Calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 378) calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Vietnam likes to say that Vietnam is a country, not a war. It is a catchy little self-evident phrase that some Members of Congress picked up during the bilateral trade agreement debate, as if to suggest that the debate was somehow about the Vietnam War, which it was not, instead of Vietnam's shameful present-day human rights record, which it was.

Of course Vietnam is a country, to which I respond: behave like an honorable country. Live up to their word as a signatory to numerous human rights covenants, including the international covenant on political and civil rights. Stop bringing dishonor and shame to their government by abusing their own people.

Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State Department report, the ``Report on Human Rights Practices for 2003'': ``The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Rather than repress and jail, harass, intimidate, and torture, the government should recognize and reflect the innate goodness of the Vietnamese people, a kind, gentle, compassionate people who deserve better, much better.

Take the case of Father Ly. In February 2001, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly submitted written testimony to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for a hearing at which he was invited to testify. He was not able to testify in person, but submitted written testimony which I will include in its entirety in the Record.

Because this brave Catholic priest told the truth, spoke the truth to power, the Government of Vietnam persecuted and cruelly mistreated him;

and he is now serving a 10-year prison sentence, and he has been in prison for 3 of those years. Amnesty International calls Father Ly a prisoner of conscience, and even the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has condemned his detention.

I think it is worth focusing just for a moment on his testimony, which was incisive and compelling; and I quote it in part: ``Since their victory of April 30, 1975,'' Father Ly wrote, ``the Vietnamese Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the different religions of South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a church choir, or join a seminary. They have been banished to concentration camps for years. This policy has been ongoing,'' he writes, ``for nearly 50 years.

``The government has used many ruses,'' he continues to write, ``to divide and politicize the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the Buddhist Church in two, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam; and to set up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives, which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim leadership over 5 million Hoa Hao Buddhists. The government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous facilities and properties belonging to different Churches.''

Father Ly continues to write: ``With regard to the Catholic Church, the Communists have severely restricted her fundamental rights,'' and he points out and lays out some 10 different instances, including the fact that the government still keeps many priests, clergy members, and lay people in prison or under house arrest.

Father Ly continues to say: ``Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their nonviolent and persistent campaign will continue until the Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone else in the civilized world has.''

This campaign has, as he points out, the following objectives. This is number one. This is Father Ly's testimony:

``Number one: the government must fully respect the right of all citizens to true religious freedom and the right of churches to select, train and appoint their own priests, clergy members and dignitaries. The government must stop its practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on their identity cards and personal documents so that no citizen be discriminated against and be able to freely practice his or her faith.

``Number two,'' Father Ly writes: ``The government must return all facilities and properties it has confiscated or requisitioned from the churches, even when the documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if local people can confirm the rightful ownership of these facilities.

``Number three: the government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in church affairs must cease. Committees created by the government but dressed up as religious institutions in order to serve the government's anti- religion policy must be disbanded.

``Number four: the government must unconditionally release all clergy members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the churches and lay people who are currently in prison or under administrative detention because of their faith.

``Number five: the government must fully respect every and each article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a signatory on September 24, 1982.''

Finally, Father Ly writes, ``However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above,'' he goes on to say, ``by trading with Vietnam the U.S. and other countries only strengthen the Communists' grips on power.''

Again, I would like his full statement read by Members, because it is a very strong and compelling bit of testimony.

These are the words of Father Ly. He is now in prison 3 years of a 10-year prison term.

The resolution we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, has over 100 cosponsors and I believe, we believe, will send a strong message to the leaders of Hanoi to free Father Ly and that the ongoing systematic abuses of human rights must cease and that they will not be tolerated.

H. Con. Res. 378 also condemns, and this amendment we are offering with the language today, the brutal crackdown against the Montagnard. Largely ignored by the American press, Vietnam crushed thousands of Montagnard in the Central Highlands on April 10 and 11. In classic dictatorship style and brutality, many Montagnard, who were protesting the confiscation of tribal lands and ongoing restrictions on religious activities, were beaten and there are reports that some were killed. This comes on the heels of another brutal crackdown against the Montagnard in December of 2001 that has resulted in the closing of over 400 churches.

I would just point out to my colleagues that there are also attempts to coerce people to renounce their faith, renunciation of faith. According to Ambassador John Hanford, our Ambassador At Large For Religious Freedom, there are approximately 100,000 Montagnards who were pressured to renounce their faith. I am happy to say that most resisted, but 100,000 within the last few months and years have been pressured to say ``no'' to their faith in Christ.

H. Con. Res. 378 also urges the government of Vietnam to allow unfettered access to the Central Highlands, where all of this is going on, by foreign diplomats, the international press and nongovernmental organizations, and condemns the extent of the violence used against, as I said, the Montagnard protestors.

Mr. Speaker, finally, human rights have gotten worse, not better, since the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam of 2001. We must not remain silent while the government of Vietnam continues to persecute religious and political dissidents and ethnic minorities. As a matter of fact, I believe strongly that Vietnam should be branded a Country of Particular Concern, a CPC country, pursuant to the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act.

We care deeply, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We care deeply about the people of Vietnam and respect and honor their legitimate aspirations to be free. Why does not Hanoi?

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the written testimony of Reverend Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly before the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Testimony of Rev. Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be perhaps the

first Vietnamese Roman Catholic priest living under a

communist regime to testify before your Commission at a

location that represents the ideals of democracy. I would

like to send my greetings of the New Millennium to you and to

the people of the United States.

In the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence

of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945,

Ho Chi Minh tried to win your nation's support by solemnly

quoting the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence

of the United States: ``All men are created equal. They are

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,

that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness.''

In less than 250 years since her independence, your country

has become the shining example of freedom and independence--

anyone who wants to know what freedom and independence are

only needs to visit your country and her people.

As an eyewitness living in Communist Vietnam for more than

25 years, I would like to boldly and frankly present my ideas

on three issues as your invitation letter has suggested.

i. the realities of the religions in vietnam in the new millennium

In order to achieve independence, liberty and happiness for

the Vietnamese people, Ho Chi Minh chose Communism. This is a

fundamental contradiction because Communism calls for a

dictatorial regime that does not tolerate the concept of true

liberty. Freedom of religion will be absent for as long as

the Vietnamese government hangs on to its Communist ideology.

Since their victory of April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese

Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the

different religions

to South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to

confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The

government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people

as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its

oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a

church choir, or join a seminary. They are banished to

concentration camps for years. This policy has been on-going

for nearly 50 years (from 1954 to 2001).

The government has used many ruses to divide and politicize

the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the

Buddhist Church in two--the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam

(UBCV) and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam (BCV); and to set

up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives,

which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim

leadership over five million Hoa Hoa Buddhists. The

government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous

facilities and properties belonging to the different

Churches.

With regard to the Catholic Church, the communists have

severely restricted her fundamental rights. The many

petitions issued by the Catholic Bishops Conference of

Vietnam (CBCV) since 1980 have unmasked the Government's

policy. This I have analyzed in my Ten-Point Proclamation

released on November 24, 1994 and the follow-up proclamation

dated November 24, 2000, which I have sent to your

Commission. Following is the summary of the points made in

those two statements.

1. The Vietnamese Communists have brutally interfered with

CBCV's authority to organize its annual Pastoral Assembly:

the Bishops must apply for permission to organize and the

Assembly's agenda must be pre-examined by the Government.

After the Assembly, the minutes must be submitted to the

Government. All reports from the Assembly must be vetted by

the Government before they can be released to the Catholic

community and the public.

2. The Vietnamese communists have brutally interfered with

CBCV's authority to appoint bishops and ordain of priests.

The Holy See had to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government

for years on each bishop appointment. The Government often

rejects candidates selected by the Church and only accepts

those they are pleased with. The Government counts on The

Vatican having to yield eventually so as to prevent excessive

harm to dioceses facing extended absence of a bishop. The

dioceses of Hung Hoa, Hai Phong, and Bui Chu . . . have not

had a bishop for more than eight years and The Vatican is not

allowed to appoint any.

Anyone intending to join a seminary of any candidate for

priesthood elected by the Church must have the approval of

and their background examined by the Public Security Police.

These candidates must prove their docility and show no sign

of resisting the regime. The police give special preference

to those agreeing to serve as informants for the Government

within the seminary. An applicant's chance would increase if

he can afford to bribe the authorities. Applicants having

family members who worked for defunct Republic of Vietnam or

holding nonconformist views stand no chance of being approved

for admission into a seminary or priesthood regardless of

their qualifications and moral virtues and regardless of the

Church's support. I know many young men who have repeatedly

passed the Church-administered entrance exam with top scores

but have not been approved for admission into any seminary.

Any bishop intending to ordain a seminarian into priesthood

or to assign a priest to a mission must ask for permission

and negotiate with the Government in a protracted process,

which in some cases has taken nearly 20 years without

results. The approval criteria imposed by the Government has

nothing to do with the moral quality that the Church requires

of candidates for priesthood. As a result, the number of

newly ordained priests has drastically decreased and is

currently insufficient to meet the Church's pastoral needs.

Aging priests die or retire without successors. Many priests

in rural regions have to minister more than ten parishes, all

distant from each other. There is hardly normal religious

life in these parishes. It is very difficult for priests to

change their residence for new assignments.

3. Groups of faithful in new economic zones or in remote

areas are anxious to have mass for Christmas and Easter each

year but their most basic spiritual need is rarely met. The

atheist Government wants these people not to think of

religion, which it considers harmful and dangerous.

4. A Mass that brings together the faithful from different

places and priests desiring to say mass in places other than

their usual assigned location must have prior government

permission.

5. The Government still keeps many priests, clergy members,

and lay people in prison or under house arrest. (Committee

for Religious Freedom in Vietnam has made this list available

to your Commission.)

6. The Government brutally violates the Church's freedom of

the press. No local or national publication of the Church is

allowed. As a result, The Church cannot fulfill

its evangelical duties. Before 1975, there were more than

a dozen Catholic newspapers and magazines in South

Vietnam. Today there are only two weekly magazines, Cong

Giao & Dan Toc (The Catholics & The People) and Nguoi Cong

Giao Viet Nam (The Vietnamese Catholics), which are

created and financed by the Government. CBCV's only

publication is the newsletter Ban Tin Hiep Thong (The

Communion News), of which the first six issues were

``illegal.'' The Government gave the Church temporary

permission to publish issues 7-9 from February to

September 2000. In October 2000, the government rescinded

its permission and discontinued this only publication of

The Church. There is no freedom of speech in my country.

Churches of course have none. This kind of statement that

I am presenting to you cannot be circulated in Vietnam

because no photocopying store or printing shop would dare

to reproduce it. Nobody dares to keep it, fearing for his

own life and the safety of his family. Those who dare must

be prepared for martyrdom. In fact, on February 7 the

public security police searched two of my assistants and

found a floppy disk containing a draft of this statement.

These two brave young men were detained overnight at the

police station for extensive questioning.

7. The Government forces all students from all grades and

in college to study and love Socialism while in fact nobody

likes to teach or study it. Only the three million communist

party members and the five million members of the Communist

League of Youth should study this ideology if they still

believe in it. Forcing the entire Vietnamese nation to study

a bankrupt ideology that has caused them so much suffering is

outright unconscionable.

8. The Communist Government has, since 1954 in North

Vietnam and since 1975 in South Vietnam, seized or

requisitioned thousands upon thousands of Church facilities

used for education, charity, and medical service.

Consequently the Church has no means to train seminarians,

providing education and human services to the poor, the sick,

the handicapped and the orphans, and it is extremely

difficult for Church members to deliver service in a

government facility. For example, the Pius X Papal Institute

in Da Lat, run by the Jesuits, had been an outstanding

college for priesthood formation until its confiscation in

1976 by the Government, which turned it into a training

school for Communist cadres. The Hoan Thien Minor Seminary at

11 Dong Da, Hue, offering high school-level training to

seminarians, was taken by force by the Government in December

1979; all three priests teaching at the seminary and more

than 80 seminarians were evicted. These are but a few

examples.

Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese

Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in

Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their

non-violent and persistent campaign will continue until the

Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone

else in the civilized world has. This campaign has the

following objectives.

1. The Government must fully respect the right of all

citizens to true religious freedom and the right of Churches

to select, train, and appoint their own priests, clergy

members and dignitaries. The Government must stop its

practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on

their identity cards and personal documents so that no

citizen will be discriminated against and be able to freely

practice his or her faith.

2. The Government must return all facilities and properties

it has confiscated or requisitioned from the Churches, even

when documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if

local people can confirm the rightful owner of these

facilities and properties.

3. The Government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has

used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in

Church affairs must cease. Committees created by the

government but dressed up as religious institutions in order

to serve the Government's antireligion policy must be

disbanded.

4. The Government must unconditionally release all clergy

members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the Churches

and lay people who are currently in prison or under

administrative detention because of their faith.

5. The Government must fully respect every and each article

of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a

signatory on September 24, 1982.

ii. effects of the bilateral trade agreement on human rights and

religious freedom in vietnam

I am only a priest, not a specialist in economics and

politics. I speak as a Vietnamese citizen with a deep love

for my country and my people.

Vietnam needs the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) for her

economic development. In principle I dearly want my country

to have the trust of other countries, among them the United

States, so that my country may achieve prosperity and my

people may have a better life and fully realize their

potentials.

However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep

their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the

fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above,

by trading with Vietnam the United States and other countries

would only strengthen the Communists' grips on power; the BTA

may end up benefiting only the governing minority while

prolonging the suffering of the entire people; the vast

majority of the common people like us may at best receive

small crumbs trickling down from the top but in return must

endure our fate of the exploited and disenfranchised for so

much longer.

In regard to the ratification of the BTA, I urgently warn

the US Congress not to trust

the Vietnamese Communists' promise of good faith. The United

States and many other countries have had bitter experiences

dealing with their broken promises in the past.

The Vietnamese Communists have signed many international

accords and agreements on human rights but have never

intended to respect them. Their intention is to deceive the

international community. For example, Vietnam became

signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights in 1982 but does not abide by Articles 18

and 19 of this covenant which call for the respect for the

freedoms of thought, speech, and religion. If international

human rights institutions allow themselves to fall victim to

such deception, they will contribute to the following dire

consequences: (1) the Vietnamese Government will exploit

their signing the document to falsely claim that there are

human rights in Vietnam; (2) these international

institutions will lose their credibility as they prove to

be so easily deceived; and (3) these institutions

unknowingly prolong the Communist oppression of the

Vietnamese people--this in fact constitutes a major crime

against my people.

Therefore, if the United States and other countries truly

sympathize with my ill-fated people and truly care about

human rights, especially the right to religious freedom, of

the Vietnamese people, you must not help the Communist

Government prolong its totalitarian rule. Instead, the United

States and other countries should suspend all agreements

harmful to the Vietnamese people and do everything in your

capacity to put pressure on the Vietnamese Government to

allow freedom and democracy to dawn on our country.

iii. what can be done to help improve freedom of religion in Vietnam in

the near term, and in the long term?

The Vietnamese Communists have idolized Ho Chi Minh,

turning him into a ``god'' and creating a new religion

revolving around him. The Communist Government wants to

suppress all other religions and replace them with this new

religion in order to unify the Vietnamese people behind it.

In fact, Ho Chi Minh had made significant contributions to

our national struggle for independence but at the same time

had committed serious crimes against the Vietnamese people.

One basic endeavor that the international community needs to

undertake is to unravel the harmful myths woven by the

Communists around this historical figure.

In the short term, the United States and other countries

should help the Churches in Vietnam achieve greater

independence from the government, should show by example how

freedom of religion is respected in the free world, and

should expose the oppression that the Vietnamese Government

has imposed on the Churches. At first, the Vietnamese

Communists may feel that such independence would clash with

its totalitarian power but with time it may realize that the

power to control and interfere with Church affairs, such as

the appointment of priests, should have never been theirs to

start with.

The Vietnamese people will not enjoy religious freedom for

as long as the Communist regime remains in place. Therefore

if the United States and other countries truly desire to see

the return of religious freedom to the Vietnamese people,

they will need to create favorable conditions for the early

demise of the Communist regime.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is a precious opportunity to speak on behalf of my

people, of the different Churches, and of the Catholic Church

in particular. I would like to extend my gratitude to you, to

the U.S. Congress, and the American people, including some

two million Vietnamese-Americans, for having given me such an

opportunity.

May God bless you, your families, your colleagues, the

American people, and your beautiful country. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and I thank him for his support on human rights in general and human rights in Vietnam in particular.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to improve the system. It does nothing to deal with the insurance rates and the increases in premiums, but it does deny victims compensation when they are victims of malpractice. I think it may be helpful to go a little section by section to see what is actually in the bill to see how it actually does what some of the people are talking about.

Section 3, for example, is entitled ``Encouraging Speedy Resolution of Claims.'' Mr. Speaker, injured parties do not need encouragement to get a speedy resolution of the claim. This section only invalidates bona fide claims that are filed after a set deadline. It also creates a confusing matrix because some State deadlines are preempted. Others are not. And so you have that confusing matrix of deadlines and may even miss the deadline by mistake.

Section 4 is called ``Compensating Patient Injury.'' Actually, that is the section which limits compensation to innocent victims. It also has what is called the ``fair share rule.'' I think most States, but at least Virginia and many States, allow a victim to collect all of the damages from one defendant. That defendant can then seek contribution from others involved. In practice, that contribution is worked out in advance by who pays for what insurance.

This so-called fair share requires the victim not only to prove a separate case against each and every defendant who may be involved but it also requires the plaintiff to decide and prove what percentage each one owes. Often the plaintiff does not know what happened. All they know is they are a victim of malpractice. This provision will require the plaintiff to have a separate case and pay for the expenses of separate cases against each and every person. Otherwise they may be afflicted with the ``empty chair defense'' where everybody in the courtroom starts pointing to an empty chair and says somebody else had 10 percent or 20 percent.

Section 5 is ``Maximizing Patient Recovery.'' Actually, that is a provision that limits attorneys' fees making it likely that a plaintiff will not even be able to hire a lawyer. You do not hear any victims groups clamoring for limitation on attorneys' fees. The defendants are not affected by the plaintiff attorneys' fees. They do not pay the plaintiff attorneys' fees. If the award is $100,000 and the plaintiff's attorney charges 50 percent, the defendant pays $100,000. If the lawyer charges 25 percent, still $100,000. If the lawyer does not charge anything at all, just the same, $100,000. The only way that this will help malpractice premiums is if the plaintiff cannot bring the bona fide case at all, cannot bring the case because they cannot hire a lawyer with the fees. That is not fair. It is even more likely when you have this fair share thing where the lawyer has to have five and six cases in the same case.

There is another provision called ``Additional Health Benefits.'' That is a provision that says if the victim has health insurance, the benefit of that health insurance goes to the one who committed the malpractice. In Virginia and many other States, if you have health insurance, you benefit. In other States, the health insurance company can get its money back after the case is settled because the malpractice recovery will pay the health expenses. Presumably under that case, the premiums will be lower. But in this bill, the benefit goes to the one who committed the malpractice. This bill is so bizarre that if you are working for a self-insured employer who is obligated to pay the health expenses of an employee and that employee is a victim of malpractice and runs up a $50,000 hospital bill, the business has to pay that $50,000 bill even though the one committing the malpractice is fully insured and could have paid. I cannot

wait for some small businesses to come to us and ask why they had to pay the bill as a result of malpractice.

Mr. Speaker, there is another provision under ``Punitive Damages.'' This bill provides that if a jury finds by the preponderance of the evidence that the doctor acted with malicious intent to intentionally injure a patient, not just recklessly negligent, acted with malicious intent to injure, that is not enough under the bill, because the evidence does not have to be just by the preponderance of the evidence; it has to be by clear and convincing evidence.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not help injured victims of malpractice, and it is unlikely to reduce premiums. A chart of States in order of the costs of malpractice premiums shows some States at the top with caps, some with caps at the bottom, some with caps in the middle. There is no pattern to the chart. They are all over the place. The caps apparently did not make any difference at all.

We have heard a lot about the doctor shortage. This is not limited to doctors. This tort reform bill affects the health care provider, a health care organization, an HMO, manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, a seller of a medical product regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is based. This does not help victims. It probably will not even reduce premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would defeat the bill so that it will not be enacted. That has been the judgment of the United States Congress for the last 14 months. I hope it is still the judgment of the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will enter into the Record an article from the Morning Call newspaper in Pennsylvania, and I will just read the first sentence. April 23, 2004, ``The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical Society acknowledged Thursday to State lawmakers that the doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its 3-year claim that doctors are leaving the State in large numbers.''

The whole article will be introduced.

I have the GAO study that was cited June, 2003; and let me just read a couple of points out of it:

``Multiple factors have contributed to the recent increases in medical malpractice premiums in seven States we analyzed. First, since 1998 insurers' losses on medical malpractice claims have increased rapidly in some States,'' and they ``found that the increased losses appeared to be the greatest contributor to increased premium rates, but a lack of comprehensive data at the national and State levels on insurers' medical malpractice claims and the associated losses prevented us from fully analyzing the composition and causes of those losses.

``Second, from 1998 through 2001, medical malpractice insurers experienced decreases in their investment income as interest rates fell on the bonds that generally make up around 80 percent of these insurers' investment portfolios.

`` . . . a decrease in investment income meant that income from insurance premiums had to cover a larger share of insurers' costs. Third, during the 1990s, insurers competed vigorously for medical malpractice business, and several factors, including high investment returns, permitted them to offer prices that in hindsight, for some insurers, did not completely cover their ultimate losses on that business. As a result of this, some companies became insolvent or voluntarily left the market, reducing the downward competitive pressure on premium rates that had existed through the 1990s.''

I say that to say that there are a number of factors that have caused the premiums to go up that have nothing to do with the medical malpractice situation or the laws in medical malpractice and that this bill may or may not have anything to do with future premiums.

[From the Morning Call, April 23, 2004]

Doctors Can't Prove Thinning Ranks

(By John M.R. Bull)

Harrisburg.--The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical

Society acknowledged Thursday to state lawmakers that the

doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its

three-year claim that doctors are leaving the state in large

numbers.

``Some data sources show an 800-doctor gain,'' internist

Daniel Glunk of Williamsport testified before the House

Insurance Committee. ``The problem is no one has definitive

numbers . . . and that there is conflicting data.''

That number includes 1,000 medical residents. If those

aren't counted, he said, there would be a net loss of 200

doctors out of 35,500 since 2002.

``How can the medical society, if you can't agree on the

numbers, continue to tout that doctors are leaving'' said

Rep. Thomas Tangretti, D-Westmoreland, his voice rising in

apparent anger. ``You've run ads saying will the last doctor

please turn off the X-ray machine.''

``You've been frightening people, particularly senior

citizens, and now we find it was all probably wrong-headed

and disingenuous,'' Tangretti said, getting louder. ``Before

you continue to frighten people about access to health care,

you better get your numbers right. It's an outrage.''

Other lawmakers voiced irritation at his testimony,

delivered four days after The Morning Call published new and

previously undisclosed figures--some of them from the medical

society itself--that make clear doctors are not leaving in

large numbers.

For three years, the doctors lobby has insisted that

doctors, particularly specialists who perform high-risk

procedures, are leaving the state in droves, putting patient

care in jeopardy.

Among other tactics, the medical society has promoted a

list of 1,700 ``disappearing doctors'' as proof there are

fewer physicians in Pennsylvania.

The Morning Call revealed Sunday that new state Insurance

Department numbers show doctors have not left the state in

waves. There were 35,474 doctors in 2002, as determined by

the number who paid their state-mandated supplemental

insurance. Now the figure is at least 34,997.

The newest number includes doctors who have applied to the

Insurance Department for a piece of $230 million in state tax

dollars recently appropriated to offset their rising

malpractice premiums, along with a separate list of doctors

who had primary insurance coverage at the end of last year

but who haven't yet applied for state money.

That total doesn't include doctors who might have moved to

Pennsylvania in the last year, might not be in Insurance

Department records yet, and who might not know the state has

money set aside for them.

In one of several criticisms of The Morning Call's work,

the medical society has contended it might be misleading to

compare 2002 figures to a list of individual doctors who

recently applied for state money and others known to have

malpractice insurance at the end of last year. But society

officials have not publicly explained why that could be the

case.

The new Insurance Department figures show no appreciable

reduction in the number of high-risk specialists, a maximum

reduction of 56 out of 4,700 since 2002. The medical society

has admitted it has separate statistics that show a reduction

of only 16 specialists--defined as neurosurgeons, general

surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and ob-gyns--during that time

frame.

``This a matter of credibility,'' Rep. Nick Micozzie, R-

Delaware, chairman of the House Insurance Committee, said

after the hearing. ``We've been hearing for three years now

that doctors are leaving in large numbers and there is a

shortage.''

``I go into my doctor's office and there's a sign that says

``Call Nick Micozzie to Save Our Doctors,'' he said. ``Well,

saving our doctors is a different issue than claiming doctors

are leaving in large numbers.''

In reference to the three-year campaign, Glunk told the

committee that anecdotal evidence indicates there aren't

enough of some kind of specialists in some parts of the

state, and that not enough young doctors are choosing to move

to Pennsylvania.

For three years, the medical society and its associated

group, Politically Active Physicians Association, have waged

an intensive public relations and lobbying campaign to

convince legislators and their constituents that doctors are

fleeing the state en masse.

The effort was triggered by medical malpractice premiums

that started soaring in 2001 and continue to climb. Rather

than pay prices that doubled seemingly overnight, some

doctors did indeed depart, others altered their practices to

avoid high-risk procedures.

As a result, lawmakers have enacted a series of court

reforms sought by doctors as a way to drive down the rising

premiums. A new cigarette tax raises roughly $230 million a

year to help doctors afford malpractice premiums.

Applications for that money are being processed now.

Doctors continue to demand a cap on jury awards on pain and

suffering damages in malpractice lawsuits and have threatened

to leave the state if they don't get them.

On Thursday, Glunk told the panel of lawmakers that the

disappearing doctors list is not actually a list of doctors

who disappeared. It is more of a list of doctors who might

have been impacted by rising malpractice rates and who might

have retired, moved, or curtailed their practices as a

result, he explained.

The list makes no mention of doctors who have relocated to

Pennsylvania since 2002, lawmakers noted.

``Naturally people leave their profession. You don't count

doctors coming in,'' said Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Pittsburgh told

Glunk. ``If you don't have accurate statistics on the number

of doctors, how can we tell? How can we make policy like

that?''

Lawmakers from both parties say the list--created and

maintained by Donna Rovito, the wife of an Allentown

physician--has been used extensively as a lobbying tool to

support doctor claims.

Democratic House leaders Thursday called for a moratorium

on any more medical malpractice reforms until lawmakers

ascertain

whether doctors are leaving the sate in large numbers, and

whether the medical society deliberately misled lawmakers.

``The data they repeatedly cite, and which served as the

basis for legislative action in the last two years, appears

to be seriously inaccurate and part of a deceptive

campaign,'' said Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver, the House Minority

Whip. ``We want the real numbers and there should be no

further action until the deficiencies of the data are

corrected and we know the truth.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

During the debate, we have talked about how much debate is going on. I just point out that this debate is on a closed rule so that we cannot offer amendments to the bill. We have to take it or leave it. There are a lot of improvements that could be made if we have a full and open debate. That is not happening today because the majority passed a closed rule prohibiting any amendments to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 638, I call up the bill (H.R. 4280) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4280, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the national medical insurance crisis, driven by unlimited lawsuits, is devastating our Nation's health care system to the detriment of patients everywhere. Medical professional liability insurance rates have soared, causing major insurers to either drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors are being forced to abandon patients and practices or to retire early, particularly in high-risk specialties, such as emergency medicine, brain surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology. Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income and rural neighborhoods.

H.R. 4280, the HEALTH Act, is modeled after California's highly successful health care litigation reforms enacted in 1975 and known under the acronym MICRA. California's reforms, which are included in the HEALTH Act, include reasonable limits on unquantifiable damages, limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge, and authorization for defendants to introduce evidence to prevent double recoveries. The HEALTH Act also includes provisions creating a fair share rule, by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines on the award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for products that meet applicable FDA safety requirements.

Information provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows that since 1975, premiums paid outside of California increased at five times the rate they increased in California. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded ``under the HEALTH Act, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 35 percent below what they would be under current law.'' If California's legal reforms were implemented nationwide, we could spend billions of dollars more annually on patient care, meaning helping sick people get better.

We all recognize that injured victims should be adequately compensated for their injuries, but too often in this debate we lose sight of the larger health care picture. This country is blessed with the finest health care technology in the world. It is blessed with the finest doctors in the world. People are smuggled into this country for a chance at life and healing, the best chance that they have in the world. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a report recently that includes the following amazing statistics: during the past half century, death rates among children and adults up to age 24 were cut in half, and the infant mortality rate plummeted 75 percent. Mortality among adults between the ages of 25 and 64 fell nearly as much, and dropped among those 65 years and older by a third. In 2000, Americans enjoyed the longest life expectancy in our history, almost 77 years.

These amazing statistics just did not happen. There are faces behind the statistics, and they are our doctors. These statistics happen because America produces the best health care technology and the best doctors to use it. But now there are fewer and fewer doctors to use that miraculous technology or to use that technology where their patients are. We have the best brain scanning and best brain operation devices in history and fewer and fewer neurosurgeons to use them.

Unlimited lawsuits are driving doctors out of the healing profession. They are making us all less safe, all in the name of unlimited lawsuits and the personal injury lawyers' lust for their cut of unlimited awards for unquantifiable damages. But when someone gets sick or is bringing a child into the world, and we cannot call the doctor, who will we call? When you pick up the phone and call the hospital because someone you love has suffered a brain injury, and you are told, sorry, lawsuits made it too expensive for brain surgeons to practice here, who will save your loved one? You cannot call a lawyer. A lawyer cannot perform brain surgery.

We all need doctors. And we, as our Nation's representatives, have to choose, right here and today. Do we want the abstract ability to sue a doctor for unlimited, unquantifiable jackpot damage awards when doing so means that there will be no doctors to treat ourselves and our loved ones in the first place? Of course not. So on behalf of all 287 million Americans, all of whom are patients, let us pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentlewoman from Colorado did not tell us is what is not getting media attention, and that is that doctors are closing up their practices. When the Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on this issue, the wife of a man named Tony Dyess came and spoke. Mr. Dyess was involved in an automobile accident. He had a spinal cord injury, and because there were no neurosurgeons left in southern Mississippi, it took 6 hours to airlift him to a hospital in Louisiana that has some better medical liability laws, and the golden hour for neurosurgery had passed; and as a result Tony Dyess is a quadriplegic simply because malpractice insurance costs chased the neurosurgeons out of southern Mississippi.

This is an issue of access to health care, and we cannot have liability insurance costs force doctors to close their practices and not have access to people who need doctors and need them desperately.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate we have heard a string of red herrings from people who do not wish this bill to pass. I would like to rebut those from the study that the General Accounting Office made on the whole topic of our medical liability crisis.

First, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has eloquently stated, patient access to care is being harmed. He recounted the case of a pregnant woman who went to at least two OB/GYN practices to get a doctor to deliver her baby and was told that as a result of the medical liability crisis, they were shutting down the doors to their practice.

The GAO confirmed instances in the five States selected for study where actions taken by physicians in response to malpractice pressures have reduced

access to services affecting emergency surgery and newborn deliveries. When the baby comes, you cannot wait. When someone has an accident and needs emergency surgery, you cannot wait. And if the malpractice insurance crisis closes down those practices, people are going to be harmed, and they will die, and this bill will stop that.

Secondly, doctors do practice defensive medicine. The GAO report found that in response to rising premiums, ``the fear of litigation research indicates that physicians practice defensive medicine in certain clinical situations, thereby contributing to health care costs.''

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) said that if unnecessary defensive medicine does not have to be practiced by reforming our liability laws, Medicare alone will save $50 billion a year, which is more than enough to pay for the prescription drug benefit, whether it is by the GAO study or the OMB study.

Third, insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing premiums. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) seemed to think they are.

But the GAO found that insurers are not to blame. The report states that insurer ``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates,'' and that ``in most States the insurance regulators have the authority to deny premium rate increases they deem excessive.''

Fourth, rising litigation awards are the problem, not insurer investments. What did the GAO say? The GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims which make up the largest part of insurers' costs appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run.

``Since 1998, insurers' losses on medical malpractice claims have increased rapidly in some States. However, none of the studied companies experienced a net loss on investments, at least through 2001, the most recent year such data were available. Additionally, almost no medical malpractice insurers overall experienced net investment losses from 1997 to 2001.'' So much for that red herring.

Finally, liability reform does have a real impact. The GAO concludes that data indicate that rates of growth in malpractice premiums and claims payments have been slower on average in States that enacted certain caps on damages for pain and suffering, referred to as noneconomic damage caps, than in States with more limited reforms and that average per capita payments for malpractice claims against all physicians tended to be lower on average in States with noneconomic damage caps than in States with limited reforms.

This bill is a good one, and it ought to be passed.

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

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is time for a change, and it is time for a real change. This motion to recommit does not provide a real change, and it should be defeated. It should be defeated because it contains zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law.

Legal reforms are essential to solving the current crisis in the medical professional liability insurance area and increasing access of health care to all. Here is what the president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said: ``To date, insurance regulators have not seen evidence that suggests medical malpractice insurers have engaged or are engaging in price-fixing, bid-rigging, or market allocation. The evidence points to rising loss costs and defense costs associated with litigation as the principal drivers of medical malpractice rates.''

The underlying bill, and not the motion to recommit, is the only proven legislative solution to the current crisis. According to the CBO, under H.R. 4280 ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

The motion to recommit, on the other hand, besides including zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law, sets up an advisory commission to study a problem that is already patently obvious to the most casual observer and to report back sometime in the future when even more patients will have lost access to essential medical care.

Opponents of the bill claim there is no enforcement mechanism to make sure that medical professional liability rates go down. That is completely false. An enforcement mechanism already exists throughout all 50 States, namely, State insurance commissioners who are required by State law

to turn down rates that are excessive, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise unjustified. On the other hand, the motion to recommit creates a system of price controls linked to savings that without the legal protections in this bill will be nonexistent. Without legal reforms, there will be no cost savings, and the motion to recommit contains zero legal protections beyond the current law.

Along with creating a commission to further study a problem that is obvious, the motion simply throws more Federal money at it. H.R. 4280, on the other hand, contains solid legal reforms that have been proven successful over 28 years in California and will save billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds, according to the CBO. The choice is clear: oppose the motion to recommit, support H.R. 4280, and let us make sure that doctors are there to care for the 287 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this motion and passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Easter is usually a joyous time for Christians throughout the world. Unfortunately, that was not the case this year for many Montagnards Christians, ethnic minorities in Vietnam's Central Highlands. On Saturday April 10, more than a thousand ethnic minority Christians assembled in the streets of Buon Ma Thuot to protest ongoing religious repression and confiscation of tribal lands.

Their peaceful protests were met with brutal force by the Vietnamese police, who attacked and arrested the protesters and sealed off the area to foreigners--much like the Chinese Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Numerous reports state that hundreds may be dead with many others arrested, injured, and or in hiding. This follows years of ongoing persecution and a brutal crackdown in December of 2001, when the government also forcibly suppressed mass protests in the region, after which the Vietnamese government closed hundreds of Christian Churches.

Religious persecution in Vietnam against Catholics, Christians, members of the Unified Buddhist Church, and members of Vietnam's indigenous religious groups has been well documented in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights and International Religious Freedom.

Last year, the Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended Vietnam should be designated as a Country of Particular Concern for ``systematic, egregious, and ongoing'' religious freedom abuses. As if there was any doubt, the Easter crackdown confirms the fact that Vietnam should be designated as a Country of Particular Concern for violations in religious freedom. Protections and

assistance for Montagnard asylum seekers should be provided also be provided by the Cambodian government and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Congress will continue to keep up the pressure on the regime in Hanoi. We will work to pass H. Con. Res. 378, a resolution calling for the release of Father Nguyen Van Ly, a prominent and outspoken Catholic priest, that was reported out of the House International Relations Committee and has nearly 90 cosponsors.

And we will also work to pass H.R. 1587, ``The Vietnam Human Rights Act,'' which calls for careful monitoring of human rights in Vietnam. Similar legislation cleared the House 410-1 in the 107th Congress but stalled in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following articles by Human Rights Watch detailing the events of the Easter crackdown, to the Congressional Record.

The United States and the world cannot turn a blind eye to this Easter crackdown and continual persecution of Montagnards and religious groups in Vietnam. We must take a stand.

[Article from Human Rights Watch]

Vietnam: Open Central Highlands to International Observers Reported

Killings of Montagnard Protesters Must Be Investigated Immediately

(New York, April 22, 2004)--Vietnamese security forces

appear to have coordinated with armed men in civilian

clothing to savagely attack Montagnard protesters at more

than a dozen mass demonstrations during Easter weekend, Human

Rights Watch said today.

``The international community must act now and insist that

Vietnam allow independent observers into the highlands to

conduct a thorough and impartial investigation,'' said Dinah

PoKempner, General Counsel for Human Rights Watch. ``We've

received alarming reports that scores of protesters were

wounded during the demonstrations, and that some protesters

were beaten to death.''

Large-scale unrest involving between 10,000 and 30,000

indigenous minority Montagnards occurred in the Central

Highland provinces of Dak Lak, Gia Lai, and Dak Nong on April

10 and 11, according to Vietnam's state media and independent

accounts. Montagnard activists in Vietnam and abroad say that

their movement seeks to peacefully press for religious

freedom and return of ancestral lands in the Central

Highlands. The Vietnamese government has charged that ``anti-

government'' and ``counter-revolutionary'' elements are

inciting the Montagnards to seek a separatist state.

Human Rights Watch has received firsthand reports that

security forces and men in civilian clothing, armed with

metal bars, shovels, clubs with nails attached to them,

machetes, and chains, confronted Montagnard protesters at

more than a dozen locations leading into Buon Ma Thuot, the

capital of Dak Lak province, on the morning of April 10.

According to witnesses, the demonstrators were not armed,

although some defended themselves when attacked by throwing

stones at the police.

In twelve eyewitness accounts obtained by Human Rights

Watch, sources from seven different locations in Dak Lak, Gia

Lai and Dak Nong provinces described seeing Vietnamese

police, and civilians working with the police, beating

protesters. Vietnam's state-controlled media reported that

two protesters were killed--one from rocks thrown by other

protesters and another who was run over by a tractor driven

by Montagnards. While it is impossible to confirm the numbers

of casualties because the government is barring outside

observers from the region, to date Human Rights Watch has

received credible eyewitness accounts that at least ten

Montagnards were killed--one from a gunshot wound to the head

and the others from beatings and hundreds were wounded.

Clashes broke out at more than a dozen locations when

security forces and ethnic Vietnamese in civilian clothes

blocked demonstrators on roadways leading into Buon Ma Thuot,

including Phan Chu Trinh Road northwest of the city; at Ea

Knir Bridge on the road from Ea Kao commune, which lies east

of the city; and at three locations along the road leading to

Krong Pak district town, which lies northeast of the city,

including the Ea Pak and Krong Ana bridges. Particularly hard

hit at Phan Chu Trinh Road were 3,000 protesters from several

villages in Cu Mgar district, northwest of Buon Ma Thuot.

``The security forces were well prepared for the

protesters,'' said PoKempner. ``They had set up ambushes at

key places such as bridges and the main roads into the city,

and assembled people dressed as civilians holding crude

weapons to block the roads and attack the protestors.''

Security officials confiscated and burned hundreds of the

farm tractors and makeshift trailers that many Montagnards

were traveling on, which had been packed with food and

supplies in preparation for several days of protests.

In Gia Lai province, Vietnamese state media reported that

demonstrators from Ayun Pa, Cu Se, Dak Doa, Duc Co and Chu

Prong districts gathered at the provincial administrative

offices in Pleiku provincial town on April 10. on April 11,

Montagnards gathered to demonstrate in numerous communes in

Ayun Pa, Cu Se, and Dak Doa districts of Gia Lai. Human

Rights Watch has received reports of clashes in at least

seventeen locations in Gia Lai, with the fiercest incidents

occurring in Ha Bau, A'Dok and Glar communes of Dak Doa

district and Ia Tiem commune of Cu Se district.

State media reported that the provincial hospital in Pleiku

received fifty-two injured people. The provincial hospital in

Dak Lak reported forty injured people on the night of April

10. Prior to a government-imposed news blackout on hospital

personnel, staff at Pleiku hospital told reporters that they

had received scores of wounded people on Sunday night, many

with deep gashes and head injuries, and that at least two

demonstrators died that night. Many other wounded

demonstrators, fearing arrest, have not gone to the hospitals

despite being in need of medical attention, Human Rights

Watch said.

Witnesses said authorities quickly collected wounded people

and dead bodies from the Phan Chu Trinh area, and that within

days, the blood on the roadway had been washed away.

Human Rights Watch stressed the urgency of an independent

investigation. ``We fear that a huge cover-up operation has

likely already taken place,'' said PoKempner. ``The

Vietnamese government needs to account for the large numbers

of people who never returned to their villages after the

demonstrations and are now feared to be dead or detained at

unknown locations.''

Hundreds of Montagnards have fled their villages and gone

into hiding, Human Rights Watch said. In violation of

Cambodia's obligations under international law, Cambodian

security forces have been instructed to deport any

Montagnards who try to cross the border.

Testimony: The Killings on Phan Chu Trinh Road

A twenty-six year old Ede woman described a deadly incident

she witnessed on Saturday morning, April 10 when several

thousand Montagnard protesters, some riding on their farm

tractors, arrived at Phan Chu Trinh road, an industrial area

of machine shops and welding supply stores on the outskirts

of Buon Ma Thuot. Police had lined up students and ethnic

Vietnamese men in civilian clothing holding metal bars,

shovels, and machetes along the roadway, she said.

``They suddenly rushed at the unarmed crowd, beating the

demonstrators until many were lying in the streets,'' she

said. ``They chased demonstrators who tried to flee,

including children and women.''

She and many other demonstrators fled to the coffee fields

behind the shops lining the roadway, chased by security

forces. She described what happened:

``A thousand people tried to get away from the slaughter by

the police and civilians. They were beating us with metal

bars and sticks. People were bleeding from their throats,

noses, mouths, and eyes. The villagers were crying as they

tried to get away from the slaughter by the police and

civilians. We were running helter-skelter. Those who tried to

hide in the coffee plantation were caught, beaten and killed

on the spot. Police, students, and Vietnamese threw rocks at

us. Many of us were bleeding from being hit on our heads with

rocks. Many people were injured and bleeding. We didn't have

any first-aid for their wounds. They were bleeding from their

throats, noses, mouths, and eyes. A blind woman sitting on

the farm tractor was killed on the road by a dozen Vietnamese

people, including police. They asked her to get down from the

tractor but she could not because she was blind. They rushed

at her and beat her until she fell from the tractor and died.

The police and Vietnamese civilians smashed and stepped on

our food, clothing and blankets we had prepared for a long-

term peaceful demonstration asking for freedom and the end to

harassment of our religion and our Montagnard life.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleagues, it is slightly incredible that with all the pressing legislative challenges facing us today, we have nothing better to do than redebate and revote the same tired medical malpractice proposals that have been brought forward by a conservative Congress over the last decade. This is the fifth time in 14 months that we have had this bill before the House of Representatives. Sooner or later somebody is going to get it, that this bill is not likely ever to go anywhere because it insults the commonsense health care needs of the American people.

Now, how can you put so many bad things in one bill? Let me explain how devious this thing can get. The bill before us would first supersede the law in every State in the Union, and these are states- righters over here, to cap noneconomic damages, to cap punitive damages, to cap attorneys' fees for those lawyers that would represent the poor, to reduce the statute of limitations, to eliminate joint and several liability and eliminate the collateral source rule. All in one bill. Six incredible things.

Embarrassed? No, I do not think they are. Rather than helping, when this Nation faces a national health care system crisis of growing proportions, instead of helping Americans that seek health care remedies and remedies for bad medical practice, and to help the medical profession itself, the bill before us does none of that; but it does enrich the insurance companies of America, the HMOs of this country, and the manufacturers and distributors of medical products, which sometimes are defective, as well as the pharmaceuticals that might be involved, too.

In other words, all the bad, unpleasant negative parts of our health care system are being protected. And who do we do it at the expense of? The innocent victims of medical malpractice, particularly women and children and the elderly poor.

I am embarrassed that this measure is on the floor for the sixth time in 14 months.

It's amazing to me that with all of the pressing problems facing us today, the Majority has nothing better to do than redebate and revote the same tired old medical malpractice proposals they have been pushing for the last ten years. In fact, this is the fifth time the Congress has voted on this bill in the past 14 months.

The bill before us today would supersede the law in all 50 states to cap non-economic damages, cap and limit punitive damages, cap attorney's fees for poor victims, shorten the statute of limitations, eliminate joint and several liability, and eliminate collateral source.

Rather than helping doctors and victims, the bill before us pads the pockets of insurance companies, HMOs, and the manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals. And it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor.

We need to cut the charades and get to the heart of the problem. The insurance industry is a good place to start. We have seen in the past that the insurance industry goes through boom and bust cycles, with premiums ebbing and flowing as companies enter and exit the market and investment income rises and falls. We also know from past experience that the insurance industry--which is exempt from the antitrust laws-- is not immune from collusion, price fixing and other anticompetitive problems.

It is also clear that the legislative solution largely focused on limiting victims rights available under our state tort system will do little other than increase the incidence of medical malpractice-- already the third leading cause of preventable death in our nation. In other words, by limiting liability, we will increase incentives for misconduct.

Under this proposal, Congress would be saying to the American people that we don't care if you lose your ability to bear children, we don't care if you are forced to live in excruciating pain for the remainder of your life, and we don't care if you are permanently disfigured or crippled. The majority in this bill would limit recovery in tens of thousands of these cases, regardless of their merits.

The proposed new statue of limitations takes absolutely no account of the fact that many injuries caused by malpractice or faulty drugs take years or even decades to manifest themselves. Under the proposal, a patient who is negligently inflicted with HIV-infected blood and develops AIDS six years later would be forever barred from filing a liability claim.

The so-called periodic payment provisions are nothing less than a federal installment plan for HMO's. The bill would allow insurance companies teetering on the verge of bankruptcy to delay and then completely avoid future financial obligations. And they would have no obligation to pay interest on amounts they owe their victims.

And guess who else gets a sweetheart deal under this legislation? The drug companies. The producers of killer devices like the Dalkon Shield, the Cooper-7 IUD, high absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock syndrome, and silicone gel implants all would have completely avoided billions of dollars in damages had this bill been law.

Nearly 100,000 people die in this country each and every year from medical malpractice. At a time when 5 percent of the health care professionals cause 54 percent of all medical malpractice injuries, the last thing we need to do is exacerbate this problem while ignoring the true causes of the medical malpractice crisis in America. I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-patient, anti-victim legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) from the Committee on the Judiciary, and that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who explains to us why this keeps coming up, and he refers charitably to the other body.

The other body for the last 10 years has been controlled by the gentleman's party. The last 10 years. The present head of the Senate is not only a Member of the gentleman's party, but he is a medical doctor.

I ask the gentleman, what could he and I do together to help the other body get the message here?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would be interested; and is the gentleman interested in the six points that I just raised that make this bill problematic? We cannot work together on two different bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is my experience in conferences the lights frequently go out and measures get substituted and all kinds of weird things go on. Let us do this in broad daylight, with everybody looking and listening. Conferences have not been the way the democratic process has been enhanced in my career in Congress, sir.

Mr. Speaker, could I recommend that the gentleman and I and my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), perhaps we can enter into an informal colloquy with some of the leaders in the other body and see if we can end this constant repetition of what is going on here in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is being offered by me and the dean of the Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). We are offering this motion to recommit to attack the heart of the medical malpractice crisis. Rather than limiting the rights of legitimate malpractice victims, as the bill before us would do, our motion would logically and directly address the problems of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses.

Title I addresses the problem of frivolous lawsuits. It would require that both an attorney and a health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before malpractice action can be brought and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make frivolous pleadings. But it provides also for mandatory mediation, a uniform statute of limitations, and a narrowing of the requirements for punitive damage claims. Finally, insurers would be required to dedicate at least 50 percent of any savings resulting from the litigation reforms to reduce the premiums that medical professionals pay.

Unlike the majority's bill before us, this motion is limited to licensed physicians and health professionals for malpractice cases only. It does not include lawsuits against HMOs, insurance companies, nursing homes, and drug and device manufacturers.

The second part of this motion to recommit, title II, establishes a national commission to evaluate the rising insurance premiums and the causes for why that is occurring. The commission would consider, among other things, whether the McCarran-Ferguson Antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurers should be reconsidered and possibly repealed and study the potential benefits of providing a Federal medical malpractice insurance program where insurance was unavailable or unaffordable.

This same commission, 15-person commission appointed by the Comptroller General, would also consider government-sponsored grant programs to give direct assistance to areas facing a shortage of health care providers, as well as to send physicians to trauma centers that are in danger of closing because of rising premiums. Finally, it would consider alternative means of reducing medical errors and increasing patient safety.

So support this motion to recommit. It is good policy. It changes the whole line of unbelievably reactionary legislation that has come out of this House on this subject before now. It is time for a change. We want to limit frivolous lawsuits, and this would give us an opportunity to examine the real causes of the medical malpractice insurance crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.