Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is part of a gun industry effort to preempt cities and counties across the United States from exercising their legal right to reform dangerous gun industry practices. Worst yet, under the measure, any case pending at the time of enactment would be dismissed. I support the amendment proposed by Representative Watt because it will restore an individual plaintiff's ability to pursue all currently accepted product liability causes of action. Thus, existing gun victims will be allowed to exercise their right to a day in court. It will further the goals of this civilized society, which is based on the rule of law.

There are many examples--from the lawsuit brought because Ford Pintos were exploding to the toxic pollutant cases against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous in the movie ``Erin Brockovich''--that individuals can get justice in a courtroom from the reckless and irresponsible actions of gunmakers and dealers. But if H.R. 1036 is enacted into law without this amendment, cases such as these will immediately after enactment be thrown out of court.

The pending case filed by Pamela Grunow, a resident of Palm Beach County, would also be immediately dismissed. On May 26, 2000, 13-year- old student Nathaniel Brazil shot and killed his language arts teacher Barry Grunow at Lake Worth Middle School, in my district. Pamela Grunow is seeking to hold the distributor of the gun responsible for selling an unreasonably dangerous and defective product. My colleagues, we do not know better than the state governments legislating on this issue, or the judges listening to these lawsuits.

The Majority, encouraged by a forceful and wealthy industry, is pushing Congress to enact a disastrous bill to give gunmakers and dealers extraordinary shelter from liability suits. Without this amendment, gun victims will be harmed by the federal legislature. The Watt amendment will not fix the underlying bill, but will make it more responsible in the short term. I thank the Congressman from North Carolina for his efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a saddened heart for the untimely death of a resident in South Florida who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom. On Saturday, March 29, 2003, gunmen on motorcycles ambushed a U.S. military reconnaissance patrol in Southern Afghanistan and killed Sergeant Orlando Morales. I wish to express my deepest condolences to Ms. Maria Roxana Morales and the entire Morales family, and at the same time offer all my support and prayers.

I believe a person's life is not measured by the time spent on this earth, but by what is accomplished while here. With this in mind, Sergeant Morales will always be considered a hero. The ultimate passing of any true hero is a tragedy.

This tragedy only crystallizes the great risk and danger these brave men experience in the name of the people of the United States. All of America mourns the loss of our military men and women, though we cannot feel the depth of the families' pain. We never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifices made by those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history. They have earned our gratitude and respect.

Because of the very high regard in which I hold all members of the armed services, it is especially disturbing to me when one of these fine young men or women is killed. By any measure, their contributions, in terms of human sacrifice, are immense. As a nation we share the sense of loss that the Morales family is experiencing. Though sorrow runs deep, our pride for Orlando Morales shines brightly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for H.R. 1208, the Northern Ireland Peace and Reconciliation Act of 2003. The International Fund for Ireland was established in 1985 to help bolster economic development and support programs that would foster peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the affected border areas of the Republic of Ireland. The United States has contributed more than $386 million to the fund to help improve relations between Catholic and Protestants in Northern Ireland through the creation of jobs and cross-community business development. Over 80 percent of the fund's investment has been in disadvantaged areas offering work experiences and job training programs for disadvantaged and unemployed youth.

Since 1969, over 3200 people have died as a result of political violence in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. The conflict, which has it origins in the 1921 division of Ireland, has reflected a struggle between different nationals, cultures, and religious identities. The Protestant majority in Northern Ireland defines itself as British and largely supports continued incorporation in the United Kingdom, and are called unionists. The Catholic minority considers itself Irish and many Catholics desire a united Ireland, and are referred to as nationalists.

In 1998, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, helped broker the ``Good Friday Agreement'' between and among the government of Ireland, the government of the

United Kingdom, and political party leaders representing Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

The requested $25 million over the next five years will go a long way to carry out the accords of the Good Friday agreement. A large part of this effort is for programs that enhance relations between communities and between the police and the communities they serve, promote human rights training for police, and promote training programs to enhance the new district partnership police boards recommended by the Patten Commission.

Successive U.S. Administrations and the U.S. Congress have seen economic development as key to fostering peace in Northern Ireland. Support for the paramilitaries has been strongest in the communities suffering the highest level of unemployment and economic deprivation; thus, many see the creation of jobs and economic opportunity as on par with working out a political solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Critics of U.S. assistance to the region argue that the European Union, not the United States, is the appropriate source of aid and further that private investment, rather than aid, is central to job creation. Supporters of the aid program, including many Members of Congress, see aid and investment as complementary, with aid often serving as a good catalyst for investment. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the aid program.

Mr. Speaker, all major social and economic indicators show that Catholics in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged relative to Protestants. The most persistent area of inequality has been employment. Catholics experience rates of unemployment over twice as high as Protestants, and Catholics are more likely than Protestants to experience long-term unemployment.

The British government sees inward investment and the creation of employment opportunities, linked to its fair employment legislation, as the best antidote to Catholic unemployment. Others believe implementation of the Mac Bride Principles would provide an important remedy. Introduced in 1984, the Mac Bride Principles are nine equal opportunity/affirmative action principles, intended to promote employment options for members of underrepresented religious groups in Northern Ireland. Among other things, the Principles call for provocative religious or political emblems to be banned from the workplace; for all job openings to be publicly advertised with special recruitment efforts to attract applicants from underrepresented groups; and for adequate security at the workplace.

For years, the British and Irish governments sought a formula that would facilitate a peaceful settlement. After many ups and downs, the British and Irish governments and the eight parties participating in peace talks announced agreement on a political settlement on April 10, 1998. The agreement recognizes the consent principle, namely, change in the status of Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the majority of its people. Voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland approved the accords in referendums held on May 22. Elections to the new Assembly took place on June 25.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the peace agreement has been difficult. I applaud the efforts of leaders in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Northern Ireland for their efforts in furthering peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

I rise in opposition to the Cunningham amendment. I am acutely aware that many of my colleagues feel that it's ``pay-back'' time for our ally, Turkey. But I believe that such a course would be unproductive and unwise. The relationships that exist between and among nations are, in many ways, as those which exist with our neighbors. There are times when we may take a course of action with which our friends will not agree; sometimes we may do something to anger our good neighbors and friends. But we don't run away from our friends of many years, or our neighbors who have been with us through thick and thin. Mr. Chairman, the relationships we have with our friends and neighbors are important and it is necessary that we act in ways to maintain these important relationships. Our former distinguished Secretary of State, George P. Shultz, has called this gardening. This diplomatic process is vitally important to us as a nation. Our relationship with Turkey falls within this category. America may be indispensable, but her powers are not without limits.

Mr. Chairman, Turkey is an important strategic ally of the United States. During the last 50 years, Turkey has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in nearly every major conflict. From the Korean war to our involvement in Bosnia, Turkey has been by our side. On March 1, Turkey demonstrated that she is a democracy, even while her actions did not please many of us in this body. While we may disagree with the outcome of the process, we must respect her democratically taken decision. Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country with a secular, democratic government. Turkey is a country that has one foot in the East and another in the West; since September 11, 2001, her importance to the United States has increased.

There are a number of important foreign policy issues that join our two countries in a unique relationship. Turkey's long border with Iraq has obvious importance in the current conflict with Iraq. Turkey's role will be important also in the peace and rebuilding stages of Iraq. During the Bosnia campaign, Turkey demonstrated her expertise in civic action as she helped rebuild needed infrastructure in that country. This country is in a position to play a key role in our efforts to rebuild Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, beyond the crises of the moment, there are other reasons that it's very important that we support this country. Turkey is with us in the war on terrorism. Turkey is playing a major role in Afghanistan, where it assumed command of the international peacekeeping force. Turkey is a key NATO member. Her geographic location provides regional security to a critical part of the alliance. Turkey is striving for European Union membership, and United States policymakers support that goal to anchor Turkey in the West. Turkey as a part of the European Union becomes an even stronger ally of the United States.

The United States has encouraged the development of Turkey's ties to Israel since 1996. Turkey and Israel have concluded important arms and water deals, and their relationship, which is based on mutual self- interest, has withstood differences over the years. It is important to note that other Muslim countries are now taking views toward Israel that are close to those of Turkey, who has led the way.

Mr. Chairman, while the issues highlighted above may not seem important at the moment, while we are in the midst of hot debate, let me reassure you, all my colleagues, that they remain very important. The Iraq crises will not be with us always. The issues that seem so distant and unimportant now will be in our face the minute the fighting in Iraq ends. Let us stand firm with our friend and ally Turkey as she has stood with the United States.

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

The simple fact is the rule waives House rules for the majority's bill, but it does not allow for Democratic amendments, and what we are saying is that is unfair. It is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is as much about context as it is about content. It is as much about politics as it is about patriotism. In September 2002, I introduced a resolution calling on the President to transmit to Congress a comprehensive plan for the long-term cultural, economic, and political stabilization in a free Iraq. Now, 7 months later and only after the war has begun, has the President presented a war supplemental, albeit still missing a long-term plan and definite end to the conflict.

Repeatedly when asked how long it expects United States forces to remain in Iraq, the administration has answered with a glib, ``Not one day longer than we have to.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, until the President can provide a plan on how this $78 billion, the largest supplemental in the history of our country, will be spent, my answer is ``Not one dollar more than I have to.''

Now, I want to make it very clear, I along with 435 Members of this House of Representatives that can vote, support fully the troops. I supported them when I voted on March 21 for the resolution honoring them, and I will support them again today when I vote for this supplemental.

I have a new resolution, H. Con. Res. 121, that supports our warfighters, contemplates the casualties, looks towards trying to avoid the circumstances of POWS and MIAs. And all of us support the troops. We are patriotic Americans, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. But patriotism means stand by your country. It does not mean, as Theodore Roosevelt said, that you must stand by your President.

Mr. Speaker, I stand proudly and patriotically for the American values that cause every one of us to support our troops. But let me make it very clear, I do not stand nor am I required to stand by our President and the misguided policies entrenched in this supplemental. Republican fiscal irresponsibility of the last 2 years has sent the United States' economy into a downward spiral of unemployment and homelessness as the number of uneducated and uninsured increase every day.

Today's supplemental, while funding in part the war and homeland security, does nothing to fix the majority of the emergencies facing this Nation.

What pains me, Mr. Speaker, is that I have cities in my district-- Belle Glade, South Bay, and Pahokee--where the unemployment rate is 17 percent and the poverty rate is 3 to 4 times greater than anywhere else in South Florida. congress can't find the money for rural development in the Glades, yet we have $2.5 billion to rebuild Iraq and another $5.5 billion in foreign assistance because the President's diplomatic efforts to shore up support for this war failed.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2003, I introduced a Resolution honoring U.S. and allied troops who have been killed in action. My resolution also honors those who are wounded, missing, or being held as prisoners of war.

Our men and women in uniform consistently reflect great honor upon this nation, whether they are engaged in humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, or war. Throughout our history, we have expected the very best from them. We expect them to be valiant, selfless, courageous, dependable, and dedicated, and they never disappoint us. It is a privilege and an honor to have them represent our nation, whether providing humanitarian assistance, conducting peacekeeping operations, or engaged in war.

Because of the very high regard in which we hold members of the armed services, it is especially disturbing to us when one of these fine young men or women is killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. By any measure, their contributions, in terms of human sacrifice, are immense. As a nation we share the sense of loss and fear and worry that their families are experiencing.

It is difficult to find words of comfort for their families--offering our deepest sympathy doesn't begin to express the anguish we experience when we see pictures of American and allied soldiers killed, wounded, or held captive, or when we learn that some are missing in action. These are truly images that bind us together in our thoughts and prayers.

We must never forget that the peace and prosperity that we enjoy are founded on the ultimate sacrifices made by those who have lost their lives in war throughout our nation's history. They have earned our gratitude and respect.

I encourage my colleagues and the citizens of this nation, to remember these inspiring men and women who have distinguished themselves with their gallantry and courage.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill. It provides states with Federal funds to train caseworkers in child protective service systems, an initiative that the State of Florida desperately needs.

Florida's Department of Children and Families has an abysmal record of monitoring the children entrusted to its care, and I am hopeful that an infusion of Federal funds, aimed at increasing both training and oversight of social workers, will alleviate this disgrace.

I am sure you will recall the story of 5-year-old Rilya Wilson, the young Florida child whose whereabouts are still unknown. Eight months after her disappearance, her social worker was still filing reports indicating that she had routinely conducted home visits and that the child was safe and well cared for.

Regrettably, investigations into Florida's child welfare system revealed that this was not an isolated case. Last September, in response to public outcry over the Rilya Wilson incident, Governor Bush replaced the secretary of Florida's Department of Children and Families.

He also created a governor's task force in an attempt to locate an additional 393 children missing from Florida's child welfare system.

After a 15-week effort, the Governor described the results ``a success'' even though only one-fourth of the 393 missing children had been located, and the task force was disbanded.

I am hopeful that an infusion of Federal funds, specifically geared towards training caseworkers, will improve the child welfare system in the State of Florida and the rest of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Voter Outreach and Turnout Expansion Act of 2003. The VOTE Act encompasses the best state voting practices in the country and is a progressive approach toward further reforming the way we run our elections.

Last year, in passing the Help America Vote Act, Congress made the historic statement that the federal government does in fact play a role in establishing minimum standards in federal elections. Today, as the fight to fund the Help America Vote Act continues in the 108th Congress, it is also appropriate for Congress to consider legislation that expands voting opportunities for all Americans far beyond those of current law.

Many states across the country have already taken steps to expand accessibility to the polls and encourage its citizens to vote. Now, riding the coattails of the Help America Vote Act, Congress must do the same.

To accomplish this important task, Mr. Speaker, the VOTE Act takes aim at combating voter apathy through same day voter registration, early voting, no excuse absentee voting, improved registration by mail procedures, the establishment of an Election Day holiday, and guaranteed leave on election day to allow employees to vote. Specifically, the legislation does the following:

The VOTE Act requires states to establish same-day voter registration procedures. Under the legislation, voters who have not previously registered to vote will be permitted to register on election day at the appropriate polling location and vote in that election. To address concerns over voter fraud that in the past so many of my colleagues have suggested occurs, voters are required to present proof of residence and written confirmation pursuant to the Help America Vote Act. Title I of the bill is linked to the enforcement provisions of the Help America Vote Act to ensure states' compliance.

Further, the VOTE Act requires local elections supervisors to establish early voting polling locations within the jurisdiction where registered voters will be able to vote prior to election day. Early voting must commence no less than 22 days, or three weeks, prior to election day and shall be made available to voters during normal business hours each weekday. Additionally, elections supervisors must make early voting available to voters on no less than two weekend days during the three weeks.

The bill also prohibits states and local supervisors from requiring voters to provide a reason for voting absentee. All too often, voters become discouraged from voting absentee, or just voting at all, because they are required to provide a reason. This is just plain wrong. Voting should not be a test where excuses are not permitted. On the contrary, absentee voting should be an option--and an easy one to take advantage of at that.

The VOTE Act also amends the Help America Vote Act to require that election supervisors provide voters with adequate time and opportunity to complete their mail-in voter registration form. In instances where the state registration deadline has already passed, supervisors are required to inform the voter of same-day voter registration opportunities that exist.

Further, my legislation requires that federal employees be given the day off on Election Day and encourages states to make Election Day a legal holiday and provide paid leave for state government employees.

Finally, the VOTE Act requires private companies with 25 or more employees to allow their staff to take up to 2 hours of paid or unpaid leave time to vote. Employees who live

more than 25 miles away from their workplace are allowed to take up to three hours of leave. Enforcement of these provisions is tied into the Family Medical Leave Act. By and large, Americans who do not vote cite employment as the top reason for not voting. The VOTE Act allows them to work and vote without the fear of losing their jobs in the process.

My legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not the silver bullet to improving our election system. However, it draws upon the best practices in the country in an effort to maximize voter turnout and participation in the democratic process. Congress cannot and will not drive up participation in elections without the progressive minded approach that is embedded in the VOTE Act.

If we do not make it easier for people to vote, then they just won't. Congress must provide voters with more opportunities to vote. If it does not, then national turnout percentages will rarely exceed 50 percent, and we will never be able to call ourselves a true democracy.

I urge my colleagues to support the VOTE Act and call on the Leadership to bring it to the floor for its immediate consideration.

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

Last night in the Committee on Rules I put the question to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner): Is it correct that all of the Members of the House of Representatives want an AMBER Alert bill? The gentleman concurred.

Additionally, I asked the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner): Is it not true that the Senate has passed this measure unanimously on two occasions? The gentleman concurred.

Now what is happening here today is a whole lot of measures have been added to the AMBER bill that are in some respects going to slow this process down. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), well- intentioned though he may be, is mindful that the matters that are brought in the legislation that he offers will muddy up the clean AMBER bill passed by the Senate that we could pass here in the House of Representatives and the United States President would sign.

I am asking Members to vote ``no,'' not to stop consideration of the Sensenbrenner bill; but so we can receive our own vote on a clean AMBER Alert.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution supporting the members of the United States armed forces and our allies who are engaged in the war on terrorism and the war with Iraq.

More than 1.4 million men and women make up America's active and reserve forces and are responsible for our national defense. They distinguish themselves daily in selfless service to this Nation and it is a privilege to take a few minutes today to pay tribute to them.

This resolution also acknowledges the families of our armed forces. Their contribution to our Nation's freedom is appreciated and our thoughts and prayers are with them as well. It is a sacrifice to send your son or daughter or husband or wife, into harm's way.

Finally, this Resolution acknowledges the military forces of our allies. They share our commitment to democracy and global security and have joined us in our fight against terrorism, the threat of nuclear weapons, and crimes against humanity.

Regardless of our thoughts on U.S. policy, we are now united in our support to the men and women in harm's way. Each of us is now focused on the safety of deployed forces, the success of the mission, and the minimization of casualties.

I believe it is fitting that I end this statement by reading the final sentences in the Resolution I am introducing today.

It is the sense of Congress that every American service member be commended for serving with such distinction and professionalism.

It is the sense of Congress that every American family be commended for their special role in providing support for the members of our Armed Forces.

It is the sense of Congress that every allied service member be commended for serving with such distinction and professionalism.

It is the sense of Congress that all citizens of the United States pay homage to our armed forces, their families, and allied service members.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the budget of the Blue Dogs, which I think handles our short-term needs and our long-term concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for yielding me time, and especially for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, which I am proud to support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to recognize Mrs. Annie Mae Aaron who will soon observe her 95th birthday.

Born on April 24, 1908, Mrs. Aaron was aware at an early age of the importance family, faith, freedom, and education. Though she was struck with polio at the age of three, through her faith in God, and self- reliance, she recovered from this illness to lead a full and productive life of distinction. She Attended Edward Waters College in Jacksonville, Florida and graduated in the class of 1930. She was a teacher in the public school system of Florida, teaching in E.O. Douglas high school in Sebring.

In 1939, Mrs. Aaron made her home in West Palm Beach Florida where she was the Sunday school secretary at Payne Chapel A.M.E. Church. She was a marketing representative for the Afro American Insurance Company. She married J.E. Aaron of Sebring in 1941 and they enjoyed a long happy union until his death in 1974.

Mrs. Aaron's greatest contribution to her community and to her country is through her family--her children that she reared--and preschool age children of others whom she mentored. She produced seven sons and two daughters. Four of her sons served honorably in the United States Army, three of whom served in combat zones during hostilities. Rudy rose to the rank of Sergeant and served in the Army Signal Corps in the Korean War. Samuel achieved to the rank of Regular Army Major and was an Army aviator during two tours in the Vietnam War. He is a high-ranking official with the Federal Aviation Administration. A third son, Eugene, advanced to the rank of Regular Army Captain and served in Wurzburg, Germany with the Third Infantry Division as a Tank platoon commander during the height of the Cold War. He was also an advisory to South Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. He is now a State Department Foreign Service Officer, who has completed diplomatic assignments in four countries. Patrick served in the United States Army in Alaska in the Signal Corps, Mrs. Aaron's daughters are also serving their communities in significant ways. Both have chosen to become teachers in their native Florida, following in the large footprints of their mother. Priscilla is a Business teacher at Sebring High School in Highlands County. Ruth is a Mathematics Instructor in the Seminole County Community College.

Some sons have distinguished themselves in non-military areas as well. Joseph is an expert chemist and enjoyed a long 20-year career with the Department of Energy. James is a passionate lawyer, using his knowledge and skill of the law to increase justice in his community. During his life, Robert used his hands in many trades, mainly the construction crafts. Lastly, one of the children that she mentored as a pre-school student, Water, is a Medical Doctor. Indeed Mrs. Aaron has contributed much to Sebring, the state of Florida and America.

In addition to organizing and serving as president of the Women's Club, a community service organization, Mrs. Aaron was an advisor to the Girl Scouts. She is still a vibrant presence in Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church in Sebring, Florida. Mrs. Aaron's life is the very model of what is possible in a free and open democratic society and it is in keeping with the culture and highest traditions of what it means to be an American. Mr. Speaker I know that my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives join me today in saluting Mrs. Aaron and wishing her continued health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my full support for H. Con. Res. 26--Condemning the Punishment of Execution by Stoning as a Gross Violation of Human Rights.

Civilized countries and organizations the world over have universally condemned this form of punishment. The European Union, the Australian government, the president of Mexico, the Spanish parliament, and the New Zealand government, have all condemned stoning and asked for clemency for those persons sentenced to this cruel form of punishment. Amnesty International has reported that execution by stoning is designed to increase the victim's suffering.

Mr. Speaker, as if all the above are not reason enough to support this measure, there is another aspect of this stoning as a form of punishment that makes it particularly troubling. Reports indicate that where this form of punishment is used, it is generally applied disproportionately to women, women who have been accused of adultery. These victims, these women, are guiltier of being women than guilty of having committed a crime. Mr. Speaker, some of these women are forced into prostitution, and others have even been raped.

In other instances stoning has been used as a means of suppressing religious freedom and stifling political debate.

In our own country, I am proud of the work that we have done to protect women against violence. The previous administration created the White House Office for Women Initiatives and Outreach to serve as a liaison between the White House and women's organizations, with a presidentially appointed director. This establishment of this office recognized the special needs to communicate better with women to address their issues. In 2000, the Violence Protection Act reauthorized programs designed to, among other purposes, stop sexual assault on campuses, offer transitional housing for victims of domestic abuse, and assist victims of violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urged passage of this bill, as America must continue to serve as a beacon of hope in the world to those who seek freedom and to escape from political prosecution. This is a responsibility that we in this chamber must hold dear and must never forget or forsake.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 109.

North Korea has been in the news lately for a number of reasons. In recent months, it has expelled U.N. monitors, withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted a nuclear reactor.

In addition, North Korea may have the worst human-rights record in Asia. The regime prohibits freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, association, citizens' movements and workers' rights. There are an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 political prisoners in work camps. Accounts by refugees and defectors indicate that inmates are subject to forced labor, beatings, torture and executions.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights convened in Geneva this week and is scheduled to be in session until April 25th. This year one of its most challenging issues will be to determine whether to hold North Korea accountable for its poor human rights records.

I strongly support H. Res. 109, which urges the Commission to pass a resolution addressing human rights abuses in North Korea, and calls on the government of North Korea to respect and protect the human rights of its citizens. if passed by the Commission, it would be a critical first step by member states of the United Nations in demonstrating a multi-national commitment to human rights.

In 1981, North Korea ratified two treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By ratifying these treaties, North Korea officially affirmed its commitment to internationally recognized human rights and standards. Although no single diplomatic initiative can begin to resolve North Korea's human rights abuses, this Resolution would be an important first step in bringing this issue to the world's attention.

In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that on February 11, 2002, we passed, by an overwhelming vote of 402 to 6, a Resolution condemning the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Libya has failed to demonstrate that it does not support international terrorism. It has also failed to demonstrate that it has abandoned its quest for weapons of mass destruction. To reward these failures with an important and prestigious appointment makes a mockery of what this Commission stands for.

That being said, if the Commission manages to persuade North Korea to open itself up to visits by U.N. human rights experts and other international observers, this would be a significant accomplishment. I urge all members of the United Nations to work towards this goal and urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) that the gentleman and I handled this measure last fall when this bill was brought to the floor. It was a bad bill then, and it is a bad bill now. I also want to clear up something about so-called unnecessary lawsuits. There are penalties for lawyers who bring frivolous claims into any courtroom; thus, I theorize that the majority evidently does not understand that particular distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule for H.R. 5. This legislation requires a full and open debate. The closed rule is abhorrent and cowardly. It denies the opportunity for free and fruitful discussion that would uncover all this legislation's deficiencies.

The current Committee on Rules chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), said in 1994 when a Member of the minority, and referring to the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules, ``But we should have a structure which allows Members to participate more than they do now, and that it is again underscoring Lord Acton's very famous line that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The arrogance of power with which they prevent Members, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, from being able to offer amendments, that is what really creates the outrage here.''

That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and outrage continues in the minority today. If the majority alleges that Democrats were wrong in utilizing the closed rule when we were in the majority, why not be the bigger party and end the practice? Why the political games, or is it simply more fun to be principled when it is convenient?

There is no question that medical liability insurance rates are out of control. Consequently, fine doctors, as well as other health care providers, often do not properly attend to patients. However, the underlying bill will not relieve doctors of high malpractice insurance premiums. I am focused on giving Americans quality health care, as all of my colleagues are, not increasing profits for the health insurance industry; and there are good proposals to correct the situation. H.R. 5 is not one of them.

Instead of protecting patients, H.R. 5 protects HMOs and big insurance companies. The so-called HEALTH Act of 2003 addresses the health of the health care industry and not that of physicians and patients. H.R. 5 is bad legislation; but like perennial flowers, its contents sprout every Congress, replenishing the coffers of its supporters. HMOs and big health insurers should not receive special treatment. They are not above the law. Nor should they be exempt from new legislation simply because they contributed millions of dollars in the last two election cycles.

H.R. 5 applies to medical malpractice, medical products, nursing homes, and health insurance claims because its supporters' true concern is not the suffering of patients or victims. Instead, H.R. 5 advocates want immunization from the consequences of irresponsible civil behavior.

The top priority in reforming America's health care system should be reducing the shameful number of preventable medical errors that kill nearly 100,000 hospital patients a year.

Wrong-doers must remain accountable. When a stay-at-home mom dies or a child dies or a senior citizen suffers irreparable harm, there is no economic loss because it is impossible to prove damages from loss of income. H.R. 5 takes away compensation for parents who lose children, husbands who lose wives, children who lose parents, and patients who lose limbs, eyesight and other very real losses that are not easily measured in terms of money.

Despite a wide consensus, skyrocketing premiums are not due to bad politics. The malpractice insurance market is having a predicament because of the insurance industry. The other side of the aisle claims that the lure of big wins prompts many to file frivolous lawsuits. But, in fact, victims are already at a disadvantage. Two-thirds of patients who file a claim do not get a dime. About 61 percent of cases are dismissed or dropped, and 32 percent are settled; and too many of them are on the courthouse steps when they could have been settled earlier. Only 7 percent of all cases go to trial.

Patients prevail in only one in five of the cases that are tried. These are pretty staggering odds against the victims.

The American people would know these truths if their Representatives could expose the selective use of data and statistics that the majority uses in supporting H.R. 5. One classic example would be the notion that in California, after 1975, premiums went down. Well, they did not go down until California reformed the insurance laws. It did not go down. It went up progressively for 12 years.

But under today's closed rule, the majority is committing the greatest form of political malpractice. When the majority has finished bullying its members into voting the party line today, the American people will not only be barred from seeking compensation when a doctor transplants an incorrect organ but they will realize that with closed rules as the order of business, they cannot even seek compensation in the People's House.

For example, if this bill were current law, no experienced trial lawyer would take the case of the young Mexican girl who lost her life at Duke University. The case would be complex, obviously, and expensive to put on, there would be no economic damages, and the maximum noneconomic award would be $250,000. H.R. 5 treats the health care insurance businesses as the victims, and that is unacceptable.

The consequences of an injury are highly subjective and affect different people in vastly different ways. Put another way, how much is my arm worth? How much is your leg worth? This one-size-fits-all solution contradicts the

promise of individualized justice and objectifies victims and the uniqueness of their suffering. Different States have different experiences with medical malpractice insurance and insurance remains a largely State-regulated industry. The $250,000 cap that must have been taken out of somebody's cap as a reason for going forward takes away juries' abilities in our States to determine the appropriate level of compensation for people who suffer grievous injuries at the hands of their health care providers. The majority does not trust the people to defend its political contributors.

Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal quoted a Republican lawyer from Houston as asking, ``Why are juries okay to take a man's life on the criminal side but are not competent to put a dollar value on an innocent victim's life on the civil side?'' That is shameful. H.R. 5 is a health care immunity act that does not benefit physicians and victimizes patients.

When Democrats were in the majority, Republicans complained time after time that closed rules were unfair. On all of the radio infrastructure, we heard closed rules were unfair, unpatriotic and contrary to the goals of the framers. However, in more than 8 years that Republicans have been in the majority, closed rules are preferred and ruling with an iron fist is the practice. I am in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In response to my good friend and colleague regarding the fairness and openness and the 1 hour of debate, 31 amendments were offered last night in the Committee on Rules and my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and I were there. Not one, not one, was permitted. What is fair about that?

In response to Dr. Weldon's defensive medicine argument, some people claim that billions of dollars are being wasted on so-called defensive medicine. Our own Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the idea of defensive medicine is uncertain and hypothetical. You can find that on page 74 of House Report 108-32.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, there is a recent study reported in USA Today of medical malpractice insurance that concluded that,

on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance, 3.2 percent of their revenue, than on rent. I offer that for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who is an expert in this area, with a Master's of Public Health.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair announce the remaining time on both sides, please?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House, who I think can speak to both substance and process.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the distinguished chairman, my friend, that we did have 31 amendments last night; none of them have been allowed to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my very good friend.

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has studied this problem long-standing as an attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who is married to a physician, does not find that H.R. 5 is going to remedy her husband's problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a registered nurse and has seen what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), my friend, who is an attorney married to a physician, who has studied this problem actively and carefully over a period of time, coming from a State with dramatic problems.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and then I will be prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider the Conyers-Dingell substitute to the medical malpractice bill. My amendment will give Members an opportunity to vote on this substitute which, unlike the majority, takes a comprehensive approach to rising medical malpractice insurance premiums. It takes steps to weed out frivolous lawsuits. It requires insurance companies to pass their savings on to health care providers, and it provides targeted assistance to the physicians and communities who need it most.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of this bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to consider and get a vote on the Conyers-Dingell substitute. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will shut out any opportunity for a vote on the substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, on which I urge a ``no'' vote on the base rule.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.