just
Say No. So it is a myth that Just Say No did not work. It worked,
because it was not Just Say No. That was one part. We did treatment, we
did interdiction, we did eradication where necessary, but we fought and
we had a consensus of how to fight it.
When we lost the consensus, the problem ``upped'' again. Now we have
had a couple of years of success. But now they are better funded.
So among the things we are hearing about Colombia is, for example,
everybody violates human rights. It is simply not true. There are
degrees of violations of human rights, that human rights are not
respected much at all by the FARC and the ELN. Kids are kidnapped, they
use 14-year-olds in their military, they terrorize people. They do not
respect human rights at all.
There have been problems with the paramilitaries, and the question
is, are they too tied to the military? The answer is we have worked
hard in this government. Uribe's government is committed to trying, for
once and for all, to prosecute them all.
When you go and talk to the counternarcotics brigades of the Defense
Department, off to the side what they will tell you is literally when
there is a firefight with the terrorists, they have to have an attorney
there. They cannot move the bodies so they can identify and make sure
they were not shot in the back, and they do things we do not do.
We are holding Colombia to a different standard even than the United
States. Now, that is because we are putting money in. They have had a
historic problem with human rights and there is an accountability with
it.
But it is just wrong for anybody on this floor or anywhere in the
world to imply that there has not been tremendous progress, that we
have not vetted these brigades better than we have ever in the past,
and there is not accountability, and that when you go to a Colombian
military camp, their prisons will have a number of people in it who are
being held for possible violations, something that is stricter than any
other process we are doing; and it is important they have that, because
if the American people are going to put the money in, they want to know
we are doing human rights.
But we have been making progress and have made dramatic progress on
human rights, and those who want to criticize the Colombian military
and the government, I have asked people in my district too, sometimes
they are criticizing what we do and sending our money down to violence.
Why do they not criticize the FARC? Why do they not criticize the FARC?
Why do they not criticize the ELN? Why is it always the government or
the paramilitaries?
The FARC are the ones who started it, who have violations. I am not
defending any human rights, but let us at least acknowledge that they
are the primary perpetrators of human rights violations, that there is
still violence, therefore the program has not worked because there is
still violence in Colombia.
Yes, there is still violence. You know what? There is going to be
violence for quite a while. They have got a lot of dollars from the
American Government to work with. They can buy weapons. And one proof
we are successful is they are getting more violent.
When we were down there, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Boozman), and I this last weekend,
we went to a hospital. There we talked to a bunch of young soldiers,
basically 22- to 24-year-olds. One of the solider's eyes was gone and
his leg was gone; and he was in pretty bad shape, generally. A number
of them were dead; he was in better shape than them.
They died because they were trying to eradicate the drugs Americans
wanted to buy and Europeans wanted to buy. It was not predominantly
Colombians who want to buy it. It was our money.
They were attacked from both sides. A number of them said it was the
worst firefight they had ever been in. It was homemade bombs, screws
coming at them, going into their eyes and their bodies. It was
terrorist-type bombs, not traditional.
Now, they have traditional weapons too. For the first time we are
seeing it
[[Page 17192]]
looks like some arms-for-drugs shipments coming in from some of the
arms negotiating sales places in Eastern Europe and some of the Mafia-
type around it, not the traditional definition of the word, that are
shipping arms in there.
We are going to see more sophisticated weapons. This myth that if we
suddenly legalize this, that there would not be this conflict, oh,
yeah. They are making $3 billion a year; and if we say we are going to
legalize something, forget a second that I do not want to be driving
down the highway worried about whether somebody is whacked out on
drugs.
Let us say it was not that. But they are going to suddenly give up?
Are you going to legalize cocaine and heroin? Are you going to legalize
whatever the next thing is? Of course not. They are not going to give
up their market. They are going to continue to step people up to more
potent drugs.
They are making money on this. They are making buckets, trucks and
boatloads of money on this, and they are not suddenly going to say, oh,
they legalized marijuana, I think we will quit. We will just retire.
I mean, give me a break. There is going to be violence because there
is tremendous money; and to the degree we try to cut off the source of
their money, they are going to continue to become more violent.
Another question that comes with this is, yes, but you have not
stabilized any villages. I have heard my colleagues on the floor
testify that they have been to villages where there still is not order.
We all know that. When you have a place in a country where people,
judges are getting shot, mayors are getting shot, we have a president
of Colombia whose father was assassinated, we have a vice president of
Colombia who himself was kidnapped for 9 months, they know what it
means.
Quite frankly, I was sitting there in the presidential palace along
with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) with the delegation
for the inauguration of President Uribe, and we heard this big boom,
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said I never heard a
one-gun salute.
They blew off part of the corner of the presidential palace. They
were trying to aim with their howitzer, blew up a housing complex,
killed many innocent people, shot to the left, shot to the right. They
did not care that there were thousands of troops around. They were
shooting from a mile and a quarter away with sophisticated equipment.
This is a tough battle, and they do not care who they hit. Even
President Chavez, who you would think would have some connections, was
in the building they were shooting at.
It is an equal-opportunity terrorist. They will hit anybody if they
are trying to threaten their money. And we have to understand that this
is not something you can just sit down and have a nice negotiation,
maybe we can give them some trinkets and they will give us some
trinkets and everybody will pat each other on the back and say, yeah, I
will give up my $3 billion business.
We have to establish order in those communities. The plan under Plan
Colombia, quite frankly, is taking a little longer than we thought,
because they have chosen to fight, because another myth is that it is a
balloon: if you squeeze Colombia, it is going to go back to Peru and
Bolivia. The truth is that that is hard.
We have made progress in those countries. Some seem to be coming back
a little bit, but it is nothing like it was, and they are trapped.
In Colombia, if you look at this map, much of the progress is being
made a long the Putumayo. If we squeeze in from the south, and this is
a big coca region, the heroin is in the higher elevations. Those
mountains, by the way, are up to 18,000 feet. I thought the topography
here was important, because you can see most of the people are on this
side of the mountain range. That side is the Amazon basin.
They kidnap and harass people and terrorize people on this side, but
most of the growing is over there. And as we start to put the pressure
on, they move more out in the jungle. This is not an easy task. When
you fly over, you cannot see the stuff. And the coca fields are at
least big. The heroin poppy, you cannot see it.
Furthermore, I have heard people say, well, they are spraying
legitimate crops. Walk on the ground. They are smart. They can make
more in coca than they can make in palm heart; and unless you convince
them that you are going to provide stability and protection for them
and there is going to be an alternative crop, they just grow it
underneath.
We are spraying where there is evidence that there is coca or heroin
poppy; but as they move further in the jungle, you are farther and
farther from any air base, you are farther and farther from re-fueling
places, you are farther and farther from any roads. If you have a
helicopter crash, guess what? They go in and capture your pilots, which
they have right now with three Americans.
The farther out we go, they are going to get there. But the farther
out they go, guess what? They are longer in the air and we can see them
longer. They have more risk that we are going to interdict.
It is not true that we do not make progress by moving them. It just
is that we are not going to eliminate the problem by moving it. We
reduce the problem, we manage it. To the degree we reduce the amount of
cocaine coming into the United States, we change the price and purity
questions. They do not package it with marijuana as easily. It is
watered down. It does not have the same potency. Addicts are not as
difficult. You make step-by-step progress; you do not make huge
progress.
Now, back to the villages. They have been able to establish a
reasonable amount of order in about half the villages. The goal was to
establish it in more than that.
Now what are some practical implications of that? Let me first show
you something here. On the spraying of poppy crops, there is a
discussion of why is this so hard to spray. First off, you have to hit
it several times. Heroin poppy is one of the cases. They can replant
it, so you need to do it multiple times a year.
But, do you know what? They try to shoot down those planes. This have
taken more hits in the last couple weeks than they had in a long time,
because they realize the more heroin poppy that we eradicate and the
more coca we eradicate, the more they can predict where the planes are
going to go for eradication, because there are fewer fields to
eradicate. So they can take their armaments and focus better on where
we are coming.
Another thing is that you have to have ground protection. My first
trip there in 1996 and 1997 when we were doing some of this, I went out
to one, I think it was in the Guaviare area, but I talked to some
pilots whose concern was this: one of their partners had been killed
because they would string up line that you could not see and their
plane went through and it crossed their neck as they tried to
eradicate.
{time} 2200
So now you have groups of soldiers on the ground trying to protect
the planes to eradicate.
A couple of other illustrations. You can see here when you are flying
the plane over, you have people in the fields on all sides. In
different countries we use different things. In Bolivia and Peru, some
were ground eradication, some were air eradication, but in that effort,
every place you went, whether you are going after labs or field
eradication, you have to be protected. As I have gone into the field
and seen some of this, you have to be protected.
I want to illustrate one other point as to why this becomes
important. There are somewhere in the vicinity of over 200,000
displaced people in Colombia. These people in these rural villages, as
they are out in the villages, what started often is that the FARC will
come in, they will say, grow coca. They can make a lot of money, they
will bring the planes to it, and they will provide protection and
forcibly push them into coca. Then the
[[Page 17193]]
paramilitaries would come through their villages and say, you put up
somebody from the FARC, you are cooperating with the FARC; we are going
to kill you; we are going to terrorize you. Then the FARC would come
back in town and say, you cooperated with the paramilitaries; we are
going to kill you. And these poor villages just decide: I am not
staying here. I do not care if my family has had a farm here for 100
years. I do not care if my family has had a business here. I do not
want to get myself and my family killed.
We visited the Nelson Mandela village just outside of Cartagena. Mr.
Speaker, 35,000 people live in basic shacks with these kinds of
streets. Right now Indiana is flooding a lot, and it looks a little
like this, but underneath there is actual, real streets. Here, it just
turns into mud. AID has tried to develop some alternative development
in this area. I had two, I do not think it was these two young girls,
but two young girls came up to me and wanted to talk to a Congressman.
I had drifted off from the group. I quick got back after they talked to
me. But they said, even in this camp, the FARC is hunting them down, as
are the paramilitaries, if they believe they cooperated with the other
side. They go right in to where we have an AID plan where it might be
100 miles or 200 miles away from the village and terrorize them. The
person I was with, the photographer and I decided we were going to go
back to the rest of the group because we had not banked on them being
in the same camp that we were.
But these kids deal with this every day. They cannot escape. They do
not have the type of protection that a U.S. CODEL has, a congressional
delegation, when we go in. They have to live with it. One young girl
sang a song as opposed to just telling a story, sang a song about how
she was in her home and the FARC came in and shot her husband right in
front of her and her son, the little kids wandering around in this type
of environment.
Now, part of the solution to that is, bluntly put, we can only do so
many tar-paper shacks around the world. What we have to do is get their
villages safe to the degree we can establish order and security in
their villages. They did not want to leave their farms. They did not
want to leave their businesses. Yes, some of them did not have
employment and came to the cities. In Rio and in Lima and Buenos Aires
and all over the world, you see at the edges of the cities some of
this. But Colombia has a middle class. It is not Guatemala. It is not
Venezuela. They have a relatively stable middle class and democracy.
The question is, how can we reestablish it? How do we do this? That
is why we not only need at this point to finish off what we are doing
in Plan Colombia and the Andean Initiative, we need to have the
Europeans follow up with their commitment to help us now to get these
people back to work and back to their villages if we can get those
villages safe.
Now, another part of this is I met an amazing man. His name was
Rudolfo Gedeon. He is president of PETCO. But he is doing one of the
initiatives that has been so successful in Bangladesh, and that is
microloans. In this pattern in Bangladesh, they gave little loans to
try to build little capitalism that moves into a little bit bigger
capitalism, that moves into a little bit more, because in so many of
these countries you have the very wealthy people and the very poor
people. In Medellin they started, and now they are doing in the
Cartagena areas, a number of these businessmen working with AID are
starting these loan processes with AID. Some AID capital, but the real
success here is having local people be the monitors. Their loans, $1.5
million, 8,000 loans over the last year; average loan, $200, some a
little bit bigger, some are $60. But do my colleagues know what?
Ninety-eight percent, two percent default rate. No bank anywhere has
that, except in Bangladesh and a couple of these microloans, because
they are the people themselves monitoring them.
Now, how does this relate to the broader question?
In this village AID has a project where they are teaching some people
metal working, some people how to sew, how to bake, how to make crafts.
So they teach them that. Where do they go? What are they supposed to
do? Mr. Speaker, it is amazing: $80, $100 you can start to sew in your
neighborhood. Pay that back, like a credit union, which is really kind
of how this is functioning, because your neighbors are all part of
this, and you are watching each other, and there is accountability.
Then you can get justified for maybe a $400 loan, then an $800 loan.
You crawl, you take baby steps, you walk, but that is how you build a
middle class.
But to do that, you have to have order. Some people do not
understand, you can not give somebody $400 or $10,000 or $50,000 to
start a business if they think their family is going to be murdered or
kidnapped the next week.
Somehow, we have to establish order. We have to establish credible
government units that are not involved in human rights violations,
which this government is committed to do. Some people say, well, I
cannot make as much growing soybeans as I can selling coca or growing
coca. I cannot make as much in palm heart. Do my colleagues know what?
The kids on American street corners cannot make as much at McDonald's
as they can being a lookout either, but that does not mean we are going
to pay them $400 an hour if they give up being a lookout. There are
things that are not legal to do and that are destructive, and there are
things that are legal. We need to work to give people a living wage,
where they can work to support their family with their income, and we
need to help the Government of Colombia, which has been undermined.
For example, they were the eighth largest supplier of oil in the
world. There has been so much oil spilled in attacking that pipeline
that it would be 8 Exxon Valdezes pouring into the north part of
Colombia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Indiana, my friend, who has demonstrated a commitment that is
extraordinary in terms of this particular issue and to the people of
Colombia. I hope that everyone that is watching tonight and listening
to the gentleman's Special Order takes note.
Much of what the gentleman said, practically all of what the
gentleman said I agree with. And I think it is important to understand
that the commitment to Colombia has to be a sustained commitment.
Unfortunately, those of us who enjoy the benefits of this country are
sometimes susceptible to a lack of patience. This is not a problem that
is going to go away overnight in Colombia, but I think that the
gentleman made the link that absolutely cries for patience by the
American people and by the Congress, and that is that here in the
neighborhoods of the United States, there are young people and people
of middle age that have been addicted to narcotics and have led lives
that reduce them to hostages and prisoners in their own body. And if we
are ever going to address that problem and the link that it has to
crime and violence in the United States, our commitment has to be
sustained.
I felt the need to say that. I know the gentleman has been on the
floor. I am here with some colleagues to address a separate issue, but
I want to applaud the gentleman's efforts. We have worked a long time
on this particular issue, and I believe that the Colombian Government
is making great strides. The gentleman pointed out that the Colombian
Government is making strides in terms of human rights.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as we near the 3-year
anniversary of Plan Colombia, it is important to reaffirm our
commitment to this program, to the people of Colombia, and to American
citizens. I have led three congressional delegations to Colombia over
the past 5 months. I can say firsthand that our significant investment
is beginning to pay dividends. Together with the strong commitment of
the Uribe Administration and historic levels
[[Page 17194]]
of support from the Colombian people, U.S. involvement in Colombia is
beginning to hit narco-terrorists where it hurts.
We are seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication, and
Plan Colombia's efforts have produced record reductions in coca
production and in the destruction of drug labs. Each week brings news
of new seizures of cocaine and heroin--interdictions that are usually
the result of U.S.-supplied intelligence. In fact, just this last
weekend, Colombian officials seized over a ton of cocaine from a drug
trafficking boat off the Caribbean coast. The Colombian government is
reestablishing state presence in areas of the country that for decades
lacked it. Criminals who have remained at bay for years are being
captured and extradited to the United States for prosecution. During
the 11 months of President Uribe's tenure, 68 individuals have been
extradited from Colombia to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, Plan Colombia is working. I have just returned from a
trip to Colombia with Chairman Souder and have seen first hand the
devastation that drug production and trafficking has on this country.
To those who question our investment, I would ask them to visit, as I
have, Colombian soldiers who have lost their limbs or eyesight or
sustained permanent disabilities in their battle to return peace to
their nation and keep drugs off American streets. I would also ask them
to visit Barrio Nelson Mandela, a USAID sponsored facility for
internally displaced people who have been forced from their homes by
drug traffickers and guerillas. This facility showed me how our work on
behalf of Colombia's millions of internally displaced people is
offering men, women, and children a second chance at a violence-free,
productive life.
The United States, however, should not have to do this alone. An
increasingly significant amount of Colombian cocaine and heroin is
being trafficked through Europe for consumption. I would like to urge
our European allies to recognize their responsibility to do their share
in supporting Colombia in the battle to reduce the supply of drugs
entering the world market. The war on drugs cannot be won without
appropriate funds, resources and tools. Every contribution possible is
needed to disrupt the market and make the drug trade less profitable.
The battle going on in Colombia against narco-terrorism is Europe's
battle as well. A European contribution to fighting the war on drugs
could provide these innocent people with a better life by strengthening
the rule of law, protecting human rights, and providing security for
all Colombians.
During my recent visit to Colombia, it was evident to me just how
effective U.S. assistance is to their government. Colombia's ability to
combat both drugs and terror has been strengthened due in large part to
our support as well as the will and determination of the Colombian
people. With such promising results over the last 3 years, it is
important to continue our support and sustain the momentum. Goals are
being met, and new goals need to be set. Of course obstacles remain,
and progress is slower than we would like it to be. But now is not the
time to turn our backs on this battle that is so intrinsically tied to
our war on terrorism and illegal drug use. In light of the strong
progress being made in Colombia, I urge all of my colleagues to
continue their support of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics
trafficking and terrorist activities and their effort to bring
democratic security to the country.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer some
views as part of this evening's Special Order recognizing the third
anniversary of Plan Colombia.
As a senior Member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services
Committees, I wanted to take note of the significant gains that have
been made since Plan Colombia was announced in July of 2000 in
strengthening the rule of law and enhancing the stability of this
important democratic ally. As important, the strategy set forth in Plan
Colombia has achieved major positive results in initially slowing and
now reducing Colombia's cocaine production during the past 3 years.
A recent U.S. Government assessment of global coca production trends
notes the recent progress achieved under the Plan Colombia strategy:
``Coca cultivation in Colombia (in 2002) declined by 15 percent--the
first decline in Colombia's coca crop in a decade. . . . This reduction
was largely because of a sustained aerial eradication campaign in what
had been the country's densest coca growing areas. . . . Cultivation in
the Putumayo--site of the country's most intensive eradication effort--
declined by 80 percent.'' Nevertheless, the U.S. and Colombia
Governments assessed in 2002 that Colombia's coca production zones
totaled nearly 362,500 acres with the potential to produce 680 metric
tons of pure cocaine.
With respect to Colombian heroin production, the latest assessment is
that in 2002, Colombia's opium poppy production zones totaled some
12,200 acres with a potential yield of some 11.3 metric tons of pure
heroin. According to the DEA, Colombian heroin captures approximately
70 percent of the U.S. marketplace and virtually all of Colombia's
heroin production is intended for export to the United States. Unlike
the aggressive strategies being applied against Colombia's coca
production, the bilateral efforts to locate and eradicate opium poppy
under Plan Colombia have lacked a consistent strategy and adequate
resources and personnel. Both the U.S. and Colombian governments need
to work much more effectively to apply new technologies to combat and
defeat the heroin industry.
I wanted to briefly cite two initiatives that are elements of the
Plan Colombia strategy, which have real potential to improve Colombia's
security and to enhance the rule of law within Colombia's borders. With
Plan Colombia funding, the United States Southern Command provided
resources and training for the establishment of a Military Penal
Justice Corps within the Colombian military. Since the establishment of
Colombia's Military Penal Justice Corps in August 2000, over 300
military, police, and civilian attorneys have received professional
legal education and training focused on military justice, international
humanitarian law, and operational law. This legal training has had a
direct and positive impact on the Colombian military's performance in
the field against terrorists and narco-traffickers as well as on its
adherence to international legal standards in very difficult combat
environments.
A second initiative under Plan Colombia is the reestablishment of the
binational airbridge denial (ABD) program, which is designed to
interdict illegal aircraft engaged in transporting narcotics. The ABD
program merits close oversight, but it has real potential to reduce
narco-trafficking and to limit illicit weapons support to terrorists
and other criminal organizations in Colombia. When I was in Bogota last
November, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue at some length
with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. President Uribe was very clear
about the urgency of implementing the ABD program. I am concerned that
legal disputes over the ABD program's implementation have delayed the
renewal of this important interdiction program. I strongly urge the
Bush administration to resolve any outstanding issues affecting ABD
implementation immediately, and to provide the Colombian Government
with the appropriate support to carry out an effective and accountable
ABD program.
While these recent trends are somewhat encouraging, it is equally
clear that our two governments need to maintain their focus on the Plan
Colombia strategic objectives by intensifying ongoing narcotics
eradication and interdiction programs, and by restoring security and
essential government services to areas threatened by terrorists and
narco-traffickers. I am convinced that Colombia's fight is also our
fight--as the terrorism and the narco-trafficking that are
destabilizing Colombia's democratic institutions pose real threats to
America's people and our national security.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this evening's
Special Order commemorating the third anniversary of Plan Colombia.
As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
I wanted to discuss the significant and measurable progress that has
been made in the past 3 years in Colombia on a variety of fronts as a
product of improved coordination and bilateral cooperation between the
governments of Colombia and the United States.
Four years ago, the security situation within Colombia was extremely
unstable--some were saying then that Colombia was unraveling into a
failed state where the national government exercised control of less
than 50 percent of its territory. Leftist guerrillas from the FARC and
the ELN and rightist paramilitary groups were growing rapidly and
expanding their reach throughout much of Colombia. These terrorist
groups were financed by the surge in cocaine and heroin production in
the unsecured areas of Colombia as well as by other widespread criminal
activities, such as mass kidnappings, extortion, murder for hire, and
money laundering. The rule of law in much of Colombia during that time
was uncertain at best; judges, public defenders, prosecutors, and
police were being terrorized and killed at unprecedented rates. The
political, economic and security future of Colombia was clearly and
increasingly at stake.
Given Colombia's economic and political importance as a major
democratic ally within our Hemisphere, it was critical that Colombia
and its friends jointly develop and fund an effort to enhance
Colombia's security, strengthen the rule of law, interdict and
eradicate narcotic crops, and grow its economy. During the past
[[Page 17195]]
3 years, the Plan Colombia initiative has provided a comprehensive
strategy to reassert government control of Colombia's territory as well
as to restore public confidence in the viability of Colombia's
democratic institutions. Since the inauguration of Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe in August 2002, the Colombian Government has stepped up
its implementation of a wide variety of Plan Colombia programs
affecting narcotics eradication and interdiction, enhanced law
enforcement and other security-related measures, and alternative
development efforts.
A recent United Nations study estimates that Colombian coca
production has been reduced by 40 percent since Plan Colombia was
begun. With the strong support of President Uribe and improved mobility
and capacity of Colombia's military and police forces, there is an
excellent opportunity in 2003 for our bi-national coca eradication
program to eradicate 100 percent of Colombia's coca production zones,
an area that encompasses over 150,000 hectares. While this is very good
news in the short term, our two governments will have to pursue this
nationwide eradication and interdiction strategy for at least the next
several years as coca growers are forced out of their illegal business
and the Colombian Government is able to establish a stable and
effective security presence in numerous coca production zones across
Colombia.
While the coca eradication trends show promise, I am concerned that
insufficient attention has been given to developing and implementing an
effective strategy to locate and eradicate Colombia's opium poppy crop.
Our latest U.S. Government poppy crop data estimates that Colombia
produced 14.2 metric tons of export quality heroin in 2002; virtually
all of this Colombian heroin was exported to the United States and
represented the large majority of all heroin consumed by Americans in
2002.
Despite the clear statutory direction and funding guidance in both
Plan Colombia and in related Congressional authorizations and
appropriations measures during the past 5 years, our bilateral effort
against Colombian heroin has been so far insufficient. Given the lethal
effects of the heroin trade on both our countries, this key element of
Plan Colombia demands senior-level attention by both governments,
appropriate resources, and the application of a new, more effective mix
of eradication and interdiction technologies to locate and kill the
opium poppy on the 12,000-15,000 hectares where it has been grown in
Colombia's high Andes mountains.
Plan Colombia has registered some notable successes in the past 3
years. We need to stay committed to this important fight with our
Colombian allies--not just for our national security, but for the
safety of countless Americans who are threatened by the linkages
between narco-trafficking and international terrorism. We need to
redouble our efforts to stem the production and export of heroin and
coca from Colombia, which harm and kill thousands of Colombians and
Americans every year.
I commend the leadership of Speaker Hastert in this important
national security initiative. It was his foresight and concerted effort
that has brought us this far. I look forward to working with the
Speaker on this effort, and continuing to build upon the success of
Plan Colombia as it enters its fourth year.
____________________
NATIONAL POLICIES IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Hoeffel) is recognized for 60 minutes.
General Leave
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on and to include extraneous material on the subject of this
Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to talk about
Iraq, to talk about the military activity, to talk about the weapons of
mass destruction, to talk about the postconflict steps that have been
taken and need to be taken. I am joined this evening by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel), and perhaps others, to talk for the next hour about our
national policies in Iraq.
Some of us, myself included, voted in favor of the military authority
requested by the President to invade Iraq. Some of us who will be
speaking tonight voted against that military authority. But all of us
have some common questions. We all salute the brave and courageous
efforts by our young men and women in uniform. They won a very
impressive military victory in short order. That military victory was
never in doubt, but it was impressive nonetheless how well our troops
performed.
But there are two questions, really: Is our military mission
completed in Iraq? And secondly, are we winning the peace?
Now, I would suggest, just to get the conversation started this
evening, that first off, our military mission is not complete, because
we have not found the weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are
what motivated me to vote in favor of this military authority, because
I believed then and I believe now that it was necessary to disarm
Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. But if we cannot find
those weapons of mass destruction, there are serious questions. And we
need a full accounting, first, of where those weapons are so that we
know they are secured or dismantled and in safe custody. Secondly, we
need a full accounting of how accurate our intelligence was. Were our
intelligence agencies accurate in the information they gave to the
administration? Was that information properly used by the
administration?
And this is not just an academic exercise. The entire Bush doctrine
of the preemptive use of force requires as a foundation accurate
intelligence regarding the intentions of other countries and potential
enemies around the world. If we are going to use force preemptively in
the face of imminent threats to this country or to our allies, we have
to know that our intelligence is accurate.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply add one other item
that I would hope that tonight we can discuss and that our friend from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has really, in my judgment, done an
extraordinary job in terms of laying out for the American people what
it is going to cost the taxpayers of the United States and the impact
in terms of service cuts for Americans that that will entail.
But if for a moment I could just simply go to the issue that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania raised about the issue of weapons of mass
destruction.
It certainly is well-known that the two premises for the rationale
for the military attack on Iraq as articulated by the President was,
number one, links between the Saddam Hussein regime and the possession
of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with an intent to use them by
that regime that presented a clear and present danger to the United
States and to our people. Since the end of the conflict, we no longer
hear about links between al Qaeda and the regime of the tyrant Saddam
Hussein. In fact, I would dare say there is a consensus now that there
was no evidence to indicate any collaborative effort or any cooperation
between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and, most likely, the
opposite was true.
I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania remembers and I know the
gentleman from Illinois took note of the fact that about, I think it
was in April of 2001, there was a report that Mohammed Atta, the
ringleader of September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent
in the Czech Republic.
{time} 2215
It was later revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that
that could not have happened because Mr. Atta at the time of the
alleged meeting was here in the United States plotting against the
American people. No longer do we hear about links between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda. So that argument proved to be false and
inaccurate.
Mr. HOEFFEL. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to point
out
[[Page 17196]]
that the gentleman is pointing out that the Bush administration has a
growing credibility gap regarding its prior claims and the evidence
that is forthcoming after the conflict. And I know the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) was the first on this floor to my
knowledge to raise the questions about the accusations regarding the
country of Niger in Africa.
I wonder if the gentleman would share the latest information that has
been made public on that score.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the latest information is that today,
today, the White House announced that when the President made the
statement regarding the sale of highly enriched uranium to the Iraqi
regime by a country in Africa, they made a mistake. Better late than
never.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. I think it is very important to note this fact that 2
weeks after the State of the Union, the Secretary of State was handed
that same information as he was preparing his presentation to the U.N.,
and he rejected that data as insufficient and inaccurate.
Now, having worked in the White House, having worked on a few State
of the Unions, which are the most important speech a President will
give in their Presidency outside of an oval address, I cannot think of
a moment in time where you can have a Secretary of State reject the
information as inadequate for their presentation to the United Nations,
and yet is adequate and sufficient for the President of the United
States to stand in this well at that desk and address the Nation, the
world, and for this speech on why we need to go to war.
Now, I happened to have supported the resolution, but the entire
credibility of our ability to marshal the resources of the world as we
relate to North Korea and Iran are going to be heretofore questioned.
And I always think it is interesting if I were giving advice, not that
I would be giving advice, nor would they be seeking my advice, that
before the President of the United States was back from Africa, he
would have the name, the phone number and the forwarding address of the
individual that gave that information because they would not be in this
White House any longer.
Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a point very well taken because several weeks
ago, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), our colleague who has
joined us, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I were
having this discussion just as the gentleman pointed out, the President
of the United States in the State of the Union Address made that
statement to the American people; and one week later before the United
Nations Security Council when he made his presentation, Secretary
Powell discarded that information. But it has taken until today, today,
more than 6 months later, that the White House acknowledged that that
information, and let me quote what they had to say, that it was
incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American
intelligence agencies.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), if he could give an educated,
speculative assessment of what would have taken place had this same
circumstance occurred today during the Presidency of Mr. Clinton.
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, heads would have rolled. You cannot allow the
President of the United States to have gone up on any speech, let alone
a State of the Union, to address the Nation and in this case, this
State of the Union was unique, on the precipice of war, the world with
information that was clearly, because of Secretary Powell's actions,
inadequate, not up to snuff. Heads would have rolled. There would have
been an accounting. There would have been an internal accounting to
that; and I think properly so, Congress would have asked for it.
I would like to note, I cannot think what is worse, the fact that
they have used, since there is ample evidence to say that Saddam
Hussein was a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people and
started three wars, why you would go and stretch information, damage
your own case. I cannot figure out what is worse, the fact that they
used this phony memo, or the fact that they have had no plan for the
occupation and no strategy for our exit.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman allow me to venture perhaps an
educated guess myself on that score? Because they were trying to
establish a new doctrine for the United States of preemptive warfare.
Not that citations might not have been made with regard to other
military actions by the United States in previous times, perhaps up to
and even including President Clinton's Presidency, but that there was
to be established with this a new paradigm of preemption based on an
imperial view of the world that the stamp of the United States must be
placed upon the rest of the world.
I would venture to further my question to the gentleman from
Illinois, if President Clinton was in office today and this information
was revealed today, what do you think the response of some of our
colleagues might have been?
Mr. EMANUEL. I can feel the foam and the lather building up. We would
not be arguing for 2 weeks whether Congress should call the inquiry an
investigation or not. There would be a full-blown investigation, and it
would be proper. Because the President of the United States at that
point, at that Chamber, at that speech, at this podium would be
addressing the world as the President of the United States speaking for
all of us, not just the bodies in here and the cameras up there.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not think we would be speaking in a Chamber as
we are tonight during Special Orders with, again, the press being
absent. I will presume perhaps some of them are watching on C-SPAN. We
would not have an empty Chamber. On the contrary, there would be a
full-blown cry throughout the opposition to Mr. Clinton indicating that
he should be brought to account or those around him who are giving
advice should be brought to account. And I agree with the gentleman,
that would be true.
Mr. EMANUEL. I want to add one thing to this whole discussion if that
is okay with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it is.
Mr. EMANUEL. Because as we talk about this memo from Niger and how it
got into the speech, how it got into the British dossier for the
justification for the war, what is equally telling and missing in the
debate is the discussion of reconstruction in Iraq. And if you go over
and pull over at USAID, an agency within the State Department, the
plans for Iraq's reconstruction, I would like to cite some statistics.
They call for 20,000 units of housing. Yet the budget for this
country only calls for 5,000 units of housing here in the United
States; 13 million Iraqis, half of the population, will get universal
health care. Yet not a single penny in the budget presented by the
administration or passed by a Republican Congress does anything to
support health care for the 42 million working uninsured in this
country; 12,500 schools will be given full resources for reconstruction
and books and supplies. Yet in our country, teachers have to get a tax
credit because they have to take money out of their own budget,
personal budget, their salary to pay for supplies. Four million kids in
Iraq will be given early childhood education. In the President's
budget, 58,000 kids cut from Head Start. We have a deep water port in
Iraq being built from top to bottom. Yet the Corps of Engineers in this
country is cut by 10 percent, their budget.
I think if we look at the history, the American people are quite
generous and quite supportive of our efforts and we support the notion
of Iraq having a new beginning. But I do not think they would ever
support the notion that we can deconstruct America while we reconstruct
Iraq.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Given the extraordinary examples that the gentleman has
just cited of American generosity to help reconstruct Iraq, does the
gentleman think that we are winning the peace in Iraq?
[[Page 17197]]
Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is that there is nothing that has gone on post
the war in Iraq that we could not have seen ahead. Nothing new. There
was no plan for the occupation. In fact, there is no plan for the exit.
We have 158,000 troops based there as far as the eye can see out to the
horizon and there is no family member who can count the days of when
they are coming home because they have no knowledge of when they are
coming home. So nobody can check the calendar at home when the husband
is coming, the wife is coming, the sister is coming, the brother is
coming.
Remember, this is the heydays. These are the days we are getting the
kisses, the hugs and the flowers. A year from now they will be tired of
our presence there.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, the day of the hugs and the cheers really
could be numbered in hours. Since the official end of the hostility as
declared by the President, almost on a daily basis, tragically,
American service men and women are losing their lives.
Mr. EMANUEL. I checked that statistic. It has been 69 days since the
President on the Lincoln aircraft carrier declared our mission complete
and 70 Americans have died; 69 days, 70 Americans since May 1.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are all in our prayers. But I would like to
make one other observation if I can. I do not want the American people
as they watch here tonight to think that this is just simply four
Democrats railing for political purposes against the White House and
the administration. I know that many of our colleagues on the other
side share our concerns. And I found extraordinarily interesting an
article that was penned by someone whom we all respect, Senator Richard
Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And if I might, just for a moment, read his words:
The combat phase of our war in Iraq ended with a speedy,
decisive victory and minimal loss of life. That impressive
success is now at risk. Clearly, the administration's
planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate.
I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress have
yet to face up to the true size of the task that lies ahead
or prepared the American people for it. The administration
should state clearly that we are engaged in nation building.
We are constructing the future in Iraq, and it is a
complicated and uncertain business. The days when Americans
could win battles and come home quickly for a parade are
over. And when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit
strategies or say dismissively that they don't do nation
building, they are wrong.
This comes from a Republican, highly regarded and well respected. It
is important that we are doing this here tonight so the American people
know that, so they hear the truth.
Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is among us four we had different opinions and
votes on whether we should or should not go to war, whether there was a
case for a war.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted against the resolution. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) voted to support it, as did the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel); and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) voted against it.
Mr. EMANUEL. But we are united in our view that an administration
should not mislead the American people; that a person who gave the
President the wrong information needs to be held accountable because
all of our reputations are on the line when the President of the United
States is talking to the world with our judgment and justification.
Second, that as we plan for this occupation, that if we had done the
hard work of building allies on the front end, we would have allies on
the back end. And that the only faces in the occupation are American
and British and others, but dominantly American, and, therefore,
Americans bearing this burden alone, which it should not, in both
financial and human costs.
{time} 2230
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I can follow up on the comments of the
gentleman, I certainly agree with him that we need to internationalize
the postconflict situation in Iraq. We are bringing on ourselves the
frustrations of those people. We do not have anyone sharing the burden
other than the British. We do not have anyone else sharing
responsibility or blame for things that are going wrong.
We need to bring in NATO to help with peacekeeping. We need to bring
in the United Nations to help with reconstruction. And, obviously, the
United States would be the major partner in both of those operations.
We still would be very deeply involved, but we would have international
allies and international institutions to help with resources and to
help with credibility and to help with responsibility for the work that
needs to be done.
We need to turn over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible two things:
One, their oil; and, secondly, their government. We need to make sure
that the Iraqi oil industry is transparent, corruption-free, and the
proceeds from which are used to rebuild Iraq. And we have to turn over
to the Iraqis their own government. We are moving way too slowly to do
that.
Paul Bremer, the viceroy occupier, I am not sure what his title is,
has postponed repeatedly the formation of an Iraqi interim government.
He is now calling it an advisory committee that he will appoint to
advise him. I do not think that is the way to give the Iraqis the stake
in their future government that they expect and deserve.
Mr. EMANUEL. If I can add one thing to this debate before I need to
go. I remember during the Reagan administration there was an open
public discussion between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State, which continued in years past, about the fact that we could not
get into a military operation without an exit strategy. And I think it
would behoove all of us in this institution, regardless of party or
regardless of position, if we could define what the exit strategy is.
What is the test? What is the standard?
When we have 70 deaths in 69 days, and some people, I think Senator
Lugar noted that we have to level with the American people we are here
maybe 5, 10 years, that does not sound very convincing for an exit
strategy and a standard that says here is when we know we are done. We
cannot just say to the American people that we will know when we are
done when we are done. We cannot have an open-ended checkbook and an
open-ended sense of lives that are to be lost.
Again, I remind my colleagues that these are the days that are
supposed to be flowers and kisses and hugs. A year from now we are
supposed to be experiencing what we are experiencing today. Not today.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Before the gentleman leaves, let me ask him if he has
been able to figure out what strategy the President was pursuing last
week when he suggested, in the face of the guerilla attacks and
ambushes and assassinations of American soldiers, that our opponents
should ``bring 'em on?'' Could any of the gentlemen joining me on the
floor today tell me what they think the President's strategy was with
that comment?
Mr. EMANUEL. As a former staff person who worked for a President, I
believe that every staff person in that White House who was sitting on
the side cringed when they heard that, because you cannot but think
that there was a President whose rhetoric got ahead of where the policy
is and what they were saying.
Nobody would ever suggest that our men and women in uniform, who are
doing all of us proud, should be the focus of further attacks, this
notion of ``bring 'em on.'' We have lost 70 Americans in 69 days. There
are other Americans we have lost in this whole battle, but 70 Americans
who are fathers, who are mothers, who are brothers, sisters, who are
Boy Scout coaches, leaders in their community, YMCA leaders. And the
notion that somebody would sit here in the comfort of our great country
in our capital and say ``Bring 'em on'' to our soldiers I think misses
what they are facing every day. And I think it was a very, very
unfortunate choice of words.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield a moment further in
that regard and in that context, I do think that the response to the
gentleman's question is that the President, and my point to my
colleague is, I wonder if he could corroborate or whether he would
agree that the President, at
[[Page 17198]]
least in my estimation, has said that this is wide open; that this does
not have an end; that the calculations will be made on essentially an
ad hoc basis; and that there is nothing that he can foresee at this
moment that would lead us to the kind of exit strategy conclusions that
the gentleman has raised.
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, my worry is not only do we not know the standard
for our exit, and that before you get into any military engagement, you
should know what your exit strategy is; that because we have 168,000
troops based now in all of Iraq, with no ability of any ally to come
and replace our troops at a serious level, that our forces are
stretched thin when it comes to the war on terrorism because of their
occupation and being tied down in the deserts of Iraq.
Now, I think we are there, and we have to help turn this country
around, but clearly now our troops are being targeted from guerilla
warfare and from terrorists. Our ability to do what we need to do
around the world, both in Afghanistan and other corners of the world,
our resources are being stretched thin and spread thin when it comes to
the war on terrorism.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned
Afghanistan, and I know he has another appointment, but let us review
for a moment where we are in terms of Afghanistan.
How long have we been in Afghanistan? We are talking years already.
And yet what progress have we made in Afghanistan? The American people
should be aware of the fact that it is a mess. The President of
Afghanistan, President Karzai, whom we supported from the beginning, is
unable to travel throughout Afghanistan. He is just about able to leave
the central district of the capital city of Kabul. We did not conclude
our work there before we took on another military intervention of a
much different magnitude, much larger size, when we went into Iraq.
As has been stated by all three of my colleagues tonight, America's
word is at risk here. If we just go back again to the quality of the
intelligence, I do not want to leave the impression with those who are
watching this conversation that we are having tonight that this is,
again, exclusively restricted to Democrats. These are concerns that are
shared across the aisle. This is simply too important. Decisions were
made regarding whether to wage war based on this intelligence, and,
clearly, that is, in our democracy, a question of the most serious
consequence, to wage war.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. May I follow up in that context?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Today, as I am sure my colleagues will acknowledge,
and not everyone who is observing us and listening tonight may be
aware, we passed a defense appropriations bill from this House. If
anything should reflect the concern of the administration with regard
to the issues of resolving the consequences of our attack in Iraq, it
should be contained in here.
I have, for my colleagues' information, Mr. Speaker, referring to the
House Action Reports, a Congressional Quarterly publication, a fact
sheet edition published today on defense appropriations. In it, section
3 addresses military personnel. It includes things like a military pay
raise and a civilian Defense Department pay raise. Active Duty
personnel are listed at 1,388,100 in fiscal year 2004, equal to the
President's request of 1,600 less than the current level. On Reserves,
the bill sets a ceiling on Reserve personnel for a total of 863,300 in
the next fiscal year, equal to the administration's request of 1,258
less than the 2003 level.
Now, think about it. We now have 150,000 plus people committed in
Iraq under the circumstances and conditions that have been discussed
here tonight, personnel deployed throughout the world, not just in
Afghanistan, but the Philippines, Yemen, and dozens of places, now
possibly in Liberia, again under circumstances that are not clear as to
where we are going, what we are doing, and who we are doing it with.
The President says, ``Bring 'em on,'' but here is the congressional
responsibility and obligation as manifested in the appropriations which
follow on our authorizing personnel. And what we are saying is, is that
the same deployments that have been taking place up until now, which
have put such an enormous strain on the Guard and Reserves are going to
continue. We are not adding a single person. We are not facing with any
respect whatsoever the realities of what these deployments and the
obligations attendant upon them will require of us.
That is why we are here in the evening during these Special Orders
trying to reach out to the American public to explain that we are not
quiescent on this. We are not merely observers. We are trying to
participate in a respectful and responsible way as Members of Congress.
But we have to rouse the attention of the American people to let them
know that we are failing those men and women in the armed services if
we think for a moment that we are providing adequate support and
foundation for what we expect of them.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would say to my colleague that that is only half the
story. When those men and women come home, when they are discharged
from Active Duty, and when they assume the title of veteran, what are
we doing to them then? What are we doing to them then? Well, what we
are doing to them is, in some respects, discriminating against them. We
are creating new categories of veterans who no longer will have access
to veterans health care. That is unconscionable.
We send them to war, and when they come home, we reduce their
benefits and, in fact, eliminate some of these heroes and heroines from
having access to health care provided by the Veterans Administration.
That is shameful.
Patriotism is more than just simply raising the flag. The flag
represents respect, respect especially for men and women who serve this
country in the military, and we are disrespecting and dishonoring them.
That is wrong.
Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield on that point, is he aware
that the Bush tax cuts in 2004 will reduce revenues about $60 billion,
and that for $1 billion we could fully fund our obligations to all of
the veterans, including category 7 and category 8 veterans, so that
they all would get the health care that we promised all veterans?
We are $1 billion short. Now, $1 billion is a lot of money.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But when it comes to Iraq, we are going to be sending
hundreds of billions of dollars, as the gentleman from Illinois
indicated, to build schools, to provide health care, and to provide
deepwater ports, but we cannot take care of our own veterans.
Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct. We are appropriating $29
billion next year for veterans health care. We need $30 billion to meet
all of our obligations, our moral obligations, and we are not measuring
up, and it is wrong.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield in turn, to follow up
on my point in regard to our analysis, or rather not so much an
analysis, I daresay, but our observation that these offhand remarks,
these ad hoc remarks by the President, which take on the weight of
policy, such as ``Bring 'em on,'' this kind of childish assessment of
what constitutes the ground operations in Iraq, are now followed by an
observation of the President that Mr. Taylor, the President in Liberia,
has to go.
Now, where he is going and how he is going and under what
circumstances is not said. And the questions from the press, the press
which is absent, which do not appear, at least as far as I can tell;
now, whether or not people in the White House are so covetous of being
in the White House that they do not dare ask the question that anybody
with any journalistic bent worthy of the name would ask, just who is
supposed to replace Mr. Taylor when he does go, wherever you think he
should, provided you have got that far?
{time} 2245
Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this issue and the reason I raise it
in the present context is if you think we had no planning in Iraq, I
can tell you now and tell the American people and tell my colleagues we
do not have a clue or an idea of what we will do in Liberia in terms of
who will replace Mr. Taylor and who will prevail when he leaves.
[[Page 17199]]
Now, are we to send in not tens of thousands of, but perhaps hundreds
of, American soldiers into a situation that we do not have the
slightest idea, nor has there been any discussion in the Congress about
what we are going to do, how, when or why we are going to do it, and
what the circumstances will be upon the action taken.
Now, I for one admonish all of us to take into account where we are
now in Iraq and remember that we face exactly the same circumstances in
terms of lack of forward-planning policy with regard to Liberia, and
the consequences could be just as severe. The numbers might be
different, but the situation is the same. We have an administration now
that thinks that military action in and of itself constitutes political
policy. Furthermore, support for the troops is then defined as being
support for whatever political agenda they have. Now, that is what we
are facing this evening.
No one can say if only for the fact that we appear here on the floor
tonight that due warning has not been given to the American public by
Members serving in the Congress of the United States that we should
have a full debate with respect to what we are going to do in Liberia,
most particularly in the wake of what is taking place in Iraq, and that
before any action is taken in Liberia, the will of the Congress has to
be determined.
I would hope that we take the most serious and sober view before we
commit American troops in furtherance of a political agenda, and that
political agenda is made manifest for the world to judge on the basis
of action by American troops.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
think we need to learn our lessons and learn them well and ask the
questions that need to be asked and avoid the taunts and the arrogance
that can get us into a lot of trouble when we fail to think things
through.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that editorial opinion is
focusing on the President's comments and on the post-conflict realities
in Iraq. The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday in response to the
President's comments about ``bring it on'' in their lead editorial
title ``Bring Reality On,'' said continued hubris in high places
heightens risks for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The Inquirer asks: ``Mr.
President, do you live in a playhouse or the White House? Childish
taunts such as that are not the calibrated words demanded of the United
States President at this turn of history's wheel.'' And the
Philadelphia Inquirer goes on to make several points about the reality
that is needed in our policy.
First, they say get real about the number of U.S. troops needed to
establish and maintain order for months to come; get real about the
full scope of reconstructing Iraq, its costs and duration; get real
about cutting taxes. The incumbent is the only President, the Inquirer
says, in the Nation's history to cut taxes in the middle of a hot war.
They say get real about spurning the value of the United Nations; get
real about the democratic aspirations you unwisely inflated among the
long-oppressed, divided Iraqi population; and get real about admitting
mistakes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, obviously we all make mistakes, but it is
important to acknowledge the making of mistakes. I would submit that if
Secretary Powell had information that was available to him a week after
the President of the United States in his State of the Union message
referenced the sale of uranium by an African country to Saddam Hussein,
then it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, would not have had a conversation with the President suggesting
or informing him that he did not find that information reliable in
terms of his presentation to the United Nations; and yet for 6 months
the White House, the President, has continued to insist on the
reliability of the intelligence that he selected when he made his
presentation to the American people.
The complaints are not coming just from this side of the aisle, but
are coming from the intelligence community. Even the top U.S. Marine
officer in Iraq, General James Conway, said U.S. intelligence was
simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading
troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons. I respect the
general for making that statement; and it is time that the
administration, the President and those who, upon review, discovered
that the premises and the facts that supported those premises were
inaccurate or incorrect, it is time to acknowledge them and restore the
confidence of the American people and the people of this world in the
integrity of the United States and its leadership.
These are just some quotes from intelligence officials, individuals
who have no particular partisan ax to grind, and these are reports from
the New York Times, and I am quoting, ``As an employee of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the
public to get support for its attack on Iraq. Some others see a pattern
not so much of lying as of self-delusion and of subjecting the
intelligence agencies to these delusions.''
Another quote, ```The American people were manipulated,' bluntly
declares one person from the Defendant Intelligence Agency who says
that he was privy to all of the intelligence on Iraq. `These people are
coming forward because they are fiercely proud.''' He is referring to
intelligence analyses at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and those
that are watching should be aware that there are many intelligence
agencies, but this is the consensus of their opinion, that they are
fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world, that
such work should be nonpolitical and are disgusted at efforts to turn
them into propaganda.
This is from an individual who retired in September after 25 years in
the State Department. His name is Greg Thielmann, and he spent the last
4 years of his public service in the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, and these are his quotes: ``The al Qaeda connection and
nuclear weapons issues were the only two ways that you could link Iraq
to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the
administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both
things.''
The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread
that they have formed a group, an association, called the Veteran
Intelligent Professionals for Sanity, and they wrote to President Bush
this past month to protest what they called, and again this is their
language, ``a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental
proportions.''
I am quoting from their letter: ``While there have been occasions in
the past when intelligence has been deliberately wopped for political
purposes, never before has such wopping been used in such a systematic
way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize
launching a war.''
A comment by Larry Johnson, one of those talking heads that we always
see on those cable programs, he used to be a CIA analyst and worked at
the State Department, referring to the low morale among the
intelligence community: ``I have never heard this level of alarm
before. It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The President was
misled. He was ill-served by folks who are supposed to protect him on
this. Whether this is witting or unwitting, I do not know.''
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman is aware that there
is a perfectly rational reason why the White House admitted this week
that they made a mistake with the President's State of the Union speech
in which he claimed Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The
reason that the White House had to finally admit their error is they
were basing this on British intelligence, and the British system has
resulted in an open inquiry where British parliamentarians have
investigated and continue to investigate the question of the accuracy
of their intelligence prewar, and the uses of that intelligence by the
Blair administration.
They have concluded that while Prime Minister Blair did not himself
mislead the public, that this information regarding the purchase of
uranium
[[Page 17200]]
in Africa was simply wrong and was based on forged documents.
This White House could no longer maintain the fiction that there was
any basis in anybody's intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was
trying to buy uranium in Africa, and they simply had to because of a
more open system in England where their Parliament has been more
aggressive than this Congress. They had to face reality.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that C-SPAN viewers have witnessed those
hearings. Sources and methods were protected. No State secrets were
given out. It was a respectful discourse; and it informed the British
people, a people, by the way, who sent men and women into combat with
the United States. But I do not believe that is the only reason, and I
am directing this to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel)
because while they admitted it today, ironically Sunday there appeared
an article in the New York Times written by the individual, a former
ambassador who, on behalf of the CIA, went to Nigeria to investigate
this assertion that, according to some newspapers, came via the Italian
intelligence service, and what he has to say in his words, one might
draw the inference prompted this response today by the White House.
Some might claim it to be an effort at damage control. But his name is
Joseph Wilson, and the article is entitled ``What I Didn't Find In
Africa.''
He starts it by saying, ``Did the Bush administration manipulate
intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an
invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the
months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that
some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was
twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, but it is
extraordinarily informative. Maybe we can do it here in the United
States as well as they can do it in the United Kingdom.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure our colleagues as well
as those who may be observing and listening to us that we do not intend
to make this a 1- or 2- or 3-time deal.
{time} 2300
This is not two or three Members of Congress off on some individual
crusade. We are not here simply to recount those things with which we
have a disagreement. What we feel very strongly about is what I believe
is the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United
States and most certainly those who have talked to me about that
Members of Congress have not stepped up to the plate with regard to the
discussion of these issues in illuminating what is at stake for this
country, and that right now some of these corporation-controlled media
networks and the organs of the executive government are controlling the
message that is out there, and only free men and women, freely elected
with the faith and trust of the electorate, the people have put us into
these positions of trust here in the people's House.
It is up to us with that kind of an obligation placed upon us by the
people to speak out and to speak up, to speak forthrightly, to speak
with as much knowledge as we can bring to bear, to exercise such
judgment as we are able to bring to bear, and to keep the people of
this country informed, and to let them know that we will not be
silenced in this, that we are going to be back night after night after
night, and that if we cannot get these issues discussed during the
regular business of the day, then rest assured we will be here in the
Special Orders that are given to us here in the people's House to make
certain that the hammer of truth is going to come down on the anvil of
inquiry that is required of a free people in a democratic society.
We are going to return here again. We invite our colleagues to engage
in this colloquy. We invite our colleagues to come forward and express
their views. We invite our colleagues to come forth and make inquiry of
one another so that we can be better informed ourselves, so that we do
not have a circumstance that comes to fruition again in this Nation
such as we experienced in Vietnam.
If anything motivates me to be down here on this floor, I see
parallels. I am not drawing analogies, but I see parallels, distinctly
fearful parallels, to what took place in Vietnam in which we were urged
to keep quiet, in which we were urged not to say anything for fear it
would be called dissent, as if there was already an understanding as to
what the correct position should be when it comes to issue of life and
death as we face now in Iraq and other places where American troops are
deployed.
I believe it is an absolute necessity of democracy that we have the
fullest and freest and the deepest and with the widest breadth of
discussion that it is possible to have, and that is what we are going
to be doing on this floor.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we would be derogating our duty. And I
applaud the eloquence and the obviously genuine commitment that the
gentleman from Hawaii just respected. We would not be honoring our
obligation, and additionally we would be failing those members in the
military that have fought as well as they have, and we would be failing
those individuals in the Intelligence Community that have expressed
their views.
It brings to mind a story that again appeared in the newspapers
shortly before we broke, I think it was the day that we broke, where
someone stood up and testified before a House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. There was a number of intelligence officials
within this closed hearing. Of course, it appears in the press, so I
can speak about it. And this individual's name is Christian Westerman,
and he happens to be a top State Department expert on chemical and
biological weapons, and he told the committees that he had been pressed
to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters specifically
pertaining to Cuba to conform with the Bush administration's views.
That is unacceptable. He is viewed within the Department, according to
reports, as a careful and respected analyst of intelligence. He served
in the Navy, and he was obviously not comfortable making that
statement, but that kind of courage is important if we are going to
ascertain the truth.
And whatever the truth is, the American people deserve the truth, and
it is our responsibility to make every effort that we can to seek it.
And I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and
I actually wrote those words down. ``The hammer of truth will be
brought down on the anvil of inquiry,'' and that is our job. It is our
challenge here. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. It is not
unpatriotic to seek accountability. It is not unpatriotic to dissent.
In fact, it is the highest form of patriotism to seek the truth, to ask
questions, to try to get to the bottom of this in the name of the
American people.
I know our time is short. Mr. Speaker, does either gentleman have any
concluding remarks?
The gentleman from Hawaii I thank for being here.
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at some point in the future,
and we should discuss this with other Members of the House, but I for
one would like to extend an invitation to some of our colleagues who
serve in the Parliament, in the House of Commons, to come to the United
States, or maybe some of us to go there to further this discussion,
because I was so impressed with British democracy after viewing on C-
SPAN those hearings that we have alluded to tonight. And there is real
deep concern among the British, and it is clear that it is having an
impact in Britain to a far more significant degree, unfortunately, than
it appears to be having in this country. Maybe at some point in time,
because I really believe it is necessary to have an independent
commission depoliticize this issue, take it out of the realm of
partisan politics.
Yes, there are congressional committees going on, but we know that
there was an independent commission that was chaired by former Senator
Rudman
[[Page 17201]]
and former Senator Gary Hart that, unfortunately, they examined
national security and just about predicted the events of September 11.
It is so important to restore the confidence of the people in our
national security, in our system. I think that happens to be the
answer, but I would really welcome the input from the members of
Parliament, from the House of Commons that sat in on those hearings to
come and give us their observations.
I was particularly impressed with former Minister Robin Cook and a
female former member by the name of Claire Short. I would think that if
we invited them, they would come here, and hopefully the American
media, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have put up with,
finally start to take a good look, because this is an issue that is not
going to go away because it is about time that we reflected and began
to see ourselves as others are viewing us if we are going to continue
to claim a certain moral authority in this world.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and
I would only add it would also be nice if we could be joined by our
friends across the aisle in some of these discussions during these
special orders. I thank my colleagues for being part of this
discussion.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the
Special Orders matter related to Post-Conflict Iraq and the U.S.-U.N.
involvement therein. I ask that our colleagues remember that two wars
and over a decade of sanctions have crippled Iraq's infrastructure.
With respect to the events that led to the need for Iraq rebuilding, I
renew my concerns that there has been an apparent break down in U.S.
intelligence as to the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
that suggests that the current administration may have misled the
public in order to garner support of the war in Iraq. Secondly, because
the international community looks, in large part, to the United States
as the nation with the best ability to aid in the job of rebuilding
Iraq, it is important that our leadership respect its humanitarian
needs, especially of the right to self-determination and ensure that
these needs take precedence over capitalistic prospect. Moreover, as
will be evidenced by my introduction of a bill to authorize the
formation of a women's peace commission, I strongly advocate the
involvement of women in the peace and rebuilding process in leadership
capacities. In fact, not only should the women's peace commission be
composed of Members of Congress, American small, minority, and women-
owned businesses should also be active in the rebuilding process.
As to the potential misleading of the public as to the U.S. motive
for waging war on Iraq, I will offer a resolution calling for the
establishment of an independent commission to study the performance of
U.S. intelligence agencies in gathering and disseminating intelligence
on WMD in Iraq, the current administration's knowledge of WMD in Iraq,
and the accuracy of the information given to the public. During a
Presidential address on March 17, 2003, President Bush stated,
``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.'' Thereupon, the administration initiated
Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003. Although the public
justification for this war was Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of
WMD, we have seen nothing to date in the form of WMD in Iraq. This
failure to locate any WMD in Iraq or any evidence that WMD have been
destroyed or relocated strongly suggests the U.S. intelligence's
inaccuracy or the inaccurate communication of this information to the
public. At this point, thorough assessment of the performance of U.S.
intelligence agencies with respect to the gathering of information as
to WMD will be required to restore public confidence in the American
Government before we are in a position to efficiently offer genuine aid
in the rebuilding process of Iraq.
The United Nations (U.N.) has been in the nation-building/rebuilding
business on a worldwide scale for over a decade: East Timor, Cambodia,
Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and to some extent El Salvador, Guatemala, and
parts of Africa. Although the U.N. has experts and experience, it does
not have sufficient resources in which to undertake the task of
rebuilding Iraq. While, as I mentioned above, the international
community looks to us for the lion's share of support resources, we
must yield to the U.N. as a legitimizer of a new order in Iraq.
Legitimacy through international alliances and high overt purpose is
vital to an effective rebuilding process. The U.N. power is that
bestowed upon it by its member-nations; however, it has great capacity
to bestow legitimacy to this effort. In obtaining legitimacy through
the U.N., we must not abuse the interest in self-determination of the
Iraqi people. All ameliorative efforts should aim toward the goal of
facilitating Iraqis in running their own trials without the involvement
of U.N. international expertise. Furthermore, the United Nations will
aid the effort to build internationally acceptable electoral machinery
and run elections for the rebuilding nation. Experienced U.N. advisers
could remain in government ministries, for years if necessary, without
creating looking like an occupation.
As to the method of rebuilding Iraq, I have suggested the creation of
a bipartisan, bicameral working group on Iraqi reconstruction. I
proposed the convening of an immediate working group to craft a
comprehensive strategy for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am deeply
troubled by the reports we are receiving from Iraq. The picture that
was painted for us before the war--what we would find and how the Iraqi
people would respond to being ``liberated''--seems to be wholly
inaccurate. It seems that our forces, as well as the American people,
were unprepared for the challenges we are now facing. It is essential
that we develop a truer vision for the future of Iraq, and a realistic
plan for making that vision come to be. Doing so will demand all the
expertise and experience that Congress has to offer.
To tap into those skills, we should form a working group, composed of
a diverse array of qualified and committed Members of Congress.
Conceptually, we must immediately dispense with partisanship and turf-
wars and come together to form a plan that is right for our troops,
right for the people of Iraq, and worthy of support and financing by
the American people. We do not have the luxury of time to start this
discussion in both the House and Senate, a dozen committees, and then
assimilate ideas later. So, I propose that we convene a joint House-
Senate bipartisan working group on Iraq.
Since tensions began to escalate in Iraq last year, I have
consistently fought for resolving the crisis with four goals in mind:
minimizing the loss of American lives; minimizing the impact on the
Iraqi people; minimizing the costs to the American taxpayers; and
ensuring that our work in Iraq leads to long-term peace and stability
in Iraq and the Middle East. I believe that those of us against the
war, as well as those who supported it, can all agree on those four
principles. We owe it to our troops and to the people of Iraq to
acknowledge the problems that exist, and to make the investments of
time and money necessary to get the job done--so we can bring our
troops home.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Cramer (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and the balance
of the week on account of official business.
Mr. Frost (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
business in the district.
Ms. Harman (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and the balance
of the week on account of official business.
Mr. Hastings of Florida (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and
July 9 on account of official business.
Ms. Millender-McDonald (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and
the balance of the week on account of a family emergency.
Mr. Sandlin (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
business in the district.
Mr. Gibbons (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today and the balance
of the week on account of traveling with a congressional delegation to
Iraq.
Mr. Goss (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for today and the balance of
the week on account of official business.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
[[Page 17202]]
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Duncan) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and July 9, 10, 14, and
15.
Mr. Gutknecht, for 5 minutes, today and July 9 and 10.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for 5 minutes, today and July 9.
Mr. Kolbe, for 5 minutes, today and July 9.
Mr. Smith of Michigan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 9 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at
10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
3009. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Extension of Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions (Multiple Chemicals) [OPP-2003-0179;
FRL-7311-5] received June 20, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
3010. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Flufenacet (N-(4-fluorophenyl) -N-
(1-methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol -2-
yl]oxy] acetamide; Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-2003-0181; FRL-
7313-9] received June 20, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
3011. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Clothianidin; Pesticide Tolerance
[OPP-2003-0133; FRL-7306-8] Revceived May 29, 2003, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
3012. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Methoxyfenozide; Pesticide
Tolerance [OPP-2003-0088; FRL-7308-6] received May 29, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
3013. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1
Proteins and the Genetic Material Necessary for their
Production in Corn; Temporary Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance [OPP-2003-0154; FRL-7310-1] received July 1,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
3014. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Diallyl Sulfides; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance [OPP-2003-0134; FRL-7303-6]
received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Agriculture.
3015. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Famoxadone; Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-2003-0130;
FRL-7310-9] received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
3016. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-2003-
0135; FRL-7313-7] received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
3017. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerance; Technical
Correction [OPP-2003-0155; FRL-7316-5] received July 1, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
3018. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administration,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Pesticide Tolerance Nomenclature Changes;
Technical Amendment [OPP-2002-0043; FRL-7308-9] received July
1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
3019. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Pesticide Tolerance Nomenclature Changes;
Technical Amendment [OPP-2002-0043; FRL-7316-9] received July
1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
3020. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting requests for emergency FY 2003 emergency
supplemental appropriations; (H. Doc. No. 108--98); to the
Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
3021. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of General
Tommy R. Franks, United States Army, and his advancement to
the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
3022. A letter from the Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Department of Energy, transmitting a
report on the Utilization of Industrial Partnerships within
the National Nuclear Security Administration, Fiscal Year
2002; to the Committee on Armed Services.
3023. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Federally Enforceable State
Operating Permit Program; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania [PA
138-4098a; FRL-7511-7] received June 20, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3024. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Credible
Evidence [SIP NO. CO-001-0075a; FRL-7512-7] received June 20,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
3025. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; SIP Renumbering [SIP NO.
UT-001-0048, UT-001-0049, FRL-7501-5] received June 20, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3026. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; 1-Hour Ozone Standard for San Diego,
California [CA-282-0389; FRL-7515-4] received June 20, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3027. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Finding of Substantial Inadequacy
of Implementation Plan; Call for California State
Implementation Plan Revision [CA 086 SIP; FRL-7518-4]
received June 20, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3028. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Interim Final Determination That
the State of California Has Corrected Deficiencies and Stay
and Deferral of Sanctions; San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Nonattainment Area [CA286-0404B; FRL-7517-9] received June
20, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
3029. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; State Implementation
Plan Corrections [SIP NOS. CO-001-0052, CO-001-0032, CO9-3-
5603; FRL-7503-4] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3030. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Amendments to the
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Chemical
Production and Polytetrafluoroethylene Installations [MD131-
3091a; FRL-7503-7] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3031. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regulation to
Prevent and Control Air Pollution from the Emission of Sulfur
Oxides [WV038/053-6026a; FRL-7500-2] received May 29, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3032. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regulation to
Prevent and Control Particulate Matter Air Pollution from
Manufacturing Processes and Associated Operations [WV050-
6029a; FRL-7503-9] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
[[Page 17203]]
3033. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Removal of
Alternative Emission Reduction Limitations [PA158-4206a; FRL-
7504-6] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3034. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Georgia Update to Materials
Incorporated by Reference [GA-200325; FRL-7500-9] received
May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3035. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to
Maintenance Plan for Northern Kentucky [KY 147-200329; FRL-
7505-3] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3036. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan [TN-213-9952(a); FRL-
7506-8] received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3037. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management
District [CA 267-0394a; FRL-7495-4] received May 29, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3038. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District [CA 264-0398; FRL-7505-5] received May 29, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3039. A letter from the Acting Principal Deputy Associate
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting
the Agency's final rule -- Utah: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [FRL-7505-1]
received May 29, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3040. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Virginia; Nitrogen Oxides Budget
Trading Program [VA127-5064; FRL-7523-2] received July 1,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
3041. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Nebraska [NE
178-1178a; FRL-7523-1] received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3042. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Iowa [IA 186-
1186(a); FRL-7523-4] received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3043. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule to Correct
Mobile Source Provisions in Optional Program for Nine Western
States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within that Geographic Area
[FRL-7522-7] received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3044. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting notification that
Iraq's declaration to the United Nations of December 7, 2002
has been transmitted to the House Select Committee on
Intelligence; to the Committee on International Relations.
3045. A letter from the Chairman, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, transmitting the semiannual report on activities
of the Inspector General of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation for the period October 1, 2002 through March 31,
2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section
8G(h)(2); to the Committee on Government Reform.
3046. A letter from the Auditor, District of Columbia,
transmitting a copy of a report entitled, ``Audit of Advisory
Neighborhood Commission 7E for Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2003
as of March 31, 2003,'' pursuant to D.C. Code section 47--
117(d); to the Committee on Government Reform.
3047. A letter from the Inspector General, Corporation for
National and Community Service, transmitting the semiannual
report of the Office of the Inspector General for the period
October 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
3048. A letter from the Chief Executive Officer,
Corporation for National and Community Service, transmitting
the Corporation's Report on Final Action as a result of
Audits in respect to the semiannual report of the Office of
the Inspector General for the period October 1, 2002 through
March 31, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act)
section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
3049. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense,
transmitting a correction letter on the approved retirement
of General Tommy R. Franks, United States Army, and his
advancement to the grade of general on the retired list; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
3050. A letter from the Human Resources Specialist,
Department of Labor, transmitting a report pursuant to the
Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
3051. A letter from the Comptroller General, General
Accounting Office, transmitting the Month in Review: April
2003 Reports, Testimony, Correspondence, and Other
Publications; to the Committee on Government Reform.
3052. A letter from the Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, transmitting the semiannual report
of the Inspector General of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration for the period ending March 31, 2003,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to
the Committee on Government Reform.
3053. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Interior, transmitting the 2002 Annual Report for the Office
of Surface Mining (OSM), pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 1211(f),
1267(g), and 1295; to the Committee on Resources.
3054. A letter from the Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting a report on how the provisions of Section 428 of
the Homeland Security Act will affect procedures for the
issuance of student visas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
3055. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting a report on the Feasibility of
Accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System, pursuant to
Public Law 107--296, section 888(i); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
3056. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule -- Water Quality Standards for Kansas [FRL-7522-5]
(RIN: 2040-2A00) received July 1, 2003, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
3057. A letter from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting a draft of
proposed legislation to amend title 38, United States Code,
to improve benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II and
survivors of such veterans and extend health care benefits to
certain Filipino veterans residing legally in the United
States; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
3058. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting the biennial report on the Montgomery
GI Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve; jointly to the
Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. COX: Select Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 2122.
A bill to enhance research, development, procurement, and use
of biomedical countermeasures to respond to public health
threats affecting national security, and for other purposes;
with an amendment (Rept. 108-147 Pt. 3). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. REGULA: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 2660. A bill
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes (Rept. 108-188). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 309.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 438)
to increase the amount of student loans that may be forgiven
for teachers in mathematics, science, and special education
(Rept. 108-189). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mrs. MYRICK: Committed on Rules. House Resolution 310.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2211) to reauthorize title II of the Higher Education Act of
[[Page 17204]]
1965 (Rept. 108-190). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. LINDER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 311.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2657) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes (Rept. 108-191). Referred to the House Calendar.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules. House Resolution
312. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2660) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes (Rept. 108-192). Referred to the House
Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. REGULA:
H.R. 2660. A bill making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes.
By Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina:
H.R. 2661. A bill to name the Capitol Visitor Center after
J. Strom Thurmond; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr.
Collins, and Mr. Foley):
H.R. 2662. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that certain limousines are not subject to
the gas guzzler tax; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN:
H.R. 2663. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin
Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mrs. KELLY:
H.R. 2664. A bill to provide for Medicare reimbursement for
health care services provided to Medicare-eligible veterans
in facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Veterans' Affairs, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. George Miller
of California, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Smith of New Jersey,
Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Owens, and Mr.
Kind):
H.R. 2665. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to protect the rights of employees to receive overtime
compensation; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. LaTOURETTE:
H.R. 2666. A bill to authorize funds for fiscal year 2004
for research, development, test, and evaluation for a
prototype multi-role, long-range sniper system; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mrs. MALONEY (for herself and Mr. Petri):
H.R. 2667. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to require the disclosure of certain information
by persons conducting phone banks during campaigns for
election for Federal office, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mrs. MILLER of Michigan:
H.R. 2668. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to direct the Great Lakes National Program Office
of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop, implement,
monitor, and report on a series of indicators of water
quality and related environmental factors in the Great Lakes;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. NORTON:
H.R. 2669. A bill to provide a model for school districts
in the United States using and building on the experience of
the District of Columbia in establishing fully accountable
public alternatives to traditional public schools; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
By Ms. WATSON:
H.R. 2670. A bill to limit the reimbursement of travel
expenses of the members and employees of the Federal
Communications Commission; to the Committee on Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LEACH (for himself, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Rahall, Mr.
Hyde, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Faleomavaega) (all by
request):
H.J. Res. 63. A joint resolution to approve the ``Compact
of Free Association, as amended between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the Federated
States of Micronesia,'' and the ``Compact of Free
Association, as amended between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of the
Marshall Islands,'' and otherwise to amend Public Law 99-239,
and to appropriate for the purposes of amended Public Law 99-
239 for fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 2023,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on International
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Ms. Lee, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Rangel, and Ms. Watson):
H. Con. Res. 240. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to the urgency of providing
support for the ``Agreement on Ceasefire and Cessation of
Hostilities Between the Government of the Republic of Liberia
and Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy and the
Movement for Democracy of Liberia'', and for other purposes;
to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico:
H. Con. Res. 241. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to raising awareness and
encouraging prevention of stalking in the United States and
supporting the goals and ideals of National Stalking
Awareness Month; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. McINTYRE:
H. Res. 308. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the Federal Government should
actively pursue a unified approach to strengthen and promote
the national policy on aquaculture; to the Committee on
Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Engel, Mr.
Gillmor, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Ballance, Mr. Holt, and Mr.
Markey):
H. Res. 313. A resolution commemorating the 60th
anniversary of the establishment of the United States Cadet
Nurse Corps and voicing the appreciation of the House of
Representatives regarding the service of the members of the
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 7: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Otter, Mr. Bishop
of Georgia, and Mr. Burns.
H.R. 36: Mr. Foley and Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 119: Mr. Case.
H.R. 140: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 173: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 218: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 284: Ms. Harman and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 290: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Allen, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 303: Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Fossella, and Mr. Lewis of
Georgia.
H.R. 369: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Kildee, and Mr.
Knollenberg.
H.R. 384: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 461: Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 466: Mr. Cardin, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ehlers, and
Mr. Camp.
H.R. 516: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 570: Mrs. McCarthy of New York and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 571: Mr. Putnam, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Peterson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Hefley, Ms. Harris, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Cole, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Beauprez.
H.R. 676: Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 687: Mr. Wicker and Mr. Weldon of Florida.
H.R. 713: Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, and Mr. Doolittle.
H.R. 725: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 742: Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Janklow, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. Cooper.
H.R. 745: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 756: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 785: Mr. Burr, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 792: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Allen, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Dicks, and
Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 806: Mr. Schiff and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 811: Mr. Hall.
H.R. 816: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 817: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 822: Mr. Acevedo-Vila and Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 828: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 832: Mr. Bell and Mr. Bishop of New York.
[[Page 17205]]
H.R. 857: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 869: Mr. Moore.
H.R. 879: Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 891: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 898: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 919: Mr. Carter, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Ferguson.
H.R. 934: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 979: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 980: Mr. Gordon and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 1075: Mr. Osborne.
H.R. 1078: Ms. Solis.
H.R. 1093: Mr. Camp, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 1137: Mr. Pitts and Mr. Otter.
H.R. 1157: Mr. Dingell, Ms. Majette, Mr. Markey, Mr.
Becerra, and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 1167: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1173: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 1196: Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1236: Ms. Carson of Indiana and Mr. Porter.
H.R. 1259: Mr. Simmons and Mr. Otter.
H.R. 1266: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 1268: Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 1288: Mr. Moran of Kansas and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 1295: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 1301: Mr. Tierney and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 1310: Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Renzi.
H.R. 1355: Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Maloney, and Mr. Oberstar.
H.R. 1359: Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 1418: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 1421: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Matsui.
H.R. 1430: Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1435: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1464: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Farr.
H.R. 1472: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Fossella,
Mr. Issa, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Capito,
Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Buyer, Mr. Israel, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Goss, Mr. Gillmor, Mr.
Norwood, Mr. Pence, Ms. Hart, Mr. Honda, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Everett, Mr. Collins, Mr. Baker, and Mr.
Sullivan.
H.R. 1473: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1482: Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 1513: Mr. Rehberg, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
Wamp, Mr. Hall, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Beauprez.
H.R. 1522: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1567: Mr. Kingston and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 1589: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H.R. 1605: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 1639: Ms. Lee, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. McGovern, and Mr.
Case.
H.R. 1657: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 1659: Mr. Lantos and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 1662: Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Ose, and Mr. Flake.
H.R. 1671: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 1710: Mr. Goodlatte and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1748: Mr. Clyburn.
H.R. 1807: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 1839: Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 1863: Mr. Bell and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 1865: Mrs. Christensen and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 1873: Mr. Michaud and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 1886: Mr. Kind and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1902: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1905: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1906: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1909: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Bishop of Utah,
Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 1943: Mr. English.
H.R. 1963: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 1999: Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2011: Mr. Edwards and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 2020: Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Sullivan.
H.R. 2022: Mr. Waxman and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 2028: Mr. Cannon and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 2038: Mr. Filner, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Matsui.
H.R. 2047: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 2052: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Jackson, of Illinois, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Murtha, Ms. Hooley of
Oregon, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Gillmor, and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 2075: Mr. Stearns and Mr. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida.
H.R. 2118: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 2193: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 2198: Ms. Majette.
H.R. 2205: Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Dingell, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms.
Kaptur, Mr. Cummings, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Baldwin,
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. English, Ms. Granger, Mrs.
Maloney, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Cox,
Mr. Doggett, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Kind, Mr. George Miller of
California, Ms. Waters, Mr. Ford, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2218: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Towns, Mr. Green of
Texas, Ms. DeLauro, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2224: Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 2232: Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Hefley, and
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 2250: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H.R. 2253: Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 2262: Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 2272: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Jefferson, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 2291: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2295: Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Kind.
H.R. 2300: Mr. Bishop of Georgia and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2318: Mr. Rush, Ms. Solis, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Owens, Mr. Bishop of New York, and Mr.
Ross.
H.R. 2323: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Wamp, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Hostettler.
H.R. 2347: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Kline.
H.R. 2369: Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 2377: Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 2379: Mr. Shuster, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Ross, and
Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2418: Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Conyers, and
Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 2426: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Kucinich, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 2427: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 2437: Mr. Honda, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Davis of
Illinois.
H.R. 2440: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Bishop of Utah,
Mr. Camp, and Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H.R. 2444: Mr. Otter.
H.R. 2445: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2446: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 2448: Mr. English.
H.R. 2449: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 2455: Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 2462: Mr. Tanner, Mr. Baca, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2464: Mr. Owens and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 2478: Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 2482: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Markey,
Mr. Crowley, Mr. Evans, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Solis,
Mr. McNulty, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Wu, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Rahall, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 2491: Mr. Owens.
H.R. 2497: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Gutknecht.
H.R. 2505: Mr. Sanders, Mr. Allen, Mr. Emanuel, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 2515: Mr. Fossella, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Davis
of Florida, Mr. Owens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Moore, Mr. Blumenauer,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Watson, Mr. Carter, Mr.
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Pallone, Ms.
DeGette, and Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 2517: Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Olver, Mr. Carter, Mr.
Feeney, Mr. Ford, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Hyde.
H.R. 2519: Ms. Harman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Towns, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Foley, and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 2532: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 2538: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 2545: Mr. Owens and Mr. English.
H.R. 2546: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 2550: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 2574: Mr. Oberstar.
H.R. 2578: Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Issa, Mr. Souder, Mr.
Ryun of Kansas, and Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 2591: Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart
of Florida, and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 2631: Mr. Goode and Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2632: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 2637: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2640: Mr. Crowley and Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 2655: Mr. Lynch.
H.J. Res. 11: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, and Mr. Shays.
H.J. Res. 56: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Collins, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Wamp, and Mr.
Stenholm.
H.J. Res. 62: Mrs. Lowey.
H. Con. Res. 6: Mr. Frost, Mr. Goode, Mrs. Davis of
California, and Mrs. Christensen.
H. Con. Res. 30: Mr. Blunt, Mr. Strickland, and Mr.
Abercrombie.
H. Con. Res. 39: Mr. Cummings.
H. Con. Res. 99: Mr. George Miller of California, Ms.
Solis, Mr. Cummings, and Ms. Carson of Indiana.
H. Con. Res. 111: Mr. LaHood.
H. Con. Res. 119: Mr. Norwood, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
Vitter, Mr. Istook, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Otter, Mr.
Carter, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Schrock, and Mr.
Sessions.
H. Con. Res. 130: Mr. Frost.
H. Con. Res. 210: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Skelton.
[[Page 17206]]
H. Con. Res. 215: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Camp, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr. Smith of Michigan.
H. Con. Res. 217: Mr. Pitts and Mr. Bell.
H. Con. Res. 229: Mr. Lantos, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs.
Christensen, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Watson, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Clay, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Towns, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr.
Owens, Ms. Lee, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
H. Con. Res. 237: Mr. Hayworth and Mr. Flake.
H. Res. 103: Mr. Janklow.
H. Res. 238: Mr. Allen, Mr. Ballance, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Carson of
Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Ms. DeLauro, Mr.
Deutsch, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Frost, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Pallone,
Mr. Rahall, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Rush, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Wynn.
H. Res. 259: Mr. Pitts.
H. Res. 280: Mr. Culberson, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Walsh, Mr. Engel, Mr. Frost, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Rangel, and Mrs.
Lowey.
H. Res. 286: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 287: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 288: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 304: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
____________________
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 1063: Mr. Pallone.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 2657
Offered By: Mr. Manzullo
Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec.__. None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used--
(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or
supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by
substituting--
(A) ``Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives'' for ``head of the department or independent
establishment''; and
(B) ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially all''; or
(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public building or public work
unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is
applied to such contract by substituting--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially all''; and
(ii) ``Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives'' for ``head of the department or independent
establishment''; and
(B) in subsection (b), ``Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives has made any contract containing
the provision required by subsection (a) and'' for ``head of
a department, bureau, agency, or independent establishment
which has made any contract containing the provision required
by subsection (a)''.
H.R. 2660
Offered By: Mr. Green of Texas
Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. Section 2604(a)(1) of the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)''
and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Not more than 50 percent of amounts appropriated for
carrying out this title for any fiscal year shall be provided
for home heating purposes.''.
H.R. 2660
Offered By: Mr. Green of Texas
Amendment No. 2: In the matter relating to ``Administration
for Children and Families--low-income home energy
assistance'', after the second dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $200,000,000), to remain available
until expended''.
H.R. 2660
Offered By: Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon
Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following new section:
Sec. __. Federally recognized Indian tribes shall be
eligible to the same extent as States are eligible for
programs funded with amounts made available under this Act.
[[Page 17207]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF AIR FORCE COMMANDER MICHAEL JOSEPH AKOS
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of
United States Air Force Commander Michael Joseph Akos, who bravely and
selflessly answered the call to duty and made the ultimate sacrifice on
behalf of our country.
Commander Akos' young life was characterized by his dream of one day
flying above the clouds, a dream that would be fulfilled in the form of
service to his country. Michael's gregarious and mischievous spirit
made him a pleasure to be around, a quality that followed him into
adulthood. Devoted and diligent, Commander Akos had the strength and
discipline to do anything he set his mind to, and an intense devotion
to those he loved.
Commander Akos loved his family, and lived his life with passion. He
served as a model husband, son, brother, and friend, always happy to be
around his loved ones, and poignantly aware of the gift of family.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance
of Commander Michael J. Akos, whose courage and commitment will forever
be remembered as a testament to our great Nation. I offer my deepest
condolences to the family of Commander Akos--his beloved parents,
Dennis Joseph Akos and Nona Ann Akos; his devoted wife Karlynne Akos;
his beloved brothers, Dennis Matthew Akos and Patrick Thomas Akos; and
his extended family and many friends.
The significant sacrifice, service, and bravery that characterized
the life of Commander Michael Joseph Akos will forever be honored and
remembered by the Cleveland community, and the entire Nation. And
within the hearts of his family and friends--the bonds of love and
memories created in life by Commander Akos will never be broken, the
joy he brought to this world will never be forgotten, and his sacrifice
will serve as a living symbol of the human spirit.
____________________
INCLUSION OF GUAM IN PUBLIC LAW 101-426
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to place in the Record a
resolution passed by the Guam Legislature which petitions the United
States Congress to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of
1990 to include Guam in the jurisdictions covered by the Act.
The aforementioned Act, Public Law 101-426, calls for the
compensation to be paid to the people of areas where they may have been
exposed to hazardous materials as a result of the detonation of nuclear
weapons. While those areas that were most obviously affected by nuclear
testing have been compensated, recent evidence shows that the effects
of these nuclear tests were more widespread than originally thought.
Most specifically, the people of my island, Guam, were affected by
these events, and it is of paramount importance that this problem be
addressed. As the resolution states, Guam was affected by wind borne
radiation and by the scrubbing of radiated vessels in Guam's harbors.
In the coming days, I will work towards the introduction of
legislation that will extend Public Law 101-426 to include the people
of Guam. Such legislation is a much needed action to compensate for
allowing nuclear waste to contaminate areas in the Western Pacific. I
look to my colleagues for their assistance and understanding in
rectifying the impact of nuclear testing in the region.
Resolution No. 30 (LS)
Whereas, the United States conducted testing of atomic
nuclear weapons on Enewetak and Bikini Atolls in the Marshall
Islands, from 1946 to 1958. A total of sixty-seven (67)
atomic and thermonuclear bombs were detonated which resulted
in fallout across a wide area of the Pacific. Continental
United States residents exposed to radiation resulting from
the nuclear weapons testing subsequently developed serious
diseases, including various types of cancer. On October 1990,
in order to establish a procedure to make partial restitution
to radiation exposure victims for their suffering, President
George H. Bush signed into law the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act (RECA). RECA established the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Program (RECP) within the Civil
Division of the Department of justice to administer its
responsibilities under the Act. In April 1992, RECP began
processing claims. RECA was amended several times, most
recently on July 10, 2000, when President William Jefferson
Clinton signed into law the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act Amendments of 2000. The 2000 amendments further broaden
the scope of eligibility for benefits coverage to include new
victim categories and modify the criteria for determining
eligibility for compensation; and
Whereas, RECA establishes a procedure to make partial
restitution to individuals who contracted serious diseases,
such as certain types of cancers, presumably resulting from
their exposure to radiation from aboveground nuclear tests or
as a result of their employment in uranium mines. The law
established five (5) claimant categories--uranium miners,
uranium millers, ore transporters, ``downwinders'' (those who
were located downwind from aboveground nuclear weapons tests
conducted at the Nevada test sites) and onsite participants
(those who actually participated onsite); and
Whereas, as enacted, the law broadens the population
covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which
authorizes monetary compensation to individuals who were
present, or nearby when nuclear weapons tests were conducted
at the Nevada Test Site or who worked in uranium mines, and
later developed certain diseases; adds more qualifying
occupations relating to uranium production; increases the
number of states covered and extends the time period
considered for radiation exposure; adds more diseases which
may qualify individuals for compensation; decreases the level
of radiation exposure that is necessary to qualify; makes
certain that the medical criteria is less stringent for
potential claimants; and
Whereas, nuclear tests that the United States Government
conducted in the Marshall Islands from 1946 until 1968 have
led to increased levels of radiation in some of the islands
of Micronesia; and
Whereas, such increased levels of radiation may have led to
serious health and other environmental problems for life in
such areas; and
Whereas, Guam is approximately one thousand two-hundred
(1200) miles directly west of the test sites; and
Whereas, the Atomic Energy Commission detonated sixty-seven
(67) nuclear devices with a total yield of one hundred eight
thousand four hundred ninety-two point two (108,492.2)
kilotons in or around the Marshall Islands; and
Whereas, there were ten (10) detonations that had the yield
necessary (one (1) megaton) to project material from the
center of the explosion to the height of between twelve (12)
to fifty-five (55) miles, and into the jet-stream; and
Whereas, the jet-stream travels generally westward from the
Marshall Islands carrying the radioactive material as fine as
dust particles; these particles collected ice crystals at
high altitudes and descended as cloud condensation. This
process is known as the scavenging effect; and
Whereas, the material drops to land surfaces and enters the
food and water supply consumed by the local population; and
Whereas, reports from the United States Navy indicated that
they had full knowledge and did not warn or help the local
population; and
Whereas, ships present during the nuclear testing were
decontaminated in Guam harbors with acidic detergents and the
runoff from these operations went directly in the local
fishing and reef environments; and
Whereas, the United States Navy performed radio ecological
studies on the surface water in and around the island of Guam
and found a major peak of radioactive contamination in 1959;
and
Whereas, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for
the United States Department of Energy, performed radio
ecological testing on Guam beginning in 1968 and ending in
1974, to study potential radiation effects on the local
population; and
Whereas, numerous other radio ecological studies were
performed by government agencies, the United States military,
and various research institutions from 1946 until 1974 to
[[Page 17208]]
study Guam's environment and actual and potential radiation
effects on the local population; and
Whereas, according to requirements set forth by the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the island of Guam
should qualify as a jurisdiction and its population should be
recognized as victims of radiation exposure from nuclear
weapons testing and associated clean-up activities (see
Appendix I listing the declassified documents pertaining to
and indicating Guam's exposure to radioactive isotopes as a
result of the Atomic Energy Commission nuclear weapon tests
in the Marshall Islands); now therefore, be it
Resolved, That I Mina'Bente Siete Na Liheslaturan Guahan
does hereby, on behalf of the people of Guam, petition the
United States Congress to amend the ``Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act of 1990'', Public Law 101-426, as amended by
Public Law 101-510, Sec. 3139 (42 U.S.C. 2210) and Public Law
106-245; to include Guam in the jurisdictions (downwinders/
onsite participants) covered by the Act; and be it further
Resolved, That the affected population previously and
currently on Guam (those residing who have been exposed to
radiation resulting from the Atomic Energy Commission tests
in the Marshall Islands) be recognized as being
``downwinders'' of such tests; and be it further
Resolved, That those persons involved in the actual testing
and clean-up activities of such atomic weapons tests be
recognized as ``on-site participants'' and/or ``downwinders''
depending on their exposure as defined by RECA; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Speaker certify, and the Legislative
Secretary attests to, the adoption hereof and that copies of
the same be thereafter transmitted to the Honorable Senator
Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United
States Senate; to the Honorable Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate; to the Honorable Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United
States Senate; to the Honorable Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, United States Senate; to the Honorable Senator
Daniel K. Akaka, United States Senate; to the Honorable
Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee
on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives; to
the Honorable Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of
Representatives; to the Honorable Congressman W.G. ``Billy''
Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United
States House of Representatives; to the Honorable Congressman
John D. Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, United States House of Representatives; to the
Honorable Congressman Neil Abercrombie, United States House
of Representatives; to Mr. William A. Harper, National
Commander, National Association of Atomic Veterans; to Mr.
Charlie Clark, Hawaii State Commander, National Association
of Atomic Veterans; to all the State and Area Commanders of
the National Association of Atomic Veterans; to Mr. Robert
Celestial, Guam atomic veteran; to the Honorable Angel L.G.
Santos, former Senator of I Mina'Bente Sais Na Liheslaturan
Guahan; to the Honorable George Herbert Walker Bush, former
President of the United States of America; to the Honorable
William Jefferson Clinton, former President of the United
States of America; to the Honorable George W. Bush, President
of the United States of America; to the Honorable Madeleine
Z. Bordallo, Member of Congress, U.S. House of
Representatives; and to the Honorable Felix P. Camacho, I
Maga'lahen Guahan.
____________________
REINTRODUCTION OF PHONE BANK LEGISLATION
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to subject
operators of push polls or phone banks to the same disclosure
requirements as other types of political communication. It will not ban
push polls or phone banking--it will simply create a level playing
field for all types of political communication. Under this bill, any
person conducting these types of calls would be required to disclose to
each recipient of a call the identity of the organization paying for
the call. In addition, the bill would require that campaigns and other
organizations that conduct advocacy phone calls report to the Federal
Election Commission, FEC, the number of households they have contacted
and the script they used in making the calls. The bill would not
interfere with legitimate polling, conducted either by candidates or
independent organizations, as it would only apply to phone banks in
which more than 1,500 households are contacted within the 25 days
preceding a Federal election.
____________________
IN HONOR OF BENEDICTINE HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
the students, educators and administrators of Benedictine High School
of Cleveland, Ohio, as they celebrate seventy-five years of spiritual
service and education for the young men of our community.
Benedictine High School, a Catholic, college preparatory school, was
founded in 1922 by the Benedictine Order. This historic order of
Benedictine monks was borne into existence more than one thousand years
ago in 480 A.D. Despite the centuries of time gone by, the rich and
significant traditions of the Benedictine Monks of the Middle Ages have
been carried through time, and remain living monuments in the form of
Saint Andrew Abbey and Benedictine High School.
The clear and ageless vision of leaders at Benedictine are founded
upon the ancient principals of scholarly achievement tempered with
spiritual discipline and social awareness. In complement to the
school's strong academic foundation, Benedictine's offers its 387 young
men opportunities to excel in athletic endeavors and other
extracurricular activities.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition
of the students, spiritual guides and administrators of Benedictine
High School, as they celebrate seventy five years of exceptional
scholastic achievement and significant spiritual guidance within the
classrooms and on the surrounding grounds of Benedictine High School.
The commitment, kindness, instruction and guidance provided by the
Benedictine monks and lay staff have served to lift the spirits and
minds of countless young men--thereby uplifting our entire community.
____________________
CITATION FOR COLONEL EDGAR J. YANGER, U.S. ARMY
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, this citation is presented to Lieutenant
Colonel Edgar J. Yanger of Mangilao for his promotion to the rank of
Colonel in the United States Army.
Colonel Yanger is the son of Felizardo Galon Yanger and Cecilia
Taitano Yanger of Mangilao. He is married to the former Doris San
Nicholas Guerrero, daughter of Jesus Calvo Guerrero and Candelaria San
Nicholas Guerrero of Sinajana. Edgar and Doris have two children,
Melina and Edgar Jonathan.
Colonel Yanger has accomplished much over the past years. He is a
graduate of Guam Vocational Technical High School and the University of
Hawaii at Manoa where he earned a Bachelor's and Master's degree in
architecture. He received his commission in the Army as an engineer
through the Reserve Officer Training Corps. He went on to graduate from
the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and
from the U.S. Army Engineer Officer Basic and Advance Courses at Fort
Belvoir, VA.
Currently, Colonel Yanger is a program manager in the Army's Base
Realignment and Closure Division at the Pentagon. He will soon be
leaving for duty in Korea, where I am certain that he will continue to
serve with the same dedication and commitment that has defined his
career.
The people of Guam share the pride that the Yanger family has in the
distinguished service and leadership of Colonel Yanger. He exemplifies
the courage, strength and determination that defines the Chamorro
people. He is a role model for the men and women who serve in the Armed
Forces. We commend him for his leadership and look forward to his
continued success.
On behalf of the people of Guam, I want to congratulate Colonel Edgar
J. Yanger and his family on his many accomplishments, and extend our
gratitude for his dedicated service to our island and our country.
[[Page 17209]]
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE LATE KATHARINE HEPBURN
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of our
nation's most beloved cultural treasures, the great actress Katharine
Hepburn, whose death on June 29th has been an occasion for mourning
around the globe. Appearing in forty-three films and countless plays
and television productions, she received four Academy Awards for her
acting abilities, a feat unmatched by any actor in cinematic history.
The author of a best-selling memoir, she was one of the most recognized
and cherished American women in all the world.
Katharine Hepburn was also beloved by her friends and neighbors on
Manhattan's East Side, where she maintained a residence for many years
in addition to her home in eastern Connecticut. For over six decades
she lived in a townhouse on East 49th Street in the Turtle Bay
neighborhood near the United Nations headquarters. Even after she
retired permanently to Connecticut, she remained a generous and loyal
dues-paying member of the local community group, the Turtle Bay
Association to the end of her life. Her efforts on behalf of the Turtle
Bay community led local residents to name a garden in Dag Hammarskjold
Plaza on East 47th Street in her honor in 1997. Every year, on her
birthday of May 12, the community continues to celebrate their pride in
their illustrious neighbor's achievements and character with a display
and a ceremony in her honor. Following the news of her death at the age
of 96, the Turtle Bay Association and Friends of Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
immediately established a memorial in the Katharine Hepburn Garden in
tribute to their illustrious and beloved neighbor, complete with
photographs, candles and flowers.
Because of her notable achievements on stage and screen and her
indomitable and distinctive presence, Katharine Hepburn's spirit and
presence will live on forever. It is only fitting that we salute her
remarkable life and career and recognize her as a great American.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE CITY MISSION OF CLEVELAND
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
the City Mission for providing shelter, hope and faith to individuals
and families within our Cleveland community.
The facilities, programs and services that were developed at the
Mission in 1910 on Superior Avenue have evolved over the years, but the
vision, assistance, compassion and faith have remained a constant
source of comfort and hope for more than ninety years. Within the
Mission walls, Reverend Peter Bliss, Reverend Robert Sandham, Executive
Director Tim Campbell and the nearly forty dedicated staff members
continue the Mission legacy of reaching out, empowering and uplifting
the hearts, souls and lives of thousands of women, men and children
every year.
The Mission's commitment to helping and healing every person that
walks through the door is a true testimony to the power of faith, the
reality of miracles, and the existence of angels and heroes that walk
among us. The angels are those we call staff--the staff who've
dedicated their lives to helping others get back in the game. The
heroes are those who enter here--despite painful histories, despite
illnesses and addictions, despite physical, emotional or financial
devastation and despite fear. These heroes among us--the women, men and
children of our community--reflect courage, dignity, wisdom, an
unfaltering will to survive, a refusal to give up, and an unbreakable
inner strength and faith as they rise up into the light of a brighter
day.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, recognition and
gratitude of the City Mission of Cleveland--a sanctuary in our
community. Faith and love abound within these walls, producing miracles
everyday--healing the lives of all who enter here--and uplifting our
entire community.
____________________
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MRS. SKELTON
______
HON. MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker:
Dear Mrs. Skelton, Happy Birthday to You!
Juanita Skelton, nee Juanita Katherine Campbell, was born
on July 8, 1913, near Panhandle, Texas. She graduated from
White Deer (Texas) High School in 1930. That year she was
Vice President, Girl Favorite, Editor of the Annual, General
News Reporter for the Weekly Newspaper, President of the
Library Society, President of the Dramatic Club, and Yell
Leader for the Pep Squad, and a guard on the women's
basketball team. Of course there were only 13 members of her
graduating class. She was referred to as ``our seniors' most
representative girl.''
She graduated from West Texas State with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in 1934 and started teaching in Canadian, Texas. She
married Hiram Bowmer Skelton on March 3, 1944, when she was
31 years old. They lived in Panhandle, Texas and she helped
him run the movie theatre that the family owned. When her
husband died, she moved with her son to Arlington, Texas in
1953. She resumed being a high school English teacher at that
time. Mrs. Skelton went on to get her Master's in Speech
Pathology from Denver University in 1956 and became the first
speech therapist in the Arlington School District in 1956.
She became the Coordinator of Speech Therapy in 1957 and the
Coordinator of Special Education in 1965. She also became the
first Director of Special Education in 1974. Mrs. Skelton
retired in 1978 after 25 years with the Arlington School
District.
During her years in special education, Juanita received the
following recognition and awards: President of the Texas
Association of Administrators in Special Education
``Administrator of the Year Award for Outstanding
Leadership;'' Texas Council for Exceptional Children Award as
the ``Outstanding Contributor to Special Education.''
In 1989, the Mayor of Arlington, Texas recognized Juanita
as the ``outstanding senior citizen.''
She moved to Fort Collins, Colorado in 1997.
Again, congratulations on your 90th birthday!
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Thomas'
willingness to clarify that FEHBP plans will be able to take advantage
of the subsidies in H.R. 1. However, I have another concern that
Federal employees are often treated differently from current Federal
employees in ways that are not always equitable. For example, current
employees are allowed to pay their health insurance premiums from pre-
tax dollars; retirees are not. I know this concern is shared by a
number of my colleagues, but specifically Jo Ann Davis, Chair of the
Civil Service Subcommittee. I am pleased Mrs. Davis will soon be taking
up that specific issue in her subcommittee.
FEHBP currently does not provide different benefits for retirees and
current employees--one simply is a member of FEHBP. I believe it is
important this dynamic remain, once a Medicare prescription drug
benefit is put in place. As Chairman of the Government Reform
Committee, I look at this from an employer's perspective. We do not
want private employers to drop the prescription drug coverage they
provide for their retirees. H.R. 1 includes incentives so they will not
do so. However, we as the Federal Government must lead by example.
Along with Chairwoman Davis, Frank Wolf, and Jim Moran, I have
introduced legislation that simply states that Federal retirees will
remain on par with current employees when it comes to prescription drug
benefits. I regret we were unable to include this language in H.R. 1,
but am grateful to have the commitment of Speaker Hastert and Leader
DeLay to bring this bill to the floor as soon as we return from recess.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GEORGE E. FEDOR MANOR
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
the founding members, current administrators and residents of the
George E. Fedor Manor of Lakewood, Ohio, as they celebrate their 20th
Anniversary.
In 1979, Father Richard Ondreyka, Pastor of SS. Cyril and Methodius
Catholic Church, attorney George E. Fedor and local businessman Peter
Shimrak brought together their personal and professional experience to
form SS.
[[Page 17210]]
C. & M. Haven, Inc., with the goal of constructing an apartment
community for low-income senior citizens.
In May of 1983, Fedor Manor--a not-for-profit facility--opened its
doors to welcome its first residents. For twenty years, the 145-unit
structure has served as a place of comfort and care for our most
treasured citizens--our elderly. Fedor Manor offers an array of social
services focused on the emotional, social and physical well-being of
every resident.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition
of the Twentieth Anniversary of the George E. Fedor Manor. The founding
members and their mission have created a structure well beyond mere
bricks and steel--they've raised this building as a haven of comfort
and peace--and a place where hundreds of seniors along Madison Avenue
call ``home''. The collective commitment of staff and residents, woven
with the mission of the founding members, has remained constant for two
decades: To provide a secure and warm life setting for the seniors of
our community. ``Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In
small places, close to home.''--Eleanor Roosevelt.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BRIGADIER GENERAL BRUCE ANTHONY CASELLA
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Bruce Anthony
Casella, who will be appointed as Brigadier General in the Army Reserve
and is an individual of great distinction, and we join with family and
friends in honoring his remarkable achievements and expressing pride in
this recognition that has been afforded to him;
Whereas, Bruce is a remarkable individual who has devoted his life to
serve his country and to proudly protect the citizens of the United
States and his unyielding energy and passionate spirit render him a key
member of his community and a vital resource to our country;
Whereas, since his graduation from Colfax High School, where he
graduated second in his class and lettered in Football and Track, Bruce
has worked in varying capacities, providing crucial support to the
military community and from his appointment to West Point by
Congressman Harold Johnson, where he graduated with honors and received
a B.S. degree in engineering and the rank of First Lieutenant, to his
tours in Germany and Korea as a regular Army Captain, he has fought
tirelessly for our country and its people through his contributions to
the management and administration of the U.S. Army;
Whereas, in addition to these contributions, Bruce has received
Master of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering and Systems
Management and currently works for Agile Communications, Inc. as the
Principal Systems Architect and his specific efforts are focused on
providing information to the Army on system engineering,
communications, networking, and modeling and simulations;
Whereas, I join today with his wife, Catherine, his daughter,
Heather, and his sister, Paula, in their joy at this wonderful honor he
will receive, knowing he is an inspiration to our country and a patriot
in every sense of the word: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, Mr. Speaker, that we salute Bruce Anthony Casella and
express admiration he will receive this wonderful and well-deserved
honor and hope that others may recognize the immense service he has
provided for the people of the United States.
____________________
HONORING LeROY RADTKE, JR.
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to bring to
the attention of our colleagues a true American hero who was honored in
my congressional district recently.
Private First Class LeRoy Radtke, Jr. served our country with honor
and dignity. He enlisted in the Marine Corps when he was 20 years old.
He did so because he loved his country and he loved the Corps. He was
proud to be a Marine and lived his life by a code that only Marines
truly understand. He died saving a member of his unit during a
firefight in Vietnam. He was, in the proudest tradition of the Marines,
ever faithful to his country and the Corps.
PFC Radtke left America as a young man with many hopes, dreams, and
plans for the future. And although most of those plans went
unfulfilled, he died being a soldier and fighting for the country he
loved. PFC Radtke also left behind a family who loved him and who still
grieves his loss. His mother, Dorothy, his sister, Peggy, and his
brother, Karl, attended a ceremony this past weekend to add PFC
Radtke's name to a memorial of veterans who died defending our country.
This memorial, located in New Port Richey in my congressional district,
stands as a lasting tribute to the brave men from Pasco County who gave
their lives to guard our freedom.
People often forget that the families of our men and women in uniform
make many sacrifices while their loved ones are worlds away fighting
for us. This is especially true for families of Vietnam veterans. Many
veterans of the Vietnam War returned home not to the admiration and
reverence they deserved, but to scorn and ridicule from those who
opposed the policies of our nation's leaders. They deserved much
better. So did the families of those soldiers who did not return
safely.
I am humbled to show my gratitude, and that of the House of
Representatives, to PFC Radtke and his family. I hope these words will
remind them that our country endures only because of people like PFC
LeRoy Radtke. America is forever indebted to him. I hope that this
small gesture will comfort them when they think of his loss that summer
thirty-six years ago.
May God bless his family and may He continue to watch over the United
States of America.
____________________
REMARKS AT TRUMAN PRESIDENTIAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to deliver a few
remarks at the opening ceremony of the new Korean War exhibit at the
Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Missouri. My
remarks are set forth as follows:
Conflict and Consequence: The Korean War and its Unsettled Legacy
Thank you for inviting me to be with you today for the
opening ceremonies of this important new exhibit at the
Truman Library. I am humbled to be here, particularly as we
honor those who served our country so nobly during the Korean
conflict.
This library is a monument to the legacy and achievements
of Harry S. Truman and we are blessed to have this renowned
resource here in Independence. The Truman Library, and all of
our Presidential libraries, are dedicated to the preservation
of our nation's historical heritage, as repositories of
Presidential papers and memorabilia. As far as I'm concerned,
the mission of this Library--particularly its educational
function--has never been more important, and the exhibit the
Library opens to the public today is especially timely.
I have to admit, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise
to anyone, that I am very sentimental about one of the
artifacts on display in this exhibition. You see, my father,
Ike Skelton III, was an attorney in Lafayette County and
became a friend of Truman's when they met on September 17,
1928. The occasion was the dedication of the Pioneer Mother
Statue--the Madonna of the Trail--located in my hometown of
Lexington, Missouri.
They kept up this acquaintance, corresponding periodically,
so it seems right in character that my father, a fellow
veteran of World War One who served on the U.S.S. Missouri,
sent a telegram to President Truman after the President
decided to fire General Douglas MacArthur, letting him know
that he agreed with the decision and pledging his continued
support and that of Truman's friends in Lafayette County.
This momentous decision--reaffirming the supremacy of
civilian control of the military--is full of the drama that
makes our history fascinating. And I hope that for others who
see this document, this personal note to the President from
one of his Missouri friends, it will be meaningful as well.
I know that with the library professionals and historians
in the audience I am preaching to the choir, but I am a big
believer in the power of history, as was Harry Truman. Truman
was an avid reader and student of history. My friend, the
late Congressman Fred Schwengel, told me about meeting
Senator Truman in 1935 while Schwengel was a college student
in Missouri. Truman advised him that to be a good American,
``. . . you should know your history.''
That story is consistent with my experience. I well
remember taking a group of grade school students to visit the
Truman Library in 1963, and though President Truman was of
advanced age, he spoke to them in the library auditorium
about American history and the Constitution. He wanted young
people to learn as much as they could about America.
[[Page 17211]]
I do my best to encourage people, particularly young
people, to study history. I have embarked on a school visit
program I call ``History Matters'', which gives me the chance
to talk about the importance of history whenever I visit
schools. I also recently issued a 50-book national security
reading list, which is heavy on biographies and histories,
including the books I recommend to Members of Congress,
military officers, and anyone interested in learning about
character, leadership, and military art.
Why do I believe it is so important to keep up our efforts
to promote a broad knowledge of history? Let me share this
with you for a little perspective. The college student
interns who are working in my office this summer were only
about 8 years old in 1989 when we witnessed the end of the
Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall. This major event,
as well as the many other significant events and crisis
points of the Cold War, are far-removed from them. By no
fault of their own, they did not experience these events the
way many of us did.
It took 50 years of national commitment to see the collapse
of communism in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. But in
spite of the cessation of hostilities in Korea in 1953, U.S.
troops still deploy to South Korea to deter invasion from the
North. The totalitarian regime of North Korea continues to
rattle sabers and threaten not only the future of peace on
the peninsula but peace in the region and the world.
Today's college students have lived long enough to
experience missile threats from North Korea, including
nuclear threats. In spite of the prosperity of the South, and
in spite of the passage of more than 50 years, many of the
issues splitting the Korean Peninsula are still with us. This
exhibit, which opens today, will be of invaluable help to all
of us, but particularly our young people, to understand where
we have been and where we are today.
For the last several years, we have recognized and
commemorated many of the significant events and milestones of
the 20th century. Sometimes when we look back on the past, we
tend to remember ``the good old days'' and think that day-to-
day life in America is much more difficult now than it was
before. Without a doubt, our country today, in the infancy of
the 21st Century, faces significant challenges. But it does
us good to remember that the circumstances and state of the
world presented to Truman during his Presidency were
extraordinarily daunting.
Like the Presidents who came before and after him, Truman
was burdened with the loneliness that goes along with being
the Chief Executive. But President Truman's character ensured
that he did not shy away from difficult, often politically
unpopular, decisions. He once said, ``Do your duty and
history will do you justice.''
America had endured the Great Depression. Along with our
allies, America fought a long and costly war against fascism.
Although there was an understandable euphoria following
victory in World War II, the state of the world prompted
Truman to move away from America's established pattern of
peacetime isolationism in order to assist European economic
recovery through the Marshall Plan and to protect Western
Europe under the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. Almost immediately, Harry Truman was forced to
confront the reality of the Cold War, and the struggle of the
U.S. and other western democracies was on to stop the spread
of communism.
Truman had the courage to stand up to the communist
aggression that marked the beginning of the Cold War. The
Truman Doctrine made clear that the United States would not
stand idly by in the face of communist aggression in Greece,
Turkey, and elsewhere. Truman's commitment to the democratic
rights of free people was clear as the U.S. provided
essential supplies to the people of Berlin during the Soviet
blockade.
And fifty-three years ago, President Harry S. Truman made
the agonizing decision to use American troops to lead the
United Nation's resistance to the communist invasion of South
Korea. Over the next three years, more than 54,000 Americans
paid the ultimate price, with over 33,000 killed in action.
Over 110,000 Americans were wounded or missing in action. In
addition, over 228,000 South Korean soldiers and untold
numbers of civilians gave their lives.
These stark statistics serve as a reminder to all of us
that the slogan ``freedom is not free'' is more than just a
few words. The sacrifices of thousands of American service
members purchased the freedom that South Koreans enjoy to
this day, a freedom that our military continues to protect.
In many respects, our participation in the Korean conflict
has served as model for the way our military operates today.
Korea was the first multilateral United Nations operation,
and it has become the longest standing peacekeeping operation
in modern times. The unfortunate experience of Task Force
Smith has taught us the paramount importance of sending
forces into battle only when they are adequately trained and
equipped. We have also learned that units cannot be thrown
piecemeal into battle but must be engaged in a coordinated
fashion with air and sea power and with overwhelming force.
The lessons of the Korean War, taught at such great cost,
have served us well in the conflicts in which we have
participated since then, from Viet Nam to the Persian Gulf
War to Bosnia, Kosovo, and the War on Terrorism.
As much as we may be inclined to remember the leaders who
ultimately brought us victory in the Korean War--Truman,
MacArthur, Acheson, Walker, and Ridgway--it is really the men
and women who served so bravely to whom we pay tribute.
Without their selfless dedication, valor, and perseverance,
the people of South Korea would not be living in a free and
prosperous society.
To the veterans of the Korean conflict--those who are with
us today, those who never returned home, and those who we
have lost in the years since--we say thank you. Each of you
who lost friends or family members who died during this
conflict understand that their loss creates a void that can
never be filled. Three of my close friends--a high school
classmate, a Boy Scout buddy, and a friend from Wentworth
Military Academy Junior College--were killed in Korea. You
were the ones who carried out the orders of the Commander-In-
Chief, President Truman, who drew a line in the sand. This
line was held by your blood, sweat, and tears. You gave of
your youth to stop the spread of communism. I maintain that
these fledgling efforts, these supreme sacrifices, were the
foundation of our victory in the Cold War, some 50 years
later.
I know that you must feel a special kinship with our men
and women who today are serving in Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom. You, perhaps as much as anyone,
understand the hardship of fighting a war, a continent away
from home, a war to ensure the survival of a nation and a way
of life. What they are doing today will set the stage for the
next 50 years, and I suspect that, like the Cold War, it may
well be 50 years before we know for sure whether we have won
the War Against Terrorism and brought peace and stability to
the Middle East in the wake of the Iraq War.
We would all do well to live by Truman's advice, ``Do your
duty, and history will do you justice.'' The tough decisions
made by Truman earned the praise of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill who said to Truman, ``You, more than any
other man, have saved Western civilization.'' History has
indeed done justice and given evidence to Truman's wisdom,
strength, and vision. May what we learn from the past enable
us to do our duty today as well.
God bless.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE CLEVELAND-MARSHALL LAW ALUMNI ASSOCIATION AS THEY
RECOGNIZE THE HONORABLE DIANE J. KARPINSKI AND HOWARD D. MISHKIND
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Cleveland-
Marshall Law Alumni Association as they recognize alumni Judge Diane
Karpinski and Attorney Howard D. Mishkind--distinguished alumni of the
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Class of 1980.
The mission of the Cleveland-Marshall Law Alumni Association (CMLAA)
is to promote, support and serve the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law,
its alumni, faculty and students by offering quality education,
professional programs, and professional opportunities to assist in
career and educational advancement of every alumnus. Additionally,
CMLAA life membership dues fund a vital Student Scholarship Program.
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Alumni Judge Diane J. Karpinski and
Attorney Howard D. Mishkind, have evolved from law school graduates in
1980, to leaders in the legal profession. Both have raised the bar of
excellence in their prospective areas of law and reflect outstanding
professional profiles that encompass integrity, expertise, and service
to others. While ascending throughout their legal endeavors, Judge
Diane Karpinski and Attorney Howard Mishkind have remained committed to
supporting the Cleveland College of Law and their community, and have
become superior role models for the youth of our community.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Judge Diane
Karpinski and Attorney Howard D. Mishkind, as they are duly recognized
by the Cleveland-Marshall Law Alumni Association for their significant
professional achievements and, more importantly, for their service to
the College and to our community. I also stand in honor of the
Cleveland-Marshall Law Alumni Association, for their continued support
of educational excellence; for their promotion and support of
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law graduates and alumni; and for
providing countless students an opportunity to
[[Page 17212]]
attain a superior law education through the organization of scholarship
funds. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, its faculty, students and
alumni have demonstrated academic and professional excellence within
all areas of law, earning the highest respect and admiration of our
entire community and beyond.
____________________
RECOGNIZING LOCAL 375 FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ATTACK ON NEW YORK CITY
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Civil Service
Technical Guild, Local 375, for its work on behalf of the people of New
York. In particular, I applaud the members for their continuing efforts
to rebuild the City's infrastructure after the destruction caused by
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York City.
The 6,800 member local, headed by President Claude Fort, has been a
New York City mainstay for decades, building and maintaining vital
components of the city's infrastructure. Since its inception in 1937,
the local's engineers, architects, scientists, chemists, planners and
other technical specialists have designed, constructed, and maintained
the City's infrastructure of bridges, highways, subways, sewer and
water systems, schools and libraries; they also enforce air, water,
fire, and building codes.
Hundreds of members are currently at work on a massive project to add
a third water tunnel in the New York City area. The ``Third Water
Tunnel Project'' is a system of sixty miles of underground aqueducts
running through Westchester, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn.
When completed, the tunnel will increase water delivery for the City's
eastern and southern areas, allow drainage and treatment of the two
existing tunnels, and provide an alternate delivery water system in the
event service is disrupted in either of the two existing tunnels.
Since the September 11 attack, Local 375 members have worked on every
aspect of restoring the City's vital systems to full service. They
helped restore the Cortlandt Street Subway Station and lines that had
been buried by debris and flooded by broken water mains after the
collapse of the Twin Towers. Hundreds of tons of debris were removed
from the tunnels while engineers ensured that the rescue and recovery
work could proceed safely.
Local 375 members worked arduously from the time they were dispatched
to Ground Zero immediately following the September 11, 2001, attack.
Dedicated professional and technical workers performed flawlessly in
cleaning up the site in dangerous demolition operations. In addition to
strategic planning for the job, they monitored air quality and tested
for anthrax. They even assisted in recovery and rescue efforts, and
conducted DNA testing for victim identification. Members inspected
adjacent buildings to ensure that all fire protection systems were
working.
Few people outside of New York City know who is responsible for the
life sustaining work that they do, but the fact is that without Local
375, New York could not exist as a City. I commend the union's leaders
and the entire membership, many of whom reside in my Congressional
District, for their contributions to our City and for performing their
difficult jobs in a manner above and beyond the call of duty.
____________________
IN HONOR OF POLICE OFFICER CHARLES J. BRONSTON, JR.
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of
Police Officer Charles J. Bronston Jr., on the occasion of his
retirement from the Bay Village Police Division that spans thirty-five
years of dedication to the Force and honor to the Badge--Badge No 1. On
April 8, 1968, Officer Bronston pledged his life to protecting the
safety of others and was sworn in as Patrol Officer.
Growing up on the North Coast solidified Officer Bronston's love for
the great outdoors and crystallized his deep commitment to his
community on the Bay. His outstanding work and personal dedication to
helping others was clearly reflected throughout his tenure of service.
Officer Bronston's great enthusiasm for life, his kind and friendly
nature, and his immediate willingness to help others elevated him to
the highest level and best example of what a police officer should be.
Officer Bronston is so highly regarded within the Bay Village Police
Division that its leaders informally judge all recruits against the
stellar performance of Officer Bronston. Officer Bronston consistently
went above and beyond the call of duty to protect and assist those who
live and work in Bay Village. A true mentor, guide and friend, Officer
Bronston's professionalism, expertise, sense of fairness, superior
sense of humor, integrity and genuine concern for others have served to
assist and improve numerous life situations for many people. In
addition, his interest in protecting his community extends beyond Bay
Village into neighboring suburbs, as is reflected in his ongoing
membership of the first SWAT Team for the Westshore Enforcement Bureau.
Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and
recognition of Officer Charles J. Bronston upon his retirement as full-
time Police Officer with the Bay Village Police Division. His
exceptional and courageous service on behalf of the citizens of Bay
Village and beyond have served to lift the spirits and the lives of
countless individuals, families within Bay Village and all along our
western shores. We wish Officer Bronston, his wife Martha, children
Charles III and Michael Scott and grandchildren Felicia and Cory many
blessings of peace, health and happiness throughout his retirement. We
also wish him many clear summer days of great fishing along the rolling
waves, bays and shores of Lake Erie.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE CAREER OF MRS. JANE LAKIN UPON HER RETIREMENT FROM
TEACHING FOLLOWING A 40 YEAR CAREER
______
HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the true heroes
of Tennessee's Second Congressional District. For forty years Mrs. Jane
Lakin has changed the lives of thousands in the Knoxville community
through her dedicated service as an elementary school teacher at both
the Alice Bell and Spring Hill schools. Having seriously considered a
career in teaching myself and having taught briefly at T.C. Williams
School in Northern Virginia, I can say without hesitation that this
career is one of the most challenging and rewarding any person can
undertake.
Each Member of this body understands the vital role teachers play in
shaping the lives of our youth and I believe every teacher is to be
commended. However, to dedicate forty years of one's life to improving
and enhancing the education of children is truly exceptional.
During Mrs. Lakin's career America has experienced tremendous change.
While the Nation grieved the tragedy of President Kennedy's
assassination and witnessed the triumphant raising of our Flag on the
Moon, Mrs. Lakin walked each morning into a classroom and changed a
student's life. As America grew through the turmoil of Viet Nam and
later hailed our victory of the Cold War, Mrs. Lakin taught our
children, one class at a time, the value and joy of learning. The world
has changed and our Country has grown during the past 40 years, but
Mrs. Lakin's love of educating the young men and women of Knoxville has
never wavered.
On behalf of the entire Second Congressional District, I want to
thank Mrs. Lakin for her tireless work and her consistent encouragement
of her students. Whether or not these students ever have the
opportunity to tell her, she has changed their lives for the better and
we are all in her debt.
The Knoxville News Sentinel recently published an article on Mrs.
Lakin and her retirement. I would like to include this article in its
entirety in the Congressional Record. I hope that women and men
teaching today will look to Mrs. Lakin's example as an inspiration and
a confirmation of the tremendous value they bring to our Country.
[From the Knoxville News Sentinel, June 9, 2003]
Spring Hill Teacher Retires After 40 Years
(By Ed Marcum)
There's an odd thing about working with your former fourth-
grade teacher, said Jackie Pena, who teaches kindergartners
at Spring Hill Elementary School. Even after you have grown
up, it's hard to forget that you once sat at a little desk in
her classroom. Pena said that's why it was hard for her to
think of Jane Lakin as just another one of the teachers at
Spring Hill.
``The hardest thing was to get used to not calling her Mrs.
Lakin,'' Pena said. Lee Ann Parker, who was a classmate of
Pena's in the
[[Page 17213]]
fourth grade, agreed. Parker, the music teacher at Spring
Hill, said it felt funny to call Lakin by her first name.
``You just don't say that to your teacher,'' she said.
Lakin has retired after 40 years teaching in the Alice
Bell/Spring Hill community. ``Forty years and six months,''
Lakin said to be precise.
Irene Patterson, guidance counselor at Spring Hill, got to
work closely with Lakin over the years.
``A lot of seasoned teachers get set in their ways, but she
was always willing to try something new,'' Patterson said.
``And she did a lot of things for children that no one knew
about.''
``She would come into my office and say, `Irene, I noticed
that such-and-such student is wearing her big sister's worn-
out shoes, so I've bought her a pair.'''
The student would get a new pair of shoes anonymously.
Patterson said Lakin brought in such gifts a number of times.
Pena remembers that Lakin was always eager to help new
teachers.
``She has always made people feel welcome and has been a
mentor to new teachers,'' Pena said.
Lakin, who lives in Ritta, moved to Knoxville in 1962 from
Chattanooga, where she had taught for a year. She found a
position at Alice Bell Elementary and taught there until
1991, when that school was consolidated into Spring Hill
Elementary.
Lakin said when you spend your whole career teaching in the
same general neighborhood, you end up teaching the children
of the children you have taught, and you run into former
students most every time you go to the grocery store.
``I never really meant to stay here 40 years, but it just
worked out that way,'' she said. Teaching has changed since
1962, Lakin said. Teachers had more flexibility then.
``In those days, the things you taught were mostly by your
own design. Now someone tells you what to teach,'' she said.
Lakin said she and other teachers stayed on the lookout for
ideas to try out in the classroom. She said she became a
``pack rat,'' always scrounging thrift stores or yard sales
for craft items, plastic boxes or any materials that might
come in handy in class. She said plastic boxes are essential
for storing supplies.
``Teachers ought to buy stock in plastic boxes,'' Lakin
said.
There are so many classroom requirements now that a
teacher's time in the classroom is much more regimented,
Lakin said.
``You just feel like you can't do something unless it will
be on a test. There's no time for fun things,'' she said.
Pena and Parker said some of their fondest memories were of
Lakin bringing in books and reading them to the class. She is
a good dramatic reader, they said.
Lakin and her husband, Nelson Lakin, own a farm in Ritta,
and Patterson said she will always remember the roses that
Lakin grew there and brought to the school office. Lakin said
some of her favorite memories are of the years her students
made trees for the Fantasy of Trees holiday celebration.
``Of course, they hated to give up the tree, once we
finished,'' Lakin said. ``We would usually have to make two
of everything so the students would have ornaments to take
home with them.''
Then there were the occasional bizarre moments, like the
time a boy brought a skunk to school for show-and-tell.
``It got loose and ran all over the school,'' she said.
``Luckily, its scent gland had been removed.'' Eventually the
skunk was apprehended.
Lakin remembers when Pena and Parker were in her class.
They were both good students, Lakin said, although Pena
sometimes talked when she wasn't supposed to. Lakin said that
on at least one occasion she had to have a word with Parker.
``I think Lee Ann was the more mischievous,'' Lakin said.
``She had a club, and she was charging everyone on the
playground to belong to it.''
Both women chuckled, and Parker rolled her eyes.
``It only cost a nickel,'' she said.
``It had to be disbanded,'' Lakin said.
Lakin said she will miss the classroom, but she looks
forward to having more time for gardening and maybe doing a
little traveling.
``I might do some volunteer work, too,'' she said.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL BOYS' LACROSSE TEAM
______
HON. JAMES T. WALSH
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the high
achievements of the boys' lacrosse team from Lafayette High School.
After a disappointing loss 3 years ago, the Lancers finally got another
shot at the state title, and came home crowned the New York State
Section III Champions.
The Lafayette lacrosse program has taken home many Sectional titles
in the past, but according to Athletic Director Jerry Kelly, this
year's team is one of the best he's seen in ten years. After an
outstanding spring season with a final record of 23-1, it seemed only
fitting that this well-trained group of young men should win this final
game.
On behalf of the people of the entire 25th District of New York
State, I would like to congratulate the following champions on their
remarkable achievement: Haiwha Nanticoke, Brendan Storrier, Pat
Shannahan, Lee Nanticoke, Josh Groth, James Pierce, Blake Gale, Andrew
Spack, Andrew Thurston, Jeremy Thompson, Jerome Thompson, Tyler Gale,
Wes Adam, Kevin Wilkerson, Brian Gormley, Nick Lavdas, Kevin Bucktooth
Jr., Matt Noble, Jaimee Loughtin, Andy Gaffield, John Paige, Brion
Salitino, Randy Hadzor, Ross Bucktooth, Spencer Lyons, Pat Dwyer, Head
Coach Greg Scott, and Assistant Coaches Kevin Gale, Mike Riese, and
Jerome Thompson.
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I support this new, innovative Medicare
prescription drug benefit, and commend Energy and Commerce Committee
Chairman Tauzin and Health Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis for
developing a proposal that is fiscally responsible, modernizes the
Medicare program, and delivers a sound prescription drug benefit.
A prescription drug benefit in Medicare is the most important social
policy that Congress can deliver this Congress. Period.
My home state of Pennsylvania has the second highest number of
seniors in the country, and these seniors are living longer, healthier
lives, thanks in part to modern medications. Death rates from heart
disease, cancer and stroke are going down, and hundreds of new
medications are now being developed to combat diseases of aging,
including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and arthritis.
Unfortunately, along with these new drug therapies comes a higher
price to those that need them. Seniors without adequate access to these
drugs will not be able to benefit from the stunning advances in health
care resulting from the newest pharmaceutical products. Society will
spend more money on their health care, because many new drugs actually
serve as preventive measures and often prevent costly hospitalizations.
Medicare in its current form does not cover most prescription drugs.
When it was created in 1965, it was a good program for its time.
President Johnson, on signing Medicare into law on July 30, 1965, said,
``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of
modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings
they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might
enjoy dignity in their later years.''
But with advancements in drug treatment, modern medicine has grown
increasingly expensive, as Medicare does not pay for these wonderful
outpatient drugs. We need to modernize Medicare. As long as Medicare
does not cover outpatient drug benefits, seniors will not be as healthy
as they could be, and they will pay more out-of-pocket costs for
preventive medications.
Nearly two-thirds of seniors have some insurance coverage that helps
pay for prescription drugs through private employer plans or
supplemental (Medigap) coverage; however, the remaining third has
absolutely no coverage for prescription drugs.
This is not good enough. Seniors, living on limited income, should
not be the last payers of retail prices for drugs in our great country.
But we should not impose price controls so that seniors can afford
their prescriptions. Instead, we need to use the tools that the private
sector does, using leverage and bargaining for discounts. Medicare
needs to take advantage of reduced prices that we can achieve using the
tools that are used by private entities, operating in the employer-
provided health care market.
We need to be careful about how we reform Medicare. Those two-thirds
of seniors who have drug coverage are pleased with what coverage they
have and don't want a big government solution that could increase their
costs. Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988
with the intention of easing the cost of catastrophic events for
Medicare recipients. However, instead of helping, it made things much
worse for seniors who already had catastrophic coverage. They ended up
paying more out-of-pocket for fewer
[[Page 17214]]
health benefits. It was so devastating that Congress was forced to
repeal the legislation the very next year.
Mr. Speaker, this bill finds the right mix. It establishes a generous
prescription drug benefit, using the private sector tools that provide
significant savings for seniors when they purchase prescription drugs.
And, it reforms and strengthens the Medicare program in the right way.
This bill also provides significant relief to seniors in Pennsylvania
by strengthening the Medicare+Choice program. Over the past few years,
seniors who have enrolled in Medicare+Choice have seen programs
increase their premiums, decrease their benefits, or leave the program
altogether. For example, in the largest plan in my district, seniors
have seen their premiums rise from $0 to $94 per month.
This bill stabilizes the Medicare+Choice program. And, it
fundamentally reforms the program by creating the ``MedicareAdvantage''
program. This program provides for significantly more stability by
allowing for competitive bidding by the plans. The MedicareAdvantage
program will help these plans so that they remain a viable option for
millions of seniors, and continue to provide a variety of health
services, such as vision, hearing, and preventative care that are not
offered through the traditional Fee for Service program.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk for a minute about the reforms in the bill.
It provides for the creation of a new enhanced fee-for-service program
that gives beneficiaries new options and choices for services. Finally,
the Medicare program will incorporate the most popular option in
private health insurance (and the health insurance offered in the
federal employees health benefits program), preferred provider
organizations (PPO). These new PPOs will create significant new options
for services for seniors.
Furthermore, this bill will not only include improving access to
prescription drugs, but will modernize the Medicare program by
increasing the availability of wellness programs and streamlining the
often cumbersome paperwork that seniors face in getting Medicare
benefits.
Finally, I am pleased that H.R. 1 has included provisions to reform
the payments for the drugs that Medicare does cover in part B. These
reforms represent the culmination of a multi-year investigation by the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Presently, providers are reimbursed for the cost of these drugs at 95
percent of the average wholesale price (AWP). Congress and Medicare
officials have wrestled for years with the difficult issue of how to
set a fair and appropriate Medicare reimbursement rate for prescription
drugs covered by Medicare part B. The reimbursement benchmark we have
used since the early 1990s has been the AWP, which is reported by drug
companies and price reporting services. prior to that, providers were
reimbursed on a cost basis, which is cumbersome and inflationary.
Over the past decade, what we have learned is that the AWP is a
fictitious number that must be changed. Rather than an accurate
barometer of the price at which physicians purchase the drugs used in
their practice, the AWP benchmark is more like a car's ``sticker
price,'' which is usually much higher than the actual acquisition cost.
Under competitive pressure, manufacturers and wholesalers will
routinely discount drug prices to physicians, lower their cost, while
maintaining a higher AWP. In a competitive spiral, these discounts
grow, increasing the net profits on the drugs, while the Medicare
program continues to pay the higher AWP.
Unfortunately, due to the 20 percent copay that all beneficiaries pay
for part B services, Medicare beneficiaries presently pay $200 million
more than they should in inflated co-pays. What's more, the Medicare
program itself pays over $1 billion more than we should.
The new system, based on competitive bidding and choice, pays
appropriately for drugs and reimburses physicians appropriately for
services. Under this new model, we provide physicians a choice--either
continue to do business as they have or enter a new program that
provides drugs to physicians for administration on a replacement basis.
These reforms are fair, sound and must be enacted.
Earlier this year, Congress set aside $400 billion for the
development of a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. This is a
significant and meaningful commitment by Congress for our Nation's
seniors. Some may quibble about the size of the benefit. However, I am
convinced that we can pass legislation so that every senior has access
to the latest prescription drug products and has catastrophic coverage
for very serious, very costly medical conditions. We owe it to our
seniors to pass and have the President sign into law, a prescription
drug benefit this year.
____________________
HONORING PASTOR G.L. JOHNSON
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pastor G.L.
Johnson for his 40 years of ministry with Peoples Church in Fresno,
California. He will be honored at a special dinner for civic and
community leaders to be held Saturday, June 28th.
Pastor Johnson came to Fresno as the Associate Director of the Latin
American Orphanage. In 1963, he accepted the position of Senior Pastor
at Peoples Church, having had over ten years of pastoral experience.
Under his leadership, People's Church has grown to become the largest
Protestant Church in Central California, with an average Sunday
attendance of 4,500. The Johnson Scholarship Fund has also been
established in his honor to assist young people with the cost of
education prior to entering full-time ministry.
Pastor Johnson has poured his life into Fresno for the sake of the
Kingdom of God. He derives great joy in knowing that God has used his
ministry to bring thousands to know Jesus Christ. The mission of
Peoples Church seems to coincide with that of Pastor Johnson's personal
mission, to ``Reach . . . Win . . . Train . . . Send.'' It has been
said that Pastor Johnson was to Peoples Church ``. . . what Babe Ruth
was to baseball, George Washington to the United States, and the
Apostle Paul to the Gentiles.''
Pastor Johnson's respect and admiration go beyond the walls of
Peoples Church. In 1997, he was listed by the Fresno Bee as one of 75
people who made a positive contribution to life in the Central Valley.
He and the late Pastor Bufe Karraker gathered church and local leaders
to tackle the issue of crime in Fresno, forming the NoName Fellowship,
and reached beyond the church family to touch lives of the citizens in
the city. Pastor Johnson has been the recipient of numerous awards such
as the Distinguished Service Award of the City of Fresno, ``Mayor of
Fresno, For the Day'' in 1973 and 1987, and listed in ``Who's Who'' for
Fresno and American Religion. He also sits on several boards, including
the Sequoia Council of Boy Scouts of America, Fresno Leadership
Foundation, Police Activities League, and Northern California National
Association of Evangelicals.
Pastor Johnson has spoken at numerous Christian Universities and
conferences across the country. In addition to his ministry in the
United States, he has ministered to large crowds in Seoul, Korea; to
Russian leaders following the fall of Communism; and to Christians in
Romania and China. Pastor Johnson is also the author of several
booklets and articles including How to Conduct a Stewardship Campaign
in the Local Church.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pastor G.L. Johnson for his
years of ministry and outstanding personal contributions to the
community of Fresno. I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing
Pastor Johnson many years of continued success.
____________________
HONORING DR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of Dr.
Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of science education, to the
creation and development of the Chabot Space and Science Center in
Oakland, California, and to the science education of young students in
Oakland, the East Bay and Northern California.
Dr. Reynolds was hired as Executive Director of the historic Chabot
Observatory and Science Center in 1991, after being named Florida
Science Educator of the Year and being a finalist in the NASA Teacher
in Space Program.
Dr. Reynolds led the team, which conceived, financed and built the
new Chabot Space and Science Center, with energy, enthusiasm and skill.
The center is a jewel of Northern California.
Dr. Reynolds has built programs with the United States Air Force,
NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of
Education to further Science Education and the public understanding of
the frontiers of space science.
Under Dr. Reynolds leadership, the new Chabot Space and Science
Center has become internationally renowned for its science education
programs.
[[Page 17215]]
Dr. Reynolds has secured, with NSF funding, a major new traveling
exhibit from the People's Republic of China, consisting of artifacts
and instruments used in ancient Chinese astronomy, that will tour the
United States under the title of ``Dragon Skies''.
On behalf of the children, parents, educators of Oakland, of
California and of the nation, I want to gratefully acknowledge the
contributions of Dr. Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of
science education and understanding, and for the building of the new
Chabot Space and Science Center, which will serve as a place of
inspiration and learning for generations to come.
On behalf of my constituents and myself I wish to recognize the
accomplishments of an educator, scientist, astronomer, dreamer, and an
eternal optimist whose watchword is ``Keep Looking Up.''
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that the Rules
Committee did not make in order an opportunity for an alternative
proposal from my colleagues Ellen Tauscher and Cal Dooley, in the form
of H.R. 1568. Looking carefully at the arguments from both sides of the
aisle on the proposals before us today, I am inclined to think that
they are both right. There are egregious problems in the proposal by
the Republicans. It is going to have serious dislocative effects; it
doesn't adequately meet the needs of low-income people; it could
actually deteriorate prescription drug coverage for others; and, it
extends services to many who do not need it.
The Democratic alternative is well-intentioned and more generous, but
there are questions about whether this will be affordable over time. We
may be biting off more than we can sustain as Medicare goes into a time
of severe strain with regard to cost and the capacity to meet the needs
of an exploding retirement population.
I continue to be troubled that low income senior citizens without
drug coverage pay the highest prices in the world for their medicines.
This is intolerable. There is real potential to harness the vast
purchasing power of the United States to negotiate better prices, the
same way private employers, local governments and hospitals do. The
power of the free market and negotiation should not be denied to the
sector that would benefit from it the most. There is no reason that the
nation's Medicare recipients should pay a higher price for the same
drugs that recipients who are part of our veterans program receive. We
can craft a program that is not unduly coercive, and does not lead to a
disruption of the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry needs to
be more accommodating of this approach, or I feel that they will
inevitably end up with far more draconian solutions. They cannot
continue to mine gold from low income senior citizens.
The alternative that I would rather have had on the floor today would
expend the same amount of money that we have determined is affordable,
and target it to low-income seniors without coverage, and people with
extraordinarily high prescription drug needs. That is where we should
target our Medicare resources. It would permit us to keep promises made
to help remedy this serious situation. It does not over commit, and
leaves the way open for subsequent Medicare reform. It would appear
that if either of the other two bills were adopted, it would make long
term reform more difficult and would pose significant budget pressures
at a time when our fiscal policies are in disarray.
I truly think this is one of those times when less actually is more,
and being careful will pay long-term dividends. I am voting
accordingly, against the two alternatives, and hope that Congress will
reach the point where we can have a more targeted, sustainable, and
effective approach that can provide a foundation for future reform.
____________________
HONORING MRS. ODELL KINNEY
______
HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a citizen
who exemplified the spirit of self-reliance and a concern for others
that we can all learn from. Mrs. Odell Kinney was a pillar of society,
particularly among her community in Cleveland, OH.
Mrs. Kinney gained a well-founded reputation for taking in children
of the neighborhood and dedicating her time to the development of her
community for over 30 years. She made a lifelong commitment to raising
18 children who loved and admired her dearly. She was also a daycare
provider for over 20 years.
Her dedication to children has inspired the Odell Kinney Scholarship
Fund. The goal of the Odell Kinney Scholarship Fund is to award an
annual scholarship in the amount of $1000 to a deserving student.
Among her abundant contributions to society, Mrs. Kinney was a member
of the PTA, a persistent entrepreneur, an active member of the Lee/
Harvard Ward Club and served as President of her street club for 10
years. She provided food baskets to the needy on an ongoing basis,
served as a church missionary and a Bible school teacher.
There are hundreds of individuals, if not thousands whose lives Mrs.
Kinney touched in a beautiful way. They will never be the same again:
``They don't make 'em like Odell anymore,'' said Mr. Simmons, a
childhood friend.
``She had a beautiful spirit,'' said business partner, Brenda
McCants.
``She was at the top of her game, committed and dedicated to the
community and came from a great generation of black women,'' said
Cleveland Councilman Joe Jones.
The biggest commitment she made was the love of God and God's
children. In essence, Mrs. Odell Kinney had a heart as big as Texas.
The lingering effects of her good work will last forever.
____________________
AFGHANISTAN'S FUTURE
______
HON. BARNEY FRANK
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate pattern is
developing with the Bush Administration--militarily, in Afghanistan and
Iraq, American forces have been extremely successful. I voted for the
military action in Afghanistan, and against that in Iraq, but it is
obvious that in both cases the American military performed extremely
well and the people of the United States can be confident of the
ability of our armed forces to do whatever is necessary to protect us
and to advance our legitimate security interests.
Unfortunately, this administration's record in the aftermath of these
military victories has been much less reassuring. The situation in Iraq
is of course a very distressing one, and is widely known. In part
because of the attention that is understandably focused on Iraq, with
the continuing toll on American military personnel and the chaos and
political troubles in the country, Afghanistan has to some extent been,
as the headline in The New York Times for July 1 says, ``Lost in the
Shuffle.''
I recently met in my office here with representatives of Afghans for
a Civil Society, and I was troubled by the grave defects they described
in American policy there. In particular, we are clearly doing much too
little to support President Karzai--who seems to be a man genuinely
trying to promote democracy and economic development in a difficult
situation.
Mr. Speaker, I supported America's military intervention into
Afghanistan to deal with the terrorists who had unleashed mass murder
on the United States. And I believe that overthrowing the brutal,
bigoted Taliban regime was also a service to human rights. But having
done that, we have an obligation to help put a coherent government in
Afghanistan in its place, and I regret to say that I do not think this
administration is showing sufficient will in this regard.
Subsequent to my meeting with people from Afghans for a Civil
Society, I read last week in The New York Times a very thoughtful and
disturbing article by Sarah Chayes, who had been in that meeting, in
which she points to one of the central weaknesses of America's policy
in Afghanistan. Because redeeming our obligation to the people of
Afghanistan is so important both in moral and geopolitical terms, I ask
that Sarah Chayes' important article be printed here.
[From the New York Times, July 1, 2003]
Afghanistan's Future, Lost in the Shuffle
(By Sarah Chayes)
Kandahar, Afghanistan--Ten miles outside this dust-blown
city, the historical capital of Afghanistan, gunmen belonging
to the local warlord guard the airport, which American forces
use as a base. The hefty fee the guards get from the United
States has allowed them to build a marble-faced barracks
nearby.
Kandaharis, baffled, keep asking me, ``Why are the
Americans helping President Harold Karzai and helping his
enemies, the warlords, too?'' To them the problem with this
[[Page 17216]]
practice is clear: United States policy is in danger of
failing because America won't stop hedging its bets. At stake
is not just the future of Afghanistan, but a whole region's
hopes of escaping a 30-year nightmare. And ultimately, what
happens in Afghanistan will shape relations between the
Muslim world and the West.
The hedging of bets has taken many forms since the fall of
the Taliban a year and a half ago: a dizzying succession of
officers at the United States Embassy for the first six
months; the lack of any reconstruction projects outside Kabul
until after the grand council chose Mr. Karzai as
transitional president; and later, international donors'
obsession with quick-impact projects, known as quips, that
didn't cost much and wouldn't be much of a loss if they
failed.
Afghans, meanwhile, have been waiting for major
reconstruction that would make a real difference. The Kabul-
Kandahar road, on which work has only just begun, has become
a cause celebre. What was once a six-hour trip to the capital
to deliver, say, Kandahar grapes, and the exquisitely
fragrant raisins they dry into, is now a three-day trek--and
72 hours on the road means grape mash. A good road to Kabul
would make all the difference to Kandahar's merchants, and
jump start a whole region's economy.
And what about other projects that would substantially
improve Afghan lives? There's the road to Urozgan, an
isolated town that is easy prey to Islamic extremists and is
at minimum a nine-hour drive from Kandahar along a ribbon of
iron-hard dirt. The Helmand Province irrigation system, built
by American engineers in the late 1950s, now lies crippled
after years of neglect and Soviet sabotage. Donors, however,
are loath to commit their money to big projects like these.
But the most dangerous form of bet-hedging has been
American support for local strongmen. Eager for Afghan forces
to help fight the Taliban, the United States brought these
warlords back from exile after 9/11. What began as a
relationship of convenience was cemented in a brotherhood of
arms, as United States troops fraternized with the exotic
fighters they had bivouacked with. Because they had reaped
weapons and cash in the bargain, the warlords were able to
impose themselves as provincial governors, despite being
reviled by the Afghan people, as every conversation I've had
and study I've done demonstrates.
Their positions have been reinforced by international
donors who, for convenience's sake, distribute much of their
reconstruction assistance through the warlords. The donors'
reasoning sounds plausible: ``So-and-so is the governor,''
numerous United States officials have told me. ``The day
President Karzai removes him, we will support that decision.
But until then, we have to work with him.'' It's a bit
disingenuous, since this explanation ignores the way these
men became governors.
It also begs the truth. In late May, President Karzai
summoned to Kabul the 12 governors who control Afghanistan's
strategic borders. For the previous fortnight, Afghan and
international officials say, he had been preparing to dismiss
the most egregious offenders: four or five governors who are
running their provinces like personal fiefs, who withhold
vast customs revenue from the central government, who truck
with meddlesome foreign governments, who oppress their
people, who turn a blind eye to extremist activities while
trumpeting their anti-Taliban bona fides. United States
officials, saying they were taken aback by the scope of the
Afghan government's plan, discouraged him. The plan was
scrapped, and the Afghan government made do with an agreement
in which the recalcitrant governors promised to hand over
customs revenue owed the central government.
Washington, in other words, wouldn't stop hedging its bets.
The United States backs Mr. Karzai, but it can't relinquish
its alliances with the enemies of all he stands for.
But President Karzai bears part of the blame. He, too, has
been hedging his bets. His endlessly polite interactions with
his predator governors are confusing his constituents.
Although Washington thought firing half a dozen governors was
too much, it would have supported the dismissal of one or
two, and Mr. Karzai wasted a golden opportunity by refusing
to do that.
The problem is, no matter what they say, these warlords
aren't going to behave. They are not reformable, because it
is not in their interest to reform. The warlords' livelihood
depends on extremism and lawlessness. That's how they draw
their pay; that's what allows them to rule by the gun in an
unofficial martial law, looting villages under the pretext of
mopping-up operations, extracting taxes and bribes, crushing
opponents.
The American alliance with warlords also discourages
ordinary Afghans from helping rebuild their country. And
without the people, the process is doomed. Afghans I have met
and worked with share a fierce desire to live in a normal
country. They have demonstrated that desire. In the face of
tremendous adversity, they have managed to open schools,
clean irrigation ditches, plant trees and dig sewers. But
seeing warlords regain power is making people waver. I have
found in my work that more and more Afghans are withdrawing
to the sidelines, subtracting their life force from the
battle to reconstruct Afghanistan.
They are also increasingly wary about the elections next
year. At a recent meeting here with representatives from the
commission that's drafting a new constitution, a nursing
student asked, ``How can we freely elect our representatives
with warlords controlling the countryside?''
Despite American officials' misgivings, it would not be so
difficult to remove the warlord-governors. Their lack of
popular support means no one would fly to their defense were
they dismissed. The mere display of American backing for a
plan to oust them would be enough to cow their paid liegemen.
In the interest of offering Afghanistan a chance at a future,
and opening the door to a new kind of relationship with the
Muslim world, the United States should back any future
decision to remove the warlord-governors.
For despite the rocky start to reconstructing postwar
Afghanistan, an ember of hope for the country's future is
still burning. Several high caliber diplomats are now at the
American embassy. American military commanders, who by
training focus on battle plans, have begun to realize that
their activities can have unintended political consequences
if they do not have intimate knowledge of the people they are
dealing with. These officers have grown more alert to the
ways in which local warlords may be using them. In Kandahar,
the base commander has begun meeting with tribal elders to
forge links with the population. In other words, the United
States is finally positioned to do a good job here.
When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, he promised
that Afghanistan would not be forgotten. If that promise is
to mean anything, America's accumulated experience in
Afghanistan must be acted upon, unequivocally. It's time to
stop hedging bets.
____________________
H.R. 1828, SYRIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEBANESE SOVEREIGNTY RESTORATION
ACT OF 2003
______
HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I joined a growing number of my
colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and
Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.
I sponsored this legislation because I believe that Syria presents a
unique threat to the peace, security and stability in the Middle East.
Syria is geographically central in the region, but it is also central
to the peaceful evolution of the region.
Continued Syrian sponsorship of terrorism threatens to unravel
renewed efforts at peace in the region. President Bush's Road Map is at
risk because of this state-sponsored terrorism and we must indicate the
serious consequences of Syria's destabilizing activity.
This legislation gives the President the leverage he needs to
persuade the Syrian regime to reconsider its role in the region. The
fall of Iraq represented only the first in a series of positive changes
that will sweep through the Middle East in the coming years, and Syria
has an opportunity to be on the right side of history. The possibility
of this legislation becoming law should be understood as a clear
warning about the position of the House of Representatives.
At the same time, I do not believe that H.R. 1828 is a perfect bill.
It needs to be improved before it is sent to the President for his
signature. I am cosponsoring the bill out of a desire to move this
legislation forward, but believe a number of changes are necessary.
First, the legislation must specifically define the meaning of ``food
and medicine'' in Section 5(a). Specifically, this section should be
brought into conformity with the definitions of ``agricultural
commodity,'' ``medicine'' and ``medical device'' included in the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387).
Enactment of this legislation three years ago signaled Congressional
intent to prohibit unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. To ensure
there is no confusion by implementing agencies that have historically
demonstrated hostility to excepting categories of exports from
unilateral sanctions, it is necessary to include very specific
definitions.
Second, the legislation must incorporate sunset clauses for both the
authorization of sanctions and for any sanctions that are imposed
through Section 5(a)2. Congress should not impose sanctions in
perpetuity, for while we are often quick to impose sanctions; we are
not nearly as effective at repealing dated restrictions. Sanctions,
fundamentally, should be an aberration to how the United States
approaches other nations. Our bilateral relationship should stress
engagement over restrictions, but in certain exceptional cases,
sanctions may be necessary. These sanctions
[[Page 17217]]
should be temporary in nature to encourage future Congressional
scrutiny of the continued value of the restrictions. Should sanctions
be perceived necessary in the future then future Congresses are likely
to extend the prohibitions beyond the sunset period. Sunset periods
also encourage rogue regimes to recognize that there is an opportunity
to improve their relations with the United States. Should rogues wish
to reengage with the United States, they need only to change their
behavior. Regular Congressional review of sanctions ensures that this
change in behavior will have a chance to be acknowledged. Conversely,
permanent sanctions can backfire by signaling to the rogue state intent
to isolate, irrespective of the nation's willingness to respond with
reforms. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act outlines
a two-year sunset for unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions.
H.R. 1828 must incorporate a similar sunset provision.
Third, the legislation must provide greater flexibility to the
Executive Branch in the imposition of sanctions. Section 5(b) provides
a waiver from the imposition of sanctions if the President determines
that it is in ``the vital national security interest of the United
States to do so.'' Such a waiver sets the bar too high and is
potentially restrictive of the exercise of foreign policy by the
Executive Branch. The Libertad Act (P.L. 104-114), for example, sets
for a ``national interest'' waiver for Title III sanctions.
Fourth, the legislation must place a greater priority on cooperation
with our allies in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions tend to be
effective when they are imposed under a multilateral framework.
Unilateral sanctions isolate the United States as much as they isolate
the targeted nation. Diplomacy, as in nature, abhors a vacuum and will
fill it. A loss of American influence will be replaced by other nations
unless sanctions are imposed through a broad, multilateral coalition.
The United States must persuade other countries to join us in
sanctioning Syria if we are to have significant influence.
I offer these reservations and recommendations out of a desire to
improve H.R. 1828. I recognize that peace in the Middle East depends on
change in Syria. But I also believe Congress should adhere to the
limitations outlined above in the imposition of unilateral sanctions.
When unilateral sanctions are imposed, they should be limited in scope
and limited in duration and provide significant flexibility to the
Executive Branch. H.R. 1828 can be amended to incorporate these
recommendations, which must be made before the legislation is sent to
the President for signature.
____________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
______
speech of
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2559) making
appropriations for military construction, family housing, and
base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes:
Mrs. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, many of us will spend part of the
Independence Day work period at ceremonies marking the heroism of our
service men and women, and the sacrifices of their families. If we were
to ask any military commander present at those ceremonies, What is the
most important aspect of leadership? The answer would be: First, take
care of the troops.
This bill provides an opportunity for the House to exhibit that kind
of leadership, the opportunity to take care of our troops. Instead,
sadly, it is another missed opportunity.
If military quality of life issues were a priority, we would not be
considering a Military Construction Appropriations Bill that is $1.5
billion below last year's funding level, but we would be passing Mr.
Obey's amendment, which would help nearly 8,000 service members and
their families get the housing they deserve.
Instead, we pass resolutions that talk about supporting the military
and then refuse to provide that support in the appropriations bills.
Active and retired military personnel and their families have been
among the victims of the irresponsible and fiscally unsound budget and
tax policies of the Republican majority. If putting the troops and
their families first were a Republican priority, they would not have
submitted a budget that continues the tax on disabled veterans, that
cuts veterans benefits, and that impacts aid. And they would not have
approved a tax cut that takes care of the children of the wealthy few
while ignoring 250,000 children of active duty military personnel.
That is a regrettable message to send to the troops just days before
the Fourth of July.
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. BOB ETHERIDGE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to oppose H.R. 1, the
Republican Medicare bill.
Tonight we have an opportunity to provide seniors with a Medicare
prescription medicine benefit. But the Republican Majority has thrown
aside bipartisanship and crafted a bill that will confuse and short-
change seniors while slowly eroding the time-honored guarantee of
Medicare. I cannot vote for this seriously flawed bill.
Seniors in North Carolina's Second District, like those across the
country, deserve a real Medicare prescription medicine benefit. They
want a plan that is simple, comprehensive, and a part of Medicare. I
have consistently voted for such a plan throughout my career in
Congress.
But H.R. 1 subjects seniors to a complex plan that features
fluctuating premiums, a huge gap in coverage, uncertainty about who's
going to provide them with medicines, and it will end Medicare as we
know it.
First, nothing in this legislation requires the drug-only insurance
groups that will administer this plan to fix premiums at $35 a month.
That number is merely a suggestion. Our seniors do not want suggestions
Mr. Speaker, they want certainty.
Second, the $400 billion the Majority set aside for Medicare related
spending in their Fiscal Year 2004 is woefully inadequate. This plan
will only cover a fifth of what seniors will spend over the next 10
years on prescription medicines. To fit inside their budget, the
authors of this bill have developed a huge gap, or doughnut hole, that
forces seniors who spend between $2,001 and $3,500 on medicines to pay
all of their costs. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Third, this plan relies on an untested mechanism to deliver medicines
to seniors. H.R. 1 creates a drug-only insurance market that will not
work, especially in rural areas. But what makes this bill worse is that
it makes no effort to provide a fallback for rural seniors should
private drug-only plans decide to stop offering them coverage.
Finally, in this plan we see the Republican Majority's true colors.
H.R. 1 is simply a shell-game that will privatize Medicare. Under this
legislation, in 2010 private plans will be allowed to compete against
Medicare to cover hospital and physician benefits. As private plans
seek to siphon off healthy seniors, the cost of remaining in
traditional Medicare will rise and seniors will be forced to join an
HMO, along with all of its restrictions, to get coverage.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law over 38 years
ago, Medicare was designed to be a guarantee that our seniors would be
able to get affordable health care services regardless of their age,
ability to pay, or degree of sickness. In the spirit of that landmark
law, I will vote for an alternative amendment to H.R. 1 that creates a
simple, comprehensive, prescription medicine plan under Medicare. This
plan also includes superior rural provider provisions in comparison to
those contained in H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, for the third Congress in a row we have another Medicare
bill pending before us. And once again, the bill is a sham. It provides
no guaranteed benefit, contains a huge gap in coverage, and it will
privatize Medicare.
America's seniors want bipartisan cooperation in this body. They want
us to come together to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it. I urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 1 tonight.
____________________
CENTRALIA SESQUICENTENNIAL RECOGNITION
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the
City of Centralia, Illinois as she celebrates her sesquicentennial.
Since 1853, the people of Centralia have lived
[[Page 17218]]
and prospered and given so much to this great nation.
Centralia was founded as a result of the building of the Illinois
Central Railroad, hence the name Centralia. It was also a coal-mining
town almost from the first years of its existence. The town has
experienced an oil boom in the mid 1900s and is home to much industry.
Over the years Centralia has produced many leaders who have been
instrumental in our Nation's history. One reason is due to the quality
education provided. It is also the home of the ``Winningest Basketball
Team in America,'' the Centralia Carillon, and the Centralia Balloon
Fest; just to name a few.
I am proud to represent the people of the great City of Centralia and
to share in this special occasion. I thank them for all they give to
our country and I wish them another successful 150 years.
Congratulations and ``Go Orphans!''
____________________
JOHN L. GROVE
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and loss of
John L. Grove, whose accomplishments have made an everlasting impact to
Pennsylvania and the Nation.
John Grove committed his life to the Franklin County community as a
defining model for entrepreneurism and the American dream. Mr. Grove
personally had a hand in the creation of numerous successful companies
and contributed his expertise and advice to a whole host of other
business ventures.
John Grove was noted for his brilliance and huge innovations in the
world of hydraulics. He was most notably, the ``father'' of the
hydraulic telescoping crane boom. In addition to his prowess for
business and ingenuity, he was also extremely generous to his
community. Today his philanthropic endeavors, including the John L.
Grove College of Business at Shippensburg University and the John L.
Grove Medical Center in Greencastle, stand as a reminder of his faith
in those around him and his determination to provide a better life for
others.
John Grove and his brother formed Grove Manufacturing Company by
building farm wagons out of a two car suburban garage. But brilliance
would not be constrained by just farm wagons. In just three short
years, he and his brother developed and built the industry's first
industrial yard crane. Quickly the wagons were superceded by the demand
for the cranes and the small business in a garage became an industrial
giant.
After a very successful run in this career, Mr. Grove and his brother
sold the company in the 1960's and John Grove took a well-deserved
vacation. But as most truly gifted people find out, the body may rest
but the brain never pauses. It was in the course of his vacation
travels across this great country of ours, that Mr. Grove realized the
pitfalls of those who needed to work on platforms and scaffolding. To
that end, he invented the self propelled work-basket vehicle and in an
instant a second career was born.
In implementing his new vision, Mr. Grove and a partner bought a
small factory in McConnellsburg and began with only 15 employees. Soon,
JLG Industries would grow to an internationally recognized company that
would employ thousands from around the community.
In 1993, Mr. Grove retired from a hugely successful career at JLG,
but he continued to offer both his business experience and philanthropy
to the area he so dearly loved.
Few people have had such a tremendous impact on south central
Pennsylvania. With the passing of John L. Grove, Pennsylvania and
America have lost one of their greatest citizens.
____________________
HONORING THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF EDEN HOUSING, INC.
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eden Housing, Inc. of
Hayward, California on the occasion of its thirty-fifth anniversary.
Eden Housing, Inc. was founded in 1968 by a group of dedicated
individuals who were concerned about the lack of affordable housing in
Alameda County. The original board members developed Eden's first
affordable development, the 150-unit Josephine Lum Lodge for seniors in
Hayward, California.
Since starting its first project nearly 35 years ago, Eden Housing
has created 4,200 units of affordable housing for low income families,
seniors and persons with disabilities, and has become one of the most
active non-profit affordable housing developers in California. As it
has grown, the organization has expanded its development activities
into six Northern California counties. From its small but ambitious
beginning, Eden, and its two major affiliates, Eden Housing Management,
Inc. and nonprofit Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. now employ a
combined professional staff of 120 employees. The organization is
guided by an eleven member volunteer board of directors from a wide
spectrum of professional fields.
In addition to meeting the needs for affordable shelter, Eden Housing
is committed to helping its residents improve their lives through free
onsite supportive services and programs provided by Eden's nonprofit
affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. These services include
children's summer and after-school programs, scholarships for deserving
adults, senior health and fitness programs, onsite service
coordination, and computer learning programs where children learn
skills to help them succeed in school, and adults acquire skills to
help them compete for better employment opportunities.
Throughout its history, Eden Housing has made it a priority to mentor
and partner with smaller non-profit organizations to build their
capacity while providing housing to serve special populations or
geographic communities. Included in Eden's collaborations are a 100-
unit senior apartment complex, developed with East Bay Issei, a
coalition of Japanese American groups concerned with creating housing
for their senior constituents; multiple partnerships with Community
Resources for Independent Living and the Mentally Handicapped
Children's Organization to create developments for persons with
disabilities; and a collaboration with East Bay Habitat for Humanity to
build homes in Fremont for first-time buyers.
In its thirty-fifth year, Eden Housing is celebrating the future, as
well as the past. Eden Housing, Inc. is breaking ground on new
developments and opening others. The organization is conducting
feasibility studies for additional units and continues to search out
new opportunities, all of which support Eden Housing's commitment to
provide affordable housing in Northern California well into the future.
Congratulations Eden Housing, Inc. I applaud your dedication and
exemplary contributions.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF SSM HEALTH CARE AND ST. MARY'S/GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize SSM
Health Care for receiving the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award.
SSM Health Care sponsors St. Mary's/Good Samaritan Hospitals in
Centralia and Mt. Vernon, both located in the 19th Congressional
District of Illinois.
I am very proud of their accomplishment. SSM Health Care is the first
health care organization to win the award. The award is given annually
by the United States Department of Commerce and is the highest award a
U.S. company can receive for management and quality achievement.
The leadership, medical staff, and all employees continually strive
to meet the needs of their patients first. Their level of service is
outstanding and very responsive. I thank them for their commitment to
quality health care, but above all to the citizens of this great
nation. Keep up the excellent work.
____________________
STEPHEN G. McCAHAN, JR.
______
HON. BILL SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Stephen G. ``Mack''
McCahan, Jr., an outstanding resident of Southcentral Pennsylvania who
perfectly epitomizes the spirit of America. Mr. McCahan is a superb
professional, an outstanding pharmacist, and a genuine expert in his
field.
On August 22, 2003, Mr. McCahan will reach a true landmark, 50 years
of service in the pharmacy profession. In the course of his career, Mr.
McCahan has demonstrated high
[[Page 17219]]
quality work and has exceeded all ethical standards. He has touched
thousands of patients and positively impacted each community that he
has served.
Mack McCahan started as a staff pharmacist in the United States Navy
at Camp LeJuene, NC from 1953-1955. From there he moved to Bellfonte,
PA to continue his pharmaceutical career and then to Waynesboro, PA
where he worked at Minnick's Pharmacy. It was in 1963 that Mr. McCahan
bought the Agnew Drug Store in Everett, PA and renamed it the Everett
Pharmacy. In 1971, his brother Larry joined the business. In 1985, he
further expanded his business by opening McCahan's pharmacy in Saxton,
PA with his son Steve and his brother.
During his time in Everett, Mr. McCahan has become a leader in the
community. His friendliness and goodwill have made him recognized by
all. To that end, Mack and his wife Jean have been friends of the
Shuster family for over 30 years. Having grown up with his sons, Steve
and Matt, I know his goodwill personally, in fact growing up I was a
member of the family.
It was only in 2001, that Mr. McCahan sold the business to his son
and his brother. In that effort, he has helped to continue the legacy
of a family pharmacy, to act in the best interest of the patient, and
has passed that lesson to his son.
Today, Mack McCahan still continues to work in the pharmacy, by
filling in for his brother and son on their days off. In his free time,
he can be found with his lovely wife.
I salute Mack McCahan and congratulate him on 50 years of tremendous
success in both his career and his leadership within the community.
____________________
HONORING THE LOGAN HIGH SCHOOL FORENSICS TEAM AND COACH TOMMIE LINDSEY
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Logan High School
forensics team, and their coach Tommie Lindsey.
Recently, thirteen students from Logan High competed in the National
Forensic League tournament in Atlanta, where five team members went
twelve out of the thirteen rounds. One team member completed all
thirteen rounds, winning the championship, and a $6,000 scholarship.
Logan is one of only five schools that received the School of
Excellence Award--and the only one from California--from a field that
included 1,000 schools.
Coach Tommie Lindsey's successful coaching style was the subject of a
PBS Documentary last year called ``Accidental Hero: Room 408.''
Students are back in Room 408 at Logan, where Lindsey is preparing them
for the coming year in a summer-school program that includes 156 of the
240 students who make up the forensics team. Room 408 is filled with
dozens of certificates of merit and stacked high to the ceiling with
trophies.
Four Logan students have won national forensics championships in the
past 15 years, and 20 other students have reached the semifinal round
of the competition. But those aren't the statistics Lindsey is most
proud of.
This year, 27 or the 28 graduating seniors on the forensic team are
going to four-year colleges and the other one is going to junior
college, according to Lindsey. In a school where, Lindsey said, about
40 percent of the graduates go on to college, the numbers of the
forensics team speaks volumes.
Lindsey has been coaching forensics for 27 years, and at Logan since
1989. He is the director of forensics and a teacher, but to his
students, he is much more. According to them, they benefit from his
coaching and beyond. He advises students on how to perform, how to
maintain their concentration during a performance, how to dress and how
to treat competitors, He also encourages them to volunteer in the
community, such as their recent work with elementary school students.
It is with pride and honor that I commend the Logan High School
Forensics Team and Tommie Lindsey for their community involvement,
their passion to succeed, and continued commitment to excellence.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF MT. VERNON ELKS LODGE 819
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Mt.
Vernon Elks Lodge 819. This year marks their 100th year of service to
the people of Jefferson County. I am very proud of their milestone and
that they are part of the 19th Congressional District, which I serve.
The Elks is a national fraternity involved in a variety of charitable
work involving children and veterans. Members also uphold their long-
standing tradition of patriotism and spirituality. Locally, they
regularly disperse funds to help charitable causes and to provide
scholarships. Several of their activities include assisting crippled
children, volunteering at veteran's hospitals, organizing blood drives,
providing learning opportunities for local students, and supporting the
Jefferson County Sports Authority. The Mt. Vernon Elks have also been
nationally recognized as the finest lodge in America.
I thank them for all the work they do and will continue to do in the
future. Their commitment to their country and to their fellow citizens
is very commendable. The selfless services they provide on a daily
basis are an example for us all to follow. There is no question that
their community, their state, and their country are better because of
them. I wish the lodge the very best as they enter into their next 100
years of service.
____________________
HONORING CARL G. HARTMAN ON HIS RETIREMENT AS THE CLERMONT COUNTY
ENGINEER
______
HON. ROB PORTMAN
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carl G. Hartman who
has served as Clermont County Engineer for the past 11 years and who
retired on May 31, 2003. In his tenure, Carl has excelled as the
Clermont County Engineer, accomplishing much for the county's roadways
and infrastructure.
When Carl was elected as the County Engineer in 1992, Clermont County
was one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio presenting him with a
variety of challenges. Carl faced those challenges and became the
``transportation engineer'' of Clermont County, expanding the role of
county engineer beyond just the maintenance of the bridges and
roadways. He had many accomplishments. He was able to secure funding
and rebuild 75 bridges throughout the county. By working with local
officials, he was able to pinpoint dangerous areas of the roadways and
implement safety measures to secure the safety of travelers. In
addition to his duties as county engineer, in 1996 Carl took on the
role of Sanitary Engineer for the Clermont County Water and Sewer
Department where he was responsible for handling over $5 million of
capital improvement projects. His success is well known, and he has
been honored by many of the industry's leaders for his outstanding work
on the county's roadways and infrastructure.
Carl grew up in Anderson Township and graduated from Anderson High
School in 1956. He continued his education at the University of
Cincinnati's College of Engineering. After receiving his degree, Carl
worked for various engineering companies including Sun Oil Company, and
in 1970 started his own engineering and surveying firm that served the
Greater Cincinnati area. Starting with only two employees, Carl's
successful business grew to 25 employees before he was elected the
Clermont County Engineer.
His service goes beyond his elected office. Carl is an active
volunteer with the local 4-H Club, and helps the local Cub Scouts earn
their Engineering Achievement Awards. He is devoted to his wife,
Barbara, and they have three children and six grandchildren.
All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area congratulate Carl on his
service. We appreciate his outstanding leadership and dedication to the
betterment of Clermont County, and we wish him well in his retirement.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MRS. CHRISTINE REED
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a magnificent
individual and dedicated member of both her community and
[[Page 17220]]
church, Mrs. Christine Reed, affectionately known as `Grahams'. Born in
Summit, New Jersey, Mrs. Reed has been an active member of the Saint
Paul's Calvary United Church of God for over 35 years.
On July 13, 2003, the members of the Saint Paul's Calvary United
Church of God's Usher board will proudly recognize Sister Christine
Reed with the Lifetime Achievement Award.
Throughout her many years of membership, Mrs. Reed partook as a
member of various choirs, the Missionary Department, Sunday School
Teacher and the Usher Board. Mrs. Reed served as the President of the
Usher Board for over 25 years. Also serving as the Vice President for a
time, Mrs. Reed was a dedicated member, a hard and reliable worker,
always willing to teach and lend a helping hand in any possible
capacity.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues here in the U.S. House of
Representatives join me today in saluting Mrs. Christine Reed for her
many years of dedicated service to Saint Paul's Calvary United Church
of God.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF RAYMOND FLOWERS
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mr.
Raymond Flowers of Centralia, IL. Upon his death at the age of 100,
Raymond held the status of oldest retired firefighter in the state of
Illinois.
Towards the end of World War II, the Centralia Fire Department faced
a significant shortage of firefighters. Many of Centralia's men had
enlisted in the military and were serving our country in Europe and the
Pacific. To help alleviate this shortage, Raymond decided to leave his
job as a truck driver and in 1944 became one of many who filled in for
the firefighters who were deployed overseas. He stayed with the Fire
Department for another 20 years, until his retirement in 1964.
Raymond received little formal training or instruction in
firefighting. Instead, he learned on the job, fighting fires with the
members of the east side fire station in Centralia.
The Centralia Fire Department and many of the citizens of Centralia
honored Raymond at his funeral.
Raymond's career as a firefighter is just one example of the
thousands of contributions to our nation made by members of the
``Greatest Generation.'' It is my prayer that all Americans would learn
to make the same selfless sacrifices made by those citizens.
____________________
TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR CONGRESSIONAL HUNGER CENTER TO AWARD BILL
EMERSON AND MICKY LELAND HUNGER FELLOWSHIPS
______
speech of
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, June 6, 2003
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2474. Mickey Leland, our former colleague once said ``I cannot get used
to hunger and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no
reason for it, there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a
nation put an end to it.'' But, according to USDA statistics, there are
33 million children suffering from pangs of hunger and poverty and
nearly 300 million in the world. Hunger is still rampant.
The Congressional Hunger Center founded in 1993, successfully
educates leaders to fight hunger globally. It is through this entity
that the Emerson-Leland Fellowships are administered, and I stand
strongly in support of this legislation.
H.R. 2474 authorizes the use of funds already appropriated for the
Emerson-Leland Hunger fellowships for fiscal year 2003 and 2004.
However, these funds were appropriated in The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002, which created an independent agency in the
legislative branch. The act established an endowment in the Department
of Treasury and a board of trustees to supervise and direct the program
that is not yet operational. This presents a barrier to the foot
soldiers of compassion, who are primed and ready to fight hunger both
here and abroad while fulfilling the vision of Mickey Leland and Bill
Emerson.
Substantial progress has been made to feed the hungry in the United
States and abroad, yet much is still needed, and I am in full support
of equipping the willing in this fight with whatever means are
necessary to do so. This bill allows those funds to be used by the
Congressional Hunger Center for hunger fellowships.
____________________
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
______
speech of
HON. DAVE CAMP
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.
We're hearing a lot about the year 1965 today. Let me remind my
colleagues of some of the other things from that year. Herb Alpert and
Tijuana Brass won a Grammy for `Album of the Year' and Tom Jones earned
one as `Best New Artist'. Sonny and Cher had a hit song in `l Got You
Babe' and `Bonanza' was the top show on television. A postage stamp
cost a nickel and a gallon of regular gasoline was 31 cents. And the
Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a high of 969 points.
We've come a long way since then.
Also in 1965 Medicare, which has provided health care security for
millions of Americans for almost 40 years, was created. When it was
launched, the program was designed to focus on a different set of
needs, needs that did not include prescription drug coverage and
preventive care. It was designed to fit the needs of 1965.
Well my friends this isn't the mid-sixties anymore. Just as a postage
stamp is no longer a nickel, the Medicare program which doesn't provide
a prescription drug benefit doesn't work in today's world.
My friends, times change.
In 2003, we must honor our commitment of health care to seniors by
ensuring that seniors have access and when needed assistance to
prescription drug coverage. Additionally, H.R. 1 allows for other
modernizations by adding an entry physical, cholesterol screening and
offers disease management.
I am pleased that this bill works to address the needs of our rural
communities. Long overlooked, H.R. 1 provides a permanent fix to
formulas that have discriminated against health care providers in mid-
Michigan and other rural areas. This is a policy change that goes to
the heart of the problem and its benefits will be multiplied for years
to come.
This legislation will increase to every small urban and rural
hospital, equalizing their base payment rates with that of large urban
hospitals. Additionally, H.R. 1 adds a five percent bonus for primary
and specialty care physicians working in areas where such care is
scarce; creating a new category of hospitals that are the primary
hospital in the community to receive payments covering costs plus two
percent; allowing rural and small-town hospitals that provide graduate
medical education to receive additional direct medical education and
indirect teaching hospital funds by moving unused residency slots to
these hospitals; and adding a five percent increase for all rural home
health agencies for two years.
Put simply, it is past time to modernize and improve the Medicare
system. H.R. 1 will be able to better serve the needs of seniors. I
urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF EDITH JAMES AND SARAH LOCKHART
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Edith
James and Sarah Lockhart of Mt. Vernon, Illinois. Edith and Sarah
recently led the Jefferson County African-American Heritage Committee's
Research Committee in publishing the booklet, We The People--Past
Present and Future, a look at local African-American history.
I thank and commend them for their tireless work in preserving and
documenting history. Their work will lead to a better understanding of
those who have come before us. It will also
[[Page 17221]]
help to better educate us on one of the most divisive and shameful
periods of American history; slavery and racial discrimination.
Edith and Sarah have spent much of their lives giving back to
Jefferson County. I am honored to take this occasion to recognize them
for their devotion and commitment to their community. We are grateful.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
______
speech of
HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for
the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes:
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the FY 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
The National Security Subcommittee, which I chair, has examined port
security and found the volume of containerized cargo and the openness
of our massive, complex port areas represent inviting vulnerabilities
that must be secured.
Our ports are key commercial entry points, serving as the gateway for
95 percent of international cargo. Each year, nearly 10,000 vessels
make 68,000 port calls and unload more than six million containers in
the United States.
But, according to a GAO report published in August 2002, ``Ports are
inherently vulnerable to terrorist attacks because of their size,
generally open accessibility by water and land, location in
metropolitan areas, the amount of material being transported through
ports, and the ready transportation links to many locations within our
borders.''
H.R. 2555 includes $100 million for Transportation Safety
Administration port security grants and $61.7 million for the Container
Security Initiative, which will help DHS protect what could be one of
our Nation's most vulnerable access points--our ports. It is imperative
that we adequately fund efforts by the Department of Homeland Security
to scale-up port and container security.
I also support the funding in this legislation for State and local
first responders. H.R. 2555 will provide $4.4 billion for the Office of
Domestic Preparedness, which includes $1.9 billion for domestic
preparedness formula grants and $750 million for firefighter grants.
Before September 11, the firefighter grant program was funded at $200
million, but the changes our nation has undergone since that horrific
day have made clear the need for a dramatic increase in funding. This
bill provides that increase.
The bottom line for me is our ports are still vulnerable and our
first responders need strong financial support to protect our Nation.
This bill provides significant assistance in both areas and strengthens
national security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this vital funding
bill.
____________________
MR. JIM WITT
______
HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and praise Jim
Witt of Meridian, Idaho, for his steadfast commitment to safety. Mr.
Witt is a professional truck driver who recently celebrated a
remarkable career achievement: driving 1 million miles without a
preventable accident. That's the equivalent of driving safely around
the world 40 times.
Fatal accidents involving large trucks occur most frequently in rural
areas like those throughout Idaho. On U.S. Highway 95--the major north-
south route through my district--the long and tragic history of traffic
fatalities is a constant reminder of the need to make highway safety
foremost among our public policy considerations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation cites the danger posed by
trucks on our highways as a growing concern for citizens. Professional,
safety-conscious drivers like Mr. Witt provide an important public
service as they navigate our corridors of commerce by helping to
alleviate those concerns and setting an example for everyone who gets
behind the wheel. I hope my House colleagues will join me in
congratulating Mr. Witt and encouraging others to follow his lead in
helping to make our roads safer.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF MAJOR GENERAL DAVID HARRIS
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Major
General David Harris, The Adjutant General of the Illinois National
Guard. Major General Harris will be retiring from his position after
more than thirty-three years of military service.
Maj. General Harris was appointed Adjutant General in 1999. During
his service as leader of the Illinois National Guard, he oversaw its
largest mobilization since World War II. The military operations in
Iraq saw more than 2,600 soldiers and airmen mobilized or alerted for
duty. Mobilizations also took place in large numbers for Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as well.
New military construction projects were also a major part of Harris'
tenure. Working with the Illinois congressional delegation along with
state leaders, funding was secured for new armories and for the upgrade
of existing armories throughout the state.
Major General Harris began his military career in 1970. In 1971 he
successfully completed Infantry Officer Candidate School at Fort
Benning, Georgia. He joined the Illinois Army National Guard in 1979
where he has held numerous positions. During the 1980's he served as a
member of the Illinois House of Representatives representing his home
in the northwest Chicago suburb of Arlington Heights.
I want to thank Major General Harris for his many years of service to
his country and state. He is a man of great ability, but more
importantly a man of integrity who has devoted his life to protecting
the citizens of his country and state. I wish him the best as he enters
retirement. He will be missed.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. ALLAN R. JONES
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
man who devoted his life in service to our nation. Mr. Allan R. Jones
passed away on May 7th, and I am certain he will be missed by all who
knew him.
A graduate of the College of William and Mary, Mr. Jones is a
decorated Korean War veteran. Due to his service with the 45th Division
of the United States Army during the war, he received the Purple Heart
and Silver Star Medal.
Mr. Jones was not only a veteran of the Army, but he was also a noted
journalist for several newspapers. He began his career with the Daily
Times News in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. While there he served as sports
editor, reporter and photographer. He also worked at the Richmond
Times-Dispatch as a reporter who covered Henrico and Chesterfield
counties. As a reporter he covered several important stories involving
state politics and school desegregation.
After working as a journalist, Mr. Jones started a new career on
Capitol Hill as a researcher for the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on
Oceanography and Merchant Marine. After his time with the committee, he
served as a legislative assistant with Senator William Spong. During
his tenure with Senator Spong, Mr. Jones and a colleague earned a
national award from the National Association of Independent Insurers
for research they did on auto insurance in Virginia.
In 1973, he joined the American Trucking Association Legislative
Affairs department. Through his efforts, he helped push legislation
which created the commercial drivers' license, and helped craft the
landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991.
Retiring after twenty years with the ATA, Mr. Jones moved to Florida
and became immediately involved with his community. He served as Vice
President of the Flagella County, Florida Education Foundation, and
served on the Flagella County Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action
Committee.
In honor of his service to the United States during the Korean War,
Mr. Jones was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on June 10''. Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend Allan Jones for all that he has
achieved during his life, both for his country and for the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
[[Page 17222]]
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE CHILDREN'S CREATIVE FESTIVAL
______
HON. GARY G. MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute
to the Children's Creative Festival of Orange County, California and
support their efforts to educate and enlighten the community.
Last month, the Children's Creative Festival wrapped up their
weekend-long street painting festival, Fun with Chalk. Hundreds of
artists from around the world descended on to my district to transform
the streets around the Mission Viejo, California civic center into a
colorful, interactive art gallery.
The art of street painting and the carnival that follows it dates
back to sixteenth century Europe when villagers decorated the
cobblestone paths surrounding their town square to celebrate a harvest
or other important occasion. The Children's Creative Festival continues
this tradition as a way to educate, entertain and inspire young people,
and to foster a small town atmosphere reminiscent of old Europe.
The Children's Creative Festival uses funds raised at this annual
street painting faire to help local schools with art education and
other cultural activities. Last year, more than 79,000 children
benefited from year round programs and classes sponsored by this all-
volunteer organization.
The Children's Creative Festival was also the key sponsor of my 2003
Congressional art competition, which awarded scholarships to five young
artists.
Dr. Frank Lieberman and his wife, Elaine, founded the Children's
Creative Festival five years ago to inspire creativity, teach art
appreciation and provide supplemental funding for quality visual and
performing arts experiences for school children, thus developing
creative and imaginative adults. I believe they have achieved their
stated goals and wish them and their organization continued success in
future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MICHAEL URBAN
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Mr. Michael
Urban, a very special young man who has exemplified the finest
qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in
national government.
Michael is a junior political science major at the University of
Missouri-Columbia and has distinguished himself as an intern in my
Washington office by serving the great people of the 6th District of
Missouri. Michael joined my staff for the 108th congress as part of the
House of Representatives intern program at the United States Capitol in
Washington, D.C., a program designed to involve students in the
legislative process through active participation. Through this program,
Michael has had the opportunity to observe firsthand the inner workings
of national government and has gained valuable insight into the process
by which laws are made.
During his time as an intern in my office, Michael has successfully
demonstrated his abilities in the performance of such duties as
conducting research, helping with constituent services, and assuming
various other responsibilities to make the office run as smoothly as
possible. Michael has earned recognition as a valuable asset to the
entire U.S. House of Representatives and my office through the
application of his knowledge and skills acquired prior to his tenure as
an intern and through a variety of new skills he has acquired while
serving the people of Missouri and our nation. I would also like to
commend his interviewing skills and his solo singing rendition of happy
birthday for other staffers.
Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Mr. Michael
Urban for his many important contributions to the U.S. House of
Representatives during the current session, as well as joining with me
to extend to him our very best wishes for continued success and
happiness in all his future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF BAYAUD INDUSTRIES
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bayaud
Industries, a non-profit corporation that enables disabled individuals
to contribute to their communities by providing them job training and
placement.
Since 1969 Bayaud Industries has provided job training and placement
to thousands of individuals with mental, emotional, and physical
disabilities. Even after placement, Bayaud Industries continues its
support, making sure that each of their clients has a case worker they
can turn to even after they start their first job. Bayuad's mission is
simple--to provide hope, opportunity, and choice by using employment as
a means through which people with disabilities can participate in
mainstream life.
Many working individuals find satisfaction in their jobs because they
feel they have the opportunity to do something useful everyday. Groups
of disabled Americans and advocates for individuals with disabilities
have told me that employment can provide a sense of worth and
accomplishment that many people with disabilities live without. In
addition, they say that disabilities can keep people isolated from
their communities, creating a sense of loneliness and dulling social
skills. Employment can take individuals with disabilities off of the
sidelines, provide them an opportunity to be involved in daily life,
and a chance to interact with members of the community.
Unfortunately, according to the Mental Health Association the
unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities is approximately 75
percent, and for those with psychiatric disabilities it is at almost 80
percent. Some of these statistics can be attributed to those
individuals with such severe disabilities that they are unable to work,
however much of that percentage is made up of individuals with
disabilities who have never had the training or help they need to find
the jobs they can do.
The need for a company like Bayaud Industries is clear. Bayaud
provides an invaluable link between individuals with disabilities and
employment. By being that link they are changing lives on a daily
basis. They make a difference every day by opening doors for members of
America's disabled community that many of them never knew existed
before.
____________________
CITIZENS OF LIBERIA
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, tonight, while the President of the United
States is visiting Senegal and other countries in Africa, 'I rise to
address the House to express my concern for the citizens of Liberia.
Liberia is an African nation that was founded in 1820 by freed Black
slave men and women from the United States. The nation, considered to
be the only U.S. colony in Africa, was founded with a grant of
$100,000. Its capital, Monrovia, is named after the United States fifth
president, James Monroe. By 1847, thousands of freed slaves had
immigrated to Liberia from the United States. They declared
independence and the commonwealth of Liberia became the Republic of
Liberia.
Liberia's recently-deposed president, Charles Taylor, seized power in
1997 after leading a seven year insurrection, which claimed the lives
of thousands of Liberian Africans against his predecessor, Samuel Doe.
Taylor, an accused embezzler and protegee of Libyan dictator, Col.
Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, spread terror throughout Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast
and Guinea. Taylor's human rights abuses include the use of child
soldiers and funding terrorist organizations with money from blood
diamond mines.
On June 4, 2003, the United Nations supported an indictment of
President Taylor by a Special Court in Sierra Leone, at the same time a
group of West African Presidents were meeting with Taylor and others in
Ghana to discuss efforts to negotiate a peace agreement.
During the negotiations, President Taylor [said he would step aside
if it would bring peace to his war torn country]. On Sunday, July 6,
2003, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria announced that Taylor
agreed to leave Liberia under certain conditions and with certain
guarantees. President Obasanjo stated that what was happening in
Liberia could happen anywhere in Africa. Liberia, he said, needed
relief from dictatorship so that the entire region wouldn't be affected
by the errant regime in that nation.
Mr. Speaker, thus far, there has not been a successor named to govern
Liberia. The leaders from the 16 Liberian opposition political parties
in the nation, as well as leaders from religious and women's
organizations, have
[[Page 17223]]
been meeting in Ghana to draw up a peace plan and establish a
transitional government expected to run the country for 18 to 24 months
before new elections can be held.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Britain and
France have asked the United States to lead, at least initially--a
peace-keeping operation designed to separate and disarm the warring
factions and establish an environment where a transitional government
can take control of the country. ECOWAS has pledged 3,000 troops for an
intervention force and is asking the United States to pledge 2,000
troops in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you, and my colleagues support the Liberian
people's struggle to return their country to sane and just rule.
Liberia has been a friend and a supporter of the United States. It was
an ally during the Cold War and a facilitator of covert operations
against Col. Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi during the 1980s. It would be a
betrayal of that long-held trust to turn our backs on the people of
Liberia who have supported us in the past.
Liberia's natural resources are plentiful. The country has iron ore,
rubber, timber, diamonds, gold and tin. In addition, in recent years
that it has discovered sizable deposits of crude oil along its Atlantic
Coast, and it continues to make strides in the agriculture sector. We
need to work with the local communities and provide assistance in the
areas of development, policing, healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, Liberia has the potential of reestablishing a strong
democratic model of liberation and justice for the continent. We must
do whatever we can to assist the Liberians--these proud people of
liberty--rebuild their beautiful country.
____________________
DISEASE PREVENTION IN MEDICARE
______
HON. JIM RAMSTAD
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit into the Record a
letter I have received from seven former Secretaries of the Department
of Health and Human Services and its predecessor, the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. The letter, sent to many Members of
Congress, and especially to the leadership of both bodies, requests
that during our work on Medicare modernization we not forget about the
benefits of disease prevention.
The letter specifically references a report by Partnership For
Prevention, ``A Better Medicare for Healthier Seniors: Recommendations
to Modernize Medicare's Prevention Policies,'' which states that
Medicare should increase its emphasis on keeping seniors healthy, not
just treating them when they become sick, as a roadmap for a
modernizing Medicare's prevention practices.
The Partnership For Prevention (PFP) is a highly respected non-profit
partnership of public and private sector organizations committed to
finding solutions to health issues in a non-partisan and rigorously
scientific manner. The report and other recommendations can be viewed
and downloaded at the PFP Web site, http://www.prevent.org.
I encourage my colleagues to read the attached letter, look at the
Partnership For Prevention report and consider their recommendations in
our further efforts to modernize Medicare.
The Former Secretaries of Health and Human Services and
Health Education and Welfare
June 25, 2003.
Hon. Jim Ramstad,
U.S. Representative, House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
Dear Mr. Ramstad, as former Secretaries of Health and Human
Services (or Health, Education and Welfare), we write to
encourage you to include disease prevention in discussions
about Medicare modernization.
Congress created Medicare In 1965 based on the knowledge of
health and medicine at that time. Thus, Medicare came into
being as a national insurance system to cover hospitalization
and visits to clinicians' offices for diagnoses and
treatment.
In the nearly four decades since Medicare's creation,
considerable research and practice have yielded proven ways
to not just diagnose and treat disease, but to prevent it and
promote longer, healthier life. Today we know that postponing
disability, maintaining social function, and sustaining
independence are achievable for seniors through evidence-
based health promotion and disease prevention services. It is
nearly always preferable, both for the individual and for
society, to prevent disease instead of waiting to treat it.
Congress has added selected preventive services to Medicare
but has not included other services that are proven
effective, nor has it encouraged Medicare to take a
comprehensive approach to disease prevention and health
promotion for America's seniors.
A recent Harris Poll found that nine in ten American adults
want Medicare to be modernized and to put as much emphasis on
disease prevention as it does on disease treatment.
The roadmap for this Medicare modernization is laid out in
a new Partnership for Prevention (Partnership) report, A
Better Medicare for Healthier Seniors: Recommendations to
Modernize Medicare's Prevention Policies, which you already
have received. These recommendations would move the U.S.
toward realization of our nation's two overarching national
health goals: Increasing life expectancy and improving
quality of life, and reducing disparities in health among
different segments of the population.
Respectfully yours,
Joseph A. Calafano, Jr.
Richard S. Schweiker.
Margaret M. Heckler.
David Mathews, MD.
Louis W. Sullivan, MD.
Donna E. Shalala, PhD.
Otis R. Bowen, MD.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RODNEY C. LESTER, PhD, CNRA
______
HON. JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to an outstanding
representative from the State of Texas, Rodney C. Lester, PhD, CRNA.
Dr. Lester will soon complete his year as national president of the
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased
that one of Texas's own was tapped as the 2002-2003 president of this
prestigious national organization.
Founded in 1931, the AANA is the professional organization that
represents more than 30,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists (CRNAs). CRNAs administer more than 65 percent of the
anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They
provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole
anesthesia provider in two-thirds of all rural hospitals, providing
these medical facilities with obstetrical, surgical, and trauma
stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which
anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical
delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of
dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons.
Dr. Lester received his PhD in health education from Texas A&M
University in College Station, Texas; his master's of science in
nursing from the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee; and his
master's in business administration from Drury College Breech School of
Business, Springfield, Missouri. He is currently the Nurse Anesthesia
Division director and associate professor of clinical nursing at the
University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, School of Nursing.
He also serves as a member on the Admissions, Progression and
Graduation Committee at the school. Previously, he was the director for
the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of
Anesthesiology and Critical Care in Houston, Texas.
Dr. Lester has served terms as president and vice president for the
Texas Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Adding to his professional
accomplishments, Dr. Lester has become nationally recognized in both
publishing and speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years.
In addition to his service to the AANA, Dr. Lester served his country
in the United States Army as an officer and certified registered nurse
anesthetist. He recently retired from the Army after 5 years active
duty and 24 years as a reservist.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dr.
Rodney Lester, PhD, CRNA, for his notable career and outstanding
achievements.
____________________
H. CON. RES. 210 HONORING SPECIALIST SHOSHANA JOHNSON FORMER IRAQ POW
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am announcing the introduction of H. Con.
Res. 210 honoring Army Spc. Shoshana Nyree Johnson, former POW in Iraq,
and the first African-American woman POW.
Specialist Johnson was deployed to the Persian Gulf region as a
member of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company. On March 23,
[[Page 17224]]
2003, Iraqi Troops ambushed her unit in Nsiriyah, Iraq, and Specialist
Johnson and five other members of her unit were captured and held as
prisoners of war. Specialist Johnson, four other members of her unit,
and two helicopter pilots were rescued by United States Marines on
April 13, 2003.
Specialist Johnson, who suffered gunshot wounds in both ankles,
displayed extraordinary courage and valor during her 21-day ordeal, and
outstanding dignity since her release.
She was honored on Capitol Hill on June 12, 2003, at an event hosted
by the Congressional Black Caucus. Specialist Johnson described her
experience as ``just doing her job,'' and asked for prayers for those
still fighting in Iraq. She also remembered fellow POW Private First
Class Jessica Lynch, a member of her unit who was also captured and
released. The humility of her remarks reflected the hero that she is.
H. Con. Res. 210 honors Specialist Shoshana Johnson for her sacrifice
and for representing the highest ideals of service in the United States
Armed Forces. To cosponsor this Resolution, please call Jean Mathis of
my staff on extension 54365.
____________________
NORTON FILES BILL TO AUTHORIZE ANNUAL FUNDING FOR TRANSFORMATION
SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today introduced
the Model Alternative Publicly Accountable Schools Act of
2003 to allow the District to use its unique experience in
establishing an unusual number and variety of successful
publicly accountable alternatives to its traditional public
schools in an effort to encourage other school districts to
do the same and to provide additional funding to allow the
city to continue these efforts, which are now threatened by
cuts and a shortage of funds. Norton said that nationally,
the Congress has been unwilling to fund private school
vouchers and has had very limited success in getting school
districts to establish public alternatives such as charter
schools. (For example, Virginia has eight charters and
Maryland has one, while the District has 42). Locally, she
said that H.R. 2556--the D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act
of 2003--would authorize private school vouchers but without
her bill there would be no bill authorizing funds for the
city's transformation and charter schools that would treat
these parents and children equally, as even voucher advocates
say is necessary. In addition, Norton said, in a year when
both D.C. and the federal government have cut school funding,
her bill providing funds for publicly accountable schools
would free up scarce D.C. funds for use in traditional public
schools. The D.C. Public Schools last week cut 422 positions
to help meet a $40.4 million shortfall, including $6.5
million in funds for textbooks. However, the voucher bill
will result in a minimum loss of $25,114,000 if 2,000
students exit the public schools altogether next year because
D.C. and federal law require that schools be funded on a per
pupil basis.
The Norton bill would authorize a total of $15 million for
the first of five years of funding. In the FY 04 budget, $12
million would fund and expand transformation schools based on
a congressional finding that the District has significantly
improved the performance of its poorest and lowest performing
children in transformation schools. She said that the
improvements in test scores and parental involvement were
directly related to extra services provided only to
transformation school children and parents. These
improvements for they city's low-income children cannot be
expected to continue if these services are withdrawn, as cuts
now are forcing, she said.
A total of $3 million in FY '04 would fund public charter
schools in recognition of heightened demand, long waiting
lists, and unavailability of funds for facilities to meet a
demand the city has shown it cannot meet. Norton said that a
particularly large number of schools had applied for charter
school status for the coming school year and that the $3
million was important to expand the direct loan fund to
assure that start-up charter schools would have the necessary
head start to lease facilities in D.C.'s costly rental
market. In the remaining four years of the Norton bill,
allocation of funds between charter and transformation
schools would be done by the City Council after hearings
based on the demonstrated needs and gaps in both.
The Congresswoman said that sporadic and ad hoc funding for
charter schools from Congress demonstrate the necessity for a
specific authorization. Last year, the House did not fund
charter schools at all, but working with the Senate, Norton
got $17 million for charters to help ease facilities
pressures. ``This was done without slogans about funding
multiple sectors,'' she said, ``and funds may come on an
episodic basis again. However, no one should mistake any
funds we may get without an authorization this year or in the
future, for the authorized amount for vouchers that is
designed to guarantee an annual appropriation. Only a
comparable authorization can do for charter schools and
transformation schools what H.R. 2556 does in authorizing a
specific amount for private school vouchers.''
Norton said that the voucher intervention by federal
authorities ``has been a distraction from the expressed
desires and needs of the majority of the city's parents and
children and has done a disservice to the District's
leadership role in carrying out two congressional
statutes''--the charter school provision of the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994, which Funded charter schools
nationally, and Section 1115 of the No Child Left Behind Act,
which encourages schools such as D.C.'s transformation
schools. Norton is also one of the authors of the District of
Columbia School Reform Act of 1995. written on a home rule
basis with D.C. officials and residents.
Norton said that her bill is also necessary because the
President's visit last week shows that his administration
intends no extra funds for charter schools, because he spoke
only of funds that are available to all charter schools
nationally, despite demand here that far outstrips the
available funds and despite D.C.'s record of establishing
charter schools in particularly significant numbers, as
Congress intended. She said without explicit authorization,
charter and transformation schools would be left to the mercy
of appropriation committees, which are free to fund whatever
programs they desire while vouchers would be authorized for
finds on an annual basis.
____________________
AFRICA
______
HON. DIANE E. WATSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Elijah Cummings, Chairman of
the Congressional Black Caucus, for once again holding this very timely
and important discussion on Africa.
For the next week Africa will be page one news due to the President's
trip to the continent. Then, once again, news on Africa will most
likely recede to the back pages of our major newspapers and disappear.
However, what many Americans don't realize is the increasing importance
of Africa to the world and the United States.
Americans now import more than one quarter of their oil from the
African continent. In the coming years, due to new major oil
discoveries in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa the
percentage of African oil Americans consume will most likely rise. It
will rise because there are quantities of untapped oil reserves on the
continent, and it will rise because the U.S. realizes that oil from the
Middle East can easily fall prey to the vagaries of war and politics.
Africa is so important to us, in part, because it is a continent rich
in natural resources. Copper, diamonds, gold, and wood are all in
abundance throughout the continent. The Congo River itself has enough
potential hydroelectric power to supply the electrical needs of the
whole continent. And the continent still has abundant rain forests,
which have been described as the lungs of the world.
We as legislators can no longer afford to ignore Africa or view it
solely through the lens of disaster and peril. Yes, we cannot deny that
there are serious health problems in Africa with HIV/AIDS and malaria
leading the list. There is crushing poverty throughout the continent.
Africans living on less than a dollar a day now number over 315
million, according to a recent World Bank survey. Serious conflicts in
the Congo--where not thousands but millions have perished--and West
Africa still plague the continent and put a serious drag on the
development of human resources and capital.
We cannot afford to ignore Africa because people are beginning to
realize that failed states and crushing poverty are fertile breeding
grounds for terrorist and criminal groups. We cannot afford to ignore
Africa because the world is smaller and more interconnected. From the
war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign
against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade
and investment, Africa is a key global player. We cannot afford to
ignore Africa because we now ignore it at our own peril.
Africa matters in many ways. Not all the news coming out of Africa is
gloomy. Trade and investments with Africa are growing. U.S.
[[Page 17225]]
exports totaled over $5.8 billion last year, while U.S. imports were
$18 billion. Nigeria alone is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the
U.S. Despite appearances, Africa is more peaceful today than in the
1980s and 1990s. Democracy is also taking root in many parts of Africa.
But Africa needs increased resources to deal with the multitude of
problems. U.S. assistance to Africa has been stagnant for many years,
and real development assistance to the continent is less than $500
million. Although total U.S. assistance to Africa may total about $2
billion, a large chunk of this is for humanitarian and health related
programs. Many programs--including in the areas of agriculture,
democracy, conflict resolution, trade and investment--have suffered
from significant cutbacks. In short, Africa needs increased assistance
if it is truly to be brought into the mainstream world economy.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been a staunch advocate and played
a pivotal role in strengthening the cultural, political and economic
ties between Africa and the United States. I am therefore concerned,
but not surprised, that President Bush did not seek out the guidance
and assistance of the CBC before making his sojourn to Africa. This is
not surprising because, as our chairman recently noted, ``The President
has declined all of our offers to meet with him since our last
discussion of January 31, 2001.''
In closing, I want to make a few remarks on the President's proposal
to send in U.S. peacekeepers to Liberia. First, I recognize the
longstanding historical ties between the U.S. and Liberia. I don't
believe it will be as difficult to win the hearts and minds of
Liberians who are predisposed to look upon the U.S. with favor. I
generally support the concept of a peacekeeping mission to Liberia.
However, I believe that a U.S.-led peacekeeping mission should be
placed under the auspices of the United Nations. The United States by
itself cannot be the policeman of the world, and our forces are already
spread thin by our other significant commitments around the world. Any
U.S. actions in Liberia will have greater credibility if they have the
seal of approval of an international body.
We must also think through very carefully our commitment to place
U.S. forces in Liberia. We must have a mission that is clearly defined,
and we must have an exit plan that is articulated and understood by the
American public. I also believe that any plan to introduce U.S. forces
in Liberia should be subjected to serious congressional oversight and
approval.
The Devil is in the details. The administration must first clearly
articulate its methods and goals before any U.S. troops are put on the
ground.
____________________
RECOGNIZING CHARLES REESE, DISTRICT GOVERNOR OF DISTRICT 5670 OF ROTARY
INTERNATIONAL
______
HON. JERRY MORAN
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Kansan
devoted to his community and to the State of Kansas. Mr. Charles Reese,
a Rotarian since 1975, will be installed as the District Governor of
District 5670 of Rotary International on Friday, July 11.
I am personally proud of Mr. Reese, who resides in my hometown of
Hays, Kansas. District 5670 encompasses Hays and all of northwest
Kansas. As District Governor, Mr. Reese will lead 31 Rotary clubs with
1200 members in a 38-county region.
Reese's dedication to his community is well known. Mr. Reese served
the Hays community as a board member of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce
and Industry and as chairman of the board of the Kansas PRIDE program.
Last year, Charles retired as Vice President of Corporate Relations for
Midwest Energy, an electric and natural gas utility based in Hays.
Mr. Reese's commitment to community service is an example of
tremendous leadership. He served as President of the Heartland of
Development Corporation and is currently serving as interim director of
the Ellis County Coalition for Economic Development. Mr. Reese and his
wife, Louise, have also traveled to Panama with the Rotary District
HungerPlus service teams. For his volunteer work in economic
development, Charles received the 2002 Volunteer of the Year award from
the Kansas Economic Development Association.
Not least of all, Charles and Louise are the proud parents of three
grown daughters and grandparents of three grandsons. The family will
celebrate Charles' formal installation as District Governor at a
banquet Friday evening, July 11, in Hays.
Charles Reese is a role model for service to others. His devotion to
his community, and to Rotary International, reflects his strong
character and sense of duty to community, state, and nation.