Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply add one other item that I would hope that tonight we can discuss and that our friend from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has really, in my judgment, done an extraordinary job in terms of laying out for the American people what it is going to cost the taxpayers of the United States and the impact in terms of service cuts for Americans that that will entail.

But if for a moment I could just simply go to the issue that the gentleman from Pennsylvania raised about the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

It certainly is well-known that the two premises for the rationale for the military attack on Iraq as articulated by the President was, number one, links between the Saddam Hussein regime and the possession of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with an intent to use them by that regime that presented a clear and present danger to the United States and to our people. Since the end of the conflict, we no longer hear about links between al Qaeda and the regime of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. In fact, I would dare say there is a consensus now that there was no evidence to indicate any collaborative effort or any cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and, most likely, the opposite was true.

I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania remembers and I know the gentleman from Illinois took note of the fact that about, I think it was in April of 2001, there was a report that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in the Czech Republic.

It was later revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that that could not have happened because Mr. Atta at the time of the alleged meeting was here in the United States plotting against the American people. No longer do we hear about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So that argument proved to be false and inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, the latest information is that today, today, the White House announced that when the President made the statement regarding the sale of highly enriched uranium to the Iraqi regime by a country in Africa, they made a mistake. Better late than never.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

That is a point very well taken because several weeks ago, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), our colleague who has joined us, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I were having this discussion just as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States in the State of the Union Address made that statement to the American people; and one week later before the United Nations Security Council when he made his presentation, Secretary Powell discarded that information. But it has taken until today, today, more than 6 months later, that the White House acknowledged that that information, and let me quote what they had to say, that it was incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies.

If I may, the day of the hugs and the cheers really could be numbered in hours. Since the official end of the hostility as declared by the President, almost on a daily basis, tragically, American service men and women are losing their lives.

And they are all in our prayers. But I would like to make one other observation if I can. I do not want the American people as they watch here tonight to think that this is just simply four Democrats railing for political purposes against the White House and the administration. I know that many of our colleagues on the other side share our concerns. And I found extraordinarily interesting an article that was penned by someone whom we all respect, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And if I might, just for a moment, read his words:

The combat phase of our war in Iraq ended with a speedy,

decisive victory and minimal loss of life. That impressive

success is now at risk. Clearly, the administration's

planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate.

I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress have

yet to face up to the true size of the task that lies ahead

or prepared the American people for it. The administration

should state clearly that we are engaged in nation building.

We are constructing the future in Iraq, and it is a

complicated and uncertain business. The days when Americans

could win battles and come home quickly for a parade are

over. And when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit

strategies or say dismissively that they don't do nation

building, they are wrong.

This comes from a Republican, highly regarded and well respected. It is important that we are doing this here tonight so the American people know that, so they hear the truth.

I voted against the resolution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) voted to support it, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel); and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, and I know he has another appointment, but let us review for a moment where we are in terms of Afghanistan.

How long have we been in Afghanistan? We are talking years already. And yet what progress have we made in Afghanistan? The American people should be aware of the fact that it is a mess. The President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, whom we supported from the beginning, is unable to travel throughout Afghanistan. He is just about able to leave the central district of the capital city of Kabul. We did not conclude our work there before we took on another military intervention of a much different magnitude, much larger size, when we went into Iraq.

As has been stated by all three of my colleagues tonight, America's word is at risk here. If we just go back again to the quality of the intelligence, I do not want to leave the impression with those who are watching this conversation that we are having tonight that this is, again, exclusively restricted to Democrats. These are concerns that are shared across the aisle. This is simply too important. Decisions were made regarding whether to wage war based on this intelligence, and, clearly, that is, in our democracy, a question of the most serious consequence, to wage war.

Certainly.

I would say to my colleague that that is only half the story. When those men and women come home, when they are discharged from Active Duty, and when they assume the title of veteran, what are we doing to them then? What are we doing to them then? Well, what we are doing to them is, in some respects, discriminating against them. We are creating new categories of veterans who no longer will have access to veterans health care. That is unconscionable.

We send them to war, and when they come home, we reduce their benefits and, in fact, eliminate some of these heroes and heroines from having access to health care provided by the Veterans Administration. That is shameful.

Patriotism is more than just simply raising the flag. The flag represents respect, respect especially for men and women who serve this country in the military, and we are disrespecting and dishonoring them. That is wrong.

But when it comes to Iraq, we are going to be sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as the gentleman from Illinois indicated, to build schools, to provide health care, and to provide deepwater ports, but we cannot take care of our own veterans.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we all make mistakes, but it is important to acknowledge the making of mistakes. I would submit that if Secretary Powell had information that was available to him a week after the President of the United States in his State of the Union message referenced the sale of uranium by an African country to Saddam Hussein, then it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, would not have had a conversation with the President suggesting or informing him that he did not find that information reliable in terms of his presentation to the United Nations; and yet for 6 months the White House, the President, has continued to insist on the reliability of the intelligence that he selected when he made his presentation to the American people.

The complaints are not coming just from this side of the aisle, but are coming from the intelligence community. Even the top U.S. Marine officer in Iraq, General James Conway, said U.S. intelligence was simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons. I respect the general for making that statement; and it is time that the administration, the President and those who, upon review, discovered that the premises and the facts that supported those premises were inaccurate or incorrect, it is time to acknowledge them and restore the confidence of the American people and the people of this world in the integrity of the United States and its leadership.

These are just some quotes from intelligence officials, individuals who have no particular partisan ax to grind, and these are reports from the New York Times, and I am quoting, ``As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq. Some others see a pattern not so much of lying as of self-delusion and of subjecting the intelligence agencies to these delusions.''

Another quote, `` `The American people were manipulated,' bluntly declares one person from the Defendant Intelligence Agency who says that he was privy to all of the intelligence on Iraq. `These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud.' '' He is referring to intelligence analyses at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and those that are watching should be aware that there are many intelligence agencies, but this is the consensus of their opinion, that they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world, that such work should be nonpolitical and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propaganda.

This is from an individual who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department. His name is Greg Thielmann, and he spent the last 4 years of his public service in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and these are his quotes: ``The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issues were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things.''

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, an association, called the Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity, and they wrote to President Bush this past month to protest what they called, and again this is their language, ``a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions.''

I am quoting from their letter: ``While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately wopped for political purposes, never before has such wopping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.''

A comment by Larry Johnson, one of those talking heads that we always see on those cable programs, he used to be a CIA analyst and worked at the State Department, referring to the low morale among the intelligence community: ``I have never heard this level of alarm before. It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The President was misled. He was ill-served by folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this is witting or unwitting, I do not know.''

I am sure that C-SPAN viewers have witnessed those hearings. Sources and methods were protected. No State secrets were given out. It was a respectful discourse; and it informed the British people, a people, by the way, who sent men and women into combat with the United States. But I do not believe that is the only reason, and I am directing this to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) because while they admitted it today, ironically Sunday there appeared an article in the New York Times written by the individual, a former ambassador who, on behalf of the CIA, went to Nigeria to investigate this assertion that, according to some newspapers, came via the Italian intelligence service, and what he has to say in his words, one might draw the inference prompted this response today by the White House. Some might claim it to be an effort at damage control. But his name is Joseph Wilson, and the article is entitled ``What I Didn't Find In Africa.''

He starts it by saying, ``Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up

to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, but it is extraordinarily informative. Maybe we can do it here in the United States as well as they can do it in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, we would be derogating our duty. And I applaud the eloquence and the obviously genuine commitment that the gentleman from Hawaii just respected. We would not be honoring our obligation, and additionally we would be failing those members in the military that have fought as well as they have, and we would be failing those individuals in the Intelligence Community that have expressed their views.

It brings to mind a story that again appeared in the newspapers shortly before we broke, I think it was the day that we broke, where someone stood up and testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There was a number of intelligence officials within this closed hearing. Of course, it appears in the press, so I can speak about it. And this individual's name is Christian Westerman, and he happens to be a top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons, and he told the committees that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters specifically pertaining to Cuba to conform with the Bush administration's views. That is unacceptable. He is viewed within the Department, according to reports, as a careful and respected analyst of intelligence. He served in the Navy, and he was obviously not comfortable making that statement, but that kind of courage is important if we are going to ascertain the truth.

And whatever the truth is, the American people deserve the truth, and it is our responsibility to make every effort that we can to seek it. And I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at some point in the future, and we should discuss this with other Members of the House, but I for one would like to extend an invitation to some of our colleagues who serve in the Parliament, in the House of Commons, to come to the United States, or maybe some of us to go there to further this discussion, because I was so impressed with British democracy after viewing on C- SPAN those hearings that we have alluded to tonight. And there is real deep concern among the British, and it is clear that it is having an impact in Britain to a far more significant degree, unfortunately, than it appears to be having in this country. Maybe at some point in time, because I really believe it is necessary to have an independent commission depoliticize this issue, take it out of the realm of partisan politics.

Yes, there are congressional committees going on, but we know that there was an independent commission that was chaired by former Senator Rudman and former Senator Gary Hart that, unfortunately, they examined national security and just about predicted the events of September 11. It is so important to restore the confidence of the people in our national security, in our system. I think that happens to be the answer, but I would really welcome the input from the members of Parliament, from the House of Commons that sat in on those hearings to come and give us their observations.

I was particularly impressed with former Minister Robin Cook and a female former member by the name of Claire Short. I would think that if we invited them, they would come here, and hopefully the American media, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have put up with, finally start to take a good look, because this is an issue that is not going to go away because it is about time that we reflected and began to see ourselves as others are viewing us if we are going to continue to claim a certain moral authority in this world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for again coming to the floor of this House to raise this issue to the American people because clearly our credibility is at risk; and as time passes, there is a growing crescendo of constituents of mine, of his, and of others of our colleagues inquiring as to what occurred in this particular case.

I think what I find particularly disturbing is that in the State of the Union Address by the President back on January 28, he referred to an African nation. That nation, it was subsequently revealed, is the nation of Niger and that there had been a series of letters exchanged between officials of that nation and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq relative to the desire of Saddam Hussein to purchase highly enriched uranium from that nation; and that was referenced in the State of the Union Address, as I indicated, by the President of the United States. In fact, it was one of the core ingredients in terms of the Administration's presentation to the American people for its rationale in launching military intervention into Iraq.

Now subsequently it has been revealed that that information was false and that those documents that were relied on by the President, by the White House were, in fact, false. They were forgeries. And that was known to our intelligence agencies, specifically the CIA. Now there appears to be disagreement between the CIA and the Administration as to the information that was brought to the White House by the CIA.

Yes, I am aware of that, and I am also aware of newspaper reports that indicated that there was nothing special, according to the National Security Adviser, about this particular information, and that they just simply did not inquire any further from the CIA as to the reliability of that particular information.

But what I find disturbing, I say to the gentleman, is that a week from that date, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, presented the administration's case before the United Nations Security Council. And according, again, to newspaper reports, that information was omitted by the Secretary of State because he felt that that information was inaccurate.

Now, something is wrong. If, in the space of 7 days, through a vetting process at the Department of State by Secretary Powell, he made the decision to remove that key piece of evidence from his presentation to the Security Council, then something is remiss, something very, very serious.

Now, I know that the gentleman supported the resolution. I happened to vote against that resolution. We all had our own reasons. But even those who disagree on the issue as to whether there should have been military intervention in Iraq have an obligation, I would submit, to conduct a full and thorough review of what occurred and why this particular intelligence was referred to by the President of the United States as he addressed the American people, and clearly influenced the American people. And I would hope, and we understand that our intelligence committees on both the House and the Senate side, are conducting an investigation because of the concerns not only with this piece of information, but other pieces of information that were relied on or alluded to that supported the claim of the administration as to the intent and the position of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.

But I would respectfully suggest that that is inadequate. I think we have to be candid that this is a political institution, the American people are represented by two major political parties, and I dare say that if there is disagreement within the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate, and if that disagreement should break along party lines, there will be accusations that the Republicans were stonewalling, or that the Democrats were seeking political advantage in an effort to embarrass the President. And I do not think the American people deserve that. I genuinely believe that this is a nonpartisan issue. This is an issue about America. This is an issue about democracy. This is an issue that has, I would suggest, consequences far into the future about America's image in the rest of the world.

I would hope that this body and that the President would consider convening an independent commission; take the politics out of this so there will not be any finger-pointing, and bring people on board that have reputations for probity, for integrity, and are eminently qualified to address these issues. We should take it away from this body, take it away from the Senate, so that it is not about politics.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had that experience. The Hart-Rudman Commission that none of us really knew about or thought about or gave special attention to until September 12, the day after. Because that particular commission was comprised of eminent Americans from different fields, all highly regarded, people whose integrity are not in question; people who had no political ax to grind, who did this country a great service and produced a document that predicted, that predicted September 11. They warned that the United States was at risk. That particular document was filed on February 25 of 2001. And tragically, tragically, it sat on a shelf and no one paid any attention to it. Mr. Speaker, I would think that given the work of that particular commission, some of those people might very well agree to serve their country again. Because we have this, as the gentleman describes it, growing credibility gap.

It is important to note that the CIA, again, according to newspaper reports, is in serious disagreement with the White House and the President. According to a Washington Post article that appeared on June 12, the story quoted a senior CIA analyst that this case, and it is referring to the evidence developed regarding the alleged, the alleged purchase of uranium from the country of Niger that proved to be false, a senior CIA analyst said that this case, and I am quoting his words

now, ``This case is indicative of larger problems involving the intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and its links to al Qaeda,'' which the administration cited, as we well know, as justification for war. Information not consistent, and this is a senior Central Intelligence Agency analyst who said this: ``Information not consistent with the administration's agenda was discarded, and information that was consistent was not, was not seriously scrutinized.''

We do not know what the proof is, and that is our obligation. That is why we are here. We have a responsibility to seek the truth, to answer questions. Not for political gain, not to embarrass anyone, but to reassure the American people that the integrity and the professionalism of their intelligence services is not questioned.

No, I have not, but I am eagerly awaiting to learn.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it is important for us to be very clear and state that just recently, and I believe it was in Philadelphia, a city with which the gentleman is familiar, the President, once more, stated unequivocally that they will find the weapons of mass destruction. So I will accept the word of the President of the United States.

But this goes beyond just that question, because it is clear that up to this point in time, there have been no discoveries about weapons of mass destruction. It just has not happened.

But this is about integrity. This is about whether information was used in a way so that the American people were misled, or this was information that was given to the President of the United States, that was inaccurate and led him to come to the floor of this House, deliver the State of the Union address to the American people, and tell something and suggest to them something that in fact had not happened.

So again, I would hope that we would get the politics out of this process and seek to establish an independent commission, one of prominent Americans, that would take up this burden, and it is a burden, because it would be again calling on them to serve their country as they did so well when they told us: beware, America is at risk of an attack, a serious attack, that could cause a substantial loss of life by terrorists and no one was listening.

If my friend from Hawaii would yield, I think again one cannot overemphasize the need for the information to get out to the American people because it is important to know that the investigations that will be conducted in this House by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the other body will be conducted behind closed doors, and what we are looking for is to take the politics out of it.

Now, I hear some say that Democrats are raising these issues to embarrass the President. No one can gauge our sincerity, but I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and many of us on both sides of the aisle, by the way, Republicans and Democrats, want a situation that does not lead to a political competition.

Here I just ran across a report from The New York Times dated June 18. And let me again quote: ``Despite growing questions about whether the White House exaggerated the evidence about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, President Bush and his aids believe that the relief that Americans feel about Mr. Hussein's fall in Iraq will overwhelm any questions about the case the administration built against him. Administration officials and Republican strategists say, `I think we can ride this out,' said an official.''

This is not a question of riding something out. This is a question of righting a wrong. A wrong, wherever the responsibility should fall, let the American people in an appropriate forum listen to the questions, listen to the evidence and form their own judgments. This is not about politics.

I do not know if either one of the gentleman had the opportunity to see the British Parliament in its inquiry into these issues. I found it extraordinary. It was carried on BBC. It was televised during the day. It received national attention there. And two former ministers of the Blair government who had resigned because they did not believe that the intelligence was accurate and was sufficient, they testified as to their observations. It was civil. It was respectful. It was a debate that I know has informed the British people.

We need that to happen here, but given the realities of our own political system, I think it is best if the President, the leadership of both branches, agree for an independent commission to have public hearings that are transparent, much like the Blair government has conducted in the United Kingdom.

Naturally, we are not going to expose sources, but I would like to know, for example, what happened between January 28 and February 5. On January 28, the President of the United States in his State of the Union address made this assertion, and on February 5, according to newspaper reports, the Secretary of State Colin Powell had that particular piece of evidence removed from his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. What happened during those 7 days?

The American people should have an answer.

Mr. Speaker, I think what the American people have to understand is that we are not making allegations. We are not making assertions. We are asking for a process that will reassure the American people.

Others are making allegations, others like a gentleman who recently retired after 25 years in the State Department, the last four of which were in the Bureau of Intelligence, and his name is Greg Fieldman, 25- year veteran, and this is what he said, and I do not know what his political affiliation is. He could be a Republican for all I know. The al Qaeda connection and the nuclear weapons issues were the only ones that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both items.

That is his words. That is not my colleague's words, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Hoeffel) words or my words or Democrat words in a partisan context. I want to hear from him, and the American people have a right to hear from him, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would expect to hear from him, also. I would hope that this idea is seriously considered by both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add one observation. The gentleman mentioned the Balkans. What is transpiring today in Afghanistan is close to a disaster, and here again we have young Americans at risk every day. There has been an unfavorable review of what is occurring within Afghanistan. The warlords are still there. The Taliban are reconstituting themselves. The president, who had the support and continues to have the support of the United States, President

Karzai, is fearful of leaving Kabul. Again, progress has not been measured, but rather the lack of progress is obvious; and we have been there 18 months.

Earlier, my colleague referred to General Shinseki. He had the courage to speak his mind. He had the courage to tell the American people. And by the way, I think we all agree, I think there is unanimity among us that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. That is not at issue here. We have had a changing policy in regard to Iraq dating back for years, including, by the way, in the 1980s, when this President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, took Saddam Hussein off the terrorist list as Vice President in the early 1980s, in conjunction with, and, obviously, under the direction of President Reagan, installed an embassy in Baghdad, supplied agricultural credits in the amounts of billions of dollars to the Iraqis, and were providing intelligence from our military to the Iraqi military in terms of benefiting in their war with Iran.

I think we have to say it, they were fully aware that the Iraqis at that point in time were using chemical weapons. They knew. They knew what was happening in northern Iraq against the Kurds.

Or ride it out. Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to ride it out.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close with an observation. It is my understanding that sometime this week we could very well be considering a proposal for prescription drug benefits. I juxtapose that with a headline that I noticed today, and I guess it must have been in the aftermath of Under Secretary Wolfowitz's testimony before the Committee on Armed Services where it was concluded that there was a probability that a substantial American presence would be required in Iraq for a decade and that the cost to the American people would be $54 billion a year.

I ask my colleagues and those that are watching us to reflect for a moment on the cost to the taxpayers and the reality of the deficit that we are facing far into the future and at the same time the needs of our seniors to have a genuine, significant, prescription drug benefit so they can live their lives with dignity and a sense that they are going to be treated as they should.

The number I understand now is 43 young Americans have died since the end of the formal phase of combat.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, the proponents, they do not want to reform class actions; they really want to destroy them.

Not only have they for all intents and purposes barred States from considering these cases by means of a massive expansion of Federal jurisdiction, against the advice, by the way, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Conference of State Chief Justices, but they have cleverly changed the rules in the Federal courts to further thwart class action suits. I want to acknowledge that it is a brilliant strategy.

Do Members realize that even Washington cannot dictate the rules by

which State courts handle their cases? So they simply remove most of these cases to the Federal court. Then once they are in the Federal court, they design an obstacle course to make sure that most of these cases will just linger and linger and linger and never see the light of day. They did this by adding a section which creates an automatic right of appeal. If a Federal district court simply certifies, simply certifies a class, that appeal comes before the case is even heard on the merits.

Now, that is not all. The bill, as others have indicated, would halt all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal, until the appeal is completed. This unprecedented new right for defendants is unheard of in the American civil justice system.

What does it mean in practical terms? There is already an enormous backlog in the Federal courts, as others have suggested. This bill in and of itself will seriously exacerbate that problem and it will delay the resolution of these cases by years. As the gentleman from Virginia has said: Justice delayed is justice denied.

What I find particularly unconscionable is that the sponsors claim that the first purpose of this act is to ensure fair and prompt, and prompt, recoveries for class members with legitimate claims. Well, as that great philosopher, Rodney Dangerfield, said, Give me a break. It is important to understand that class actions do not exist solely, solely, to provide relief for private wrongs. No, they exist to correct and punish and deter; most importantly, deter corporate misconduct that harms large numbers of ordinary people and can put all Americans at risk.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, the Firestone case, the tobacco cases, where it was class action suits that revealed the ugly truth that lives had been sacrificed because of corporate greed? Because of this bill, we will create fertile ground for future Firestone and tobacco cases. That is a tragedy.

We should also understand that the existing practice which was adopted by rule in 1998 gives the judge discretion to permit an appeal of a class certification order and to stay proceedings. But as Judge Scirica, writing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, said in a recent letter to the committee, and now I am quoting, ``Providing an appeal as a right might tempt a party to appeal solely for tactical reasons.''

He pointed out that many appeals are unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive. He said that he was unaware of any dissatisfaction, not a single complaint from the bench or bar, with the current rule; and that since the rule had only been promulgated recently, any consideration of it being amended should be deferred.

Well, as my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said, we agreed with Judge Scirica and filed an amendment to undo their damage. Of course, it was not made in order. I guess I should not be surprised.

Members should know that these concerns would not only affect future class action suits in the Federal court. No, the sponsors were not satisfied with that. They wanted the whole enchilada. Unbelievably, they made that provision retroactive, so it will alter the course of hundreds of cases that have already been filed in Federal court and cause further delay, further delay; cases like the ImClone case, in which that CEO was just sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraud and perjury and obstruction of justice; and like the Enron case, brought by thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the company and rendered its stock worthless.

Are there abuses of the system? Of course. That is undeniable. The Democratic substitute would address them; but the underlying bill does not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to shield corporate wrongdoers from civil liability and leave the public unprotected.

This is not about protecting plaintiffs, and, as I said, ensuring prompt recoveries; it is about protecting large corporations whose conduct has been egregious. It is about protecting the powerful at the expense of the powerless, and to prevent people from banding together as a class to challenge power in the only way they can.

Defeat the rule and defeat the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot that's wrong with this bill. But nothing is as wrong as the provision that was added to it during our committee debate to give it retroactive effect with respect to cases already pending in court.

It's one thing to make new policy for future cases. It's quite another to rewrite the rules once the whistle has sounded.

Why in the world would the sponsors of the bill insist on making it retroactive?

During our markup, one of the supporters of the amendment making the bill retroactive said, and I quote, ``If this bill is enacted but pending cases that have not been certified for class treatment are excluded, it would discriminate against those who may be joined to a class in a pending case after the date of enactment.''

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we must transfer all pending cases to federal court and make every class certification subject to automatic appeal to ensure that no individual is forced to be a member of a class against his or her will. That's like saying that we have to quarantine the entire U.S. population to contain a single outbreak of West Nile virus. The truth is that individuals can already opt out of the class at the time they receive notice of the suit. And under rules that go into effect in December, judges will be able to extend the opt-out even after certification.

Such an argument does not deserve to be taken seriously. But the supporters also make a second argument. Unless we apply the new rules to pending cases, they say, there will be a rush to the courthouse by new plaintiffs seeking to file ``frivolous'' lawsuits under the old rules.

Here again, they propose to disrupt the hundreds of cases now awaiting class certification, some of which have already been in court proceedings for many months, in order to prevent certain other people, as yet unknown, from racing to file other cases.

This argument is almost so absurd that one is embarrassed to respond to it. If a suit is frivolous, it will survive a motion to dismiss, where it is filed in state or federal court. That is the customary remedy for frivolous lawsuits, and the courts are quite capable of using it.

No, I'm afraid that ``this dog won't hunt,'' as my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is so fond of saying.

The real reason they're so desperate to make the bill retroactive is obvious. It's the only way to throw a monkey wrench into the class actions that are now proceeding against the former executives at companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing, who are facing both civil and criminal liability for the systematic looting of their companies. For the brazen misconduct and self-dealing that defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.

If this bill passes, those executives will be able to breathe a sign of relief. In fact, they'll get another year or two in which to spend down their ill-gotten gains before they need to worry about going to trial.

It's no surprise that the House leadership was unwilling to make in order an amendment that would have stripped the retroactivity language from the bill. They don't want the public to know what they're doing. They're embarrassed by it. And they ought to be.

Oppose the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues who does support this bill, and particularly the provision that makes the automatic appeal and the stay of the discovery proceedings retroactive. It is none of the groups that were enumerated by the gentleman from New York, no. We have two letters that were submitted as testimony, as exhibits before the Committee on the Judiciary. One is the Association to Advance Technology. Another is a similar trade association involving the high- tech industry. My memory is that it was submitted by the gentleman from Virginia.

I just wonder, and I am really posing a question, I guess, do any members of either of these trade associations have class action suits pending against them now? I do not know, and I do not see the gentleman responding. But he was very effective with his parade of horror stories.

Well, let me tell my colleagues, too, I do not have any charts; but maybe we could present pictures here, pictures of dead people, people who died as a result of defective tires that were manufactured by Firestone. Maybe we could read the names of those who died as a result of not being informed by the tobacco industry about the carcinogens that are present in a cigarette. But thank God we had class action suits, because this Congress is not ready to take action until some lawyer, yes, a lawyer, went out and filed a class action suit and finally revealed what the truth was, that these industries were withholding information that affected the public welfare of the people of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, this bill doesn't ``reform'' the class action system. It eviscerates it. And before we curtail the ability of our citizens to bring class actions, we need to be clear about why they exist in the first place.

Class actions do not exist solely or even primarily to provide relief for private wrongs. They exist to correct, punish and deter misconduct that harms large numbers of ordinary people and society as a whole. Class actions level the playing field, uniting ordinary citizens who could never undertake complex and costly litigation on their own.

You can understand why a mechanism like this is threatening to major corporations. Faced with a single lawsuit by an average citizen, most major companies can barely stifle a yawn. It is only the prospect of a class action suit joined by hundreds or thousands of such citizens that can get their attention.

You can understand why corporate defendants would do all they can to stack the deck in their favor. Or in this case, to shuffle the deck in their favor.

The sponsors have hit on a brilliant strategy. Since Congress cannot dictate the rules by which state courts handle their cases, the bill simply removes the cases from state court and transfers them to federal court. Then, once they're in federal court, the bill changes the rules to make sure that most of these cases will never see the light of day.

As soon as the district court either grants or denies certification to the class, the bill gives the parties the right to an automatic interlocutory appeal of the decision. And as soon as a party files an appeal, the bill halts all discovery proceedings in the case until the appeal is completed.

What does this mean in practical terms? Given the huge backlogs in federal court--backlogs which this bill will only make worse--it will be years before discovery can resume. And years more before plaintiffs who have suffered grievous injuries can get to trial on the merits.

What's important to understand is that this doesn't just delay recoveries. It undermines the very purpose of the class action system by removing the incentive for corporate defendants to fix problems. And delaying the release to the public of information that might save lives.

The current federal rules permit the judge to entertain an appeal of a class certification order, and even to stay proceedings until the appeal is resolved. But as Judge Scirica has

explained in a recent letter to the committee on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States: ``Providing an appeal as of right might tempt a party to . . . appeal solely for tactical reasons. Staying discovery and other proceedings in the district court would only increase the tactical advantages of filing an interlocutory appeal, particularly because resolution of the appeal may not occur for 12 to 18 months.''

Nor will this problem affect only the cases that the bill transfers to federal court. It will also affect the hundreds of cases that are already there, since the bill applies retroactively to cases that have not yet been certified at the time it goes into effect.

Thoses cases include some of the most notorious corporate fraud cases in history, including--

The Enron case, on behalf of thousands of investors who claim more than $20 billion in damages as a result of the series of fraudulent transactions that destroyed the company and rendered its stock worthless.

The WorldCom case, in which the plaintiffs contend that corporate insiders and auditors disseminated materially false and misleading information and used illegitimate accounting schemes to hide losses and inflate reported earnings.

The Adelphia case, in which plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws flowing from the failure to disclose billions of dollars in debt.

The Global Crossing case, in which plaintiffs cite the accounting schemes that grossly misrepresented the company's financial picture and precipitated the ruin of the company.

The ImClone case, in which senior corporate executives engaged in fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice for which the CEO has just been convicted in federal court and other indictments are pending.

These class actions seek to address the looting of company after company by corporate insiders, whose brazen misconduct and self-dealing defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.

Yet if this bill becomes law, the victims of those practices will face new obstacles in their efforts to call those executives to task.

Are there abuses of the class action system? Of course. We've all herd about abusive coupon settlements, collusive settlements, excessive fees, and the like. The Democratic substitute would address these problems. But the bill does not. That is not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to fine-tune the class action system but to eviscerate it. To shield corporate malefactors from civil liability and leave the public unprotected.

At our markup of this bill, one of its supporters said, ``The goal of this bill is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs receive fair and prompt recoveries.''

Plainly that is not the goal of the bill. The goal is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs are denied any recovery at all. And that whatever recovery they do receive is delayed as long as possible.

This bill is not about protecting plaintiffs. It's not about protecting the public. It's about protecting large corporations whose conduct has been egregious. It's about protecting the powerful at the expense of the powerless. And to prevent people from banding together as a class to challenge that power in the only way we can.

We must also see this bill in its proper context. It is only part of an ambitious and multi-pronged campaign by major corporations to evade their obligations to society.

Under the guise of ``deregulation'' we're watching the wholesale dismantling of health and safety standards, environmental protections, and longstanding limits on concentration of ownership within the media and other key industries.

This House has just passed a bill that releases gun manufacturers from liability for the death and destruction they cause. And a bankruptcy ``reform'' bill that rewards abuses by credit card companies and does nothing to curb the greed and irresponsibility that have bankrupted major corporations and left employees, retirees and creditors holding the bag. And a medical malpractice bill that caps recovery for the injuries inflicted on patients by negligent health care providers, while doing nothing to reduce the rate of medical errors or curb the exorbitant premiums charged by insurance companies.

Today's bill completes this picture. It takes aim at the civil justice system that exists to correct the wrongs that the government cannot or will not address. Not content to put an end to regulation, the proponents seek to muzzle the courts as well.

We cannot allow them to do it, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to express my strong support for

this legislation and my appreciation to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their bipartisan leadership in bringing it to the floor.

Nearly 20 years ago, Congress passed legislation known as the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 which permitted certain cooperative ventures to reduce their exposure to treble damages currently provided for under antitrust laws by making advance disclosures of their activities. The bill before us would provide similar relief to nonprofit organizations that develop voluntary technical standards, known as standards-development organizations, or commonly referred to as SDOs. As the chairman indicated, these standards developed by these organizations play an essential role in enhancing public safety, facilitating market access, and promoting trade and innovation.

Yet despite these pro-competitive effects, these SDOs can find themselves named as defendants in suits between business competitors alleging violations of the antitrust laws. Once they are sued, these organizations are forced to expend considerable resources on protracted discovery proceedings before they are finally able to prevail on motions for summary judgment which occurs in 100 percent of the cases, from my information.

The bill, like the National Cooperative Research Act before it, takes a moderate approach to addressing this problem. It does not create, as the chairman indicated, a statutory exemption or confer immunity from the operation of the antitrust laws. Most significantly, it merely ``de-trebles'' antitrust damages in cases where accurate predisclosure of collaborative activities has been made to the Department of Justice and the FTC.

I think this is the right approach. Congress should allow the antitrust laws to operate as they were meant to, without creating special exemptions and carve-outs for particular industries. This bill does not create an exemption for SDOs. Instead, it grants them limited relief of the same type and in the same manner as the relief provided for by the National Cooperative Research Act to certain cooperative joint ventures. It is a moderate approach, and it has worked well.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for their cooperative joint venture in support of this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend, Jim Shannon, a former Member of this body and former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He currently serves as president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association, an international organization that develops the fire safety codes and standards that protect all of us. The NFPA just happens to be based in my hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts; and Jim Shannon and this fine organization have worked very hard to advance this legislation. I want to acknowledge their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to congratulate him on conducting this particular Special Order because I think it is very important.

Clearly, newspaper reports, interviews over the course of the past several days, have raised these issues, really, to a level that I know our respective offices are receiving numerous telephone calls by constituents that are expressing profound concern.

Earlier this evening, a Republican colleague of ours talked about these issues. I think he was suggesting that they were emanating from a crowd that he called Blame America First. I respectfully have to disagree with him. I think these are questions that have to be asked. I think it is our responsibility to ask them on behalf of the American people.

We are not the only ones that are asking these questions. If there is a Blame America crowd, there are many people in that crowd who are not only highly regarded and highly respected but are Members of both parties.

I think it is important to note that the top Marine officer in Iraq, Lieutenant General Jim Conway, and again, this is from a report in The Washington Post, when no such weapons had been found and the move was announced just hours ago, and we are talking about a reorganization of the group that is missioned or tasked to look for these weapons of mass destruction, he said in a press conference that U.S. intelligence was simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons.

This is a statement by Lieutenant General James Conway. I doubt that he is part of any group that would blame America, but he is making a statement that deserves an answer.

The Republican Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of this House, highly regarded, well respected on both sides of the aisle, in a letter dated May 22, 2003, and I am referring to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), he co-signed a letter to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Let me just simply quote several sentences:

``The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believes that it is now time to reevaluate U.S. intelligence regarding the amount or existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that country's linkages to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.

``The committee wants to ensure that the intelligence analysis relayed to our policymakers from the intelligence community was,'' and I am quoting the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), ``accurate, unbiased, and timely in light of new information resulting from recent events in Iraq.'' He goes on: ``The committee is also interested in understanding how the CIA's analysis of Iraq's linkages to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda was derived.''

No one in this body would ever describe the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) as a member of the Blame America Crowd.

When we raise questions about the planning and the efforts of reconstructing Iraq after that war, I am confident that no one would ever accuse the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, as part of the Blame America Crowd. Let me read, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and to the American people what Senator Lugar, a Republican from the State of Indiana, chairman of the foreign relations committee, had to say in an opinion piece that he wrote on May 22 of this year:

``But transforming Iraq will not be easy, quick, or cheap.'' These are his words: ``Clearly, the administration's planning for the post- conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate. I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress has not yet faced up to the true size of the task that lies ahead or prepared the American people for it. The administration should state clearly that we are engaged in nation- building.'' That is Senator Lugar's phrase. ``We are constructing the future in Iraq. It is a complicated and uncertain business, and it is not made any easier when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit strategies or saying dismissively that they don't do nation-building. The days when America could win battles and then come home quickly for a parade are over.''

Yes, I am clearly aware of them and it even goes beyond to simply Mr. Thielmann. In fact, there is such outrage among intelligence professionals, people that have committed their lives to this work who I am sure are devoted to their country and are clearly not part of the Blame America Crowd; but they have come together and formed a group, Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

They wrote recently to President Bush to protest what they call a policy, and, again, I am quoting here, ``a

policy in intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes,'' this is their letter, ``never before has such warping been used in a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives in voting to authorize war.''

That is a very serious accusation; and the American people deserve to have these individuals, other individuals come before in public session, the appropriate committees in Congress, and listen to what they have to say and provide us with an opportunity to inquire to them, let us lift the veil of secrecy. This is a democracy.

When we talk about American values, we talk about transparency and accountability; and I am profoundly concerned as to what I am witnessing over the course of the past 2 or 3 weeks, specifically as it relates to the issues of weapons of mass destruction and the issue of links with al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime.

Exactly. I think the point is, how in the future, if we face a genuine threat to our liberty, to our democracy, do we turn to our allies and the rest of the world and say this is a moment when the United States must take action, given what appears to be, what appears to be issues surrounding the quality of our intelligence.

Let me just go a bit further with the example that you alluded to. It was so shoddy, the intelligence work, that a local police department, let alone our intelligence agencies, would have, I hope, discovered that this information was false. It was based on forged documents. It was one of the documents being signed by the foreign minister of this particular nation which happens to be Niger, not Nigeria, but Niger on the continent of Africa, signed by the foreign minister. And simply taking the name of the foreign minister and doing an Internet search would have revealed that the foreign minister whose signature appeared, in fact, had left that particular role, had resigned from government for 10 years, 10 years.

What does that say about the quality of the intelligence that was relied on by the President and by those who supported the military intervention in Iraq?

And yet some would suggest that to even pose these questions or raise these concerns is Blame America First? I respond by saying it is defending America, defending our democracy, defending our credibility, defending our claim to moral authority among the family of nations. Not to do so would be unpatriotic.

Mr. Speaker, let me pick up on the issue that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) raises and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Our troops made us proud. We all support them. Every American supports them. Now they are being asked to do something, as the gentleman indicates, that they have not been trained for. There they are on the ground in a situation that at best is unstable. I do not even want to calculate the number of dead American soldiers on a weekly basis that have occurred as a result of guerrilla-type attacks, ambushes. It is simply not fair.

And the irony of this is that the Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, indicated before the war that it was his judgment, his estimate that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. He was dismissed by the Secretary of Defense. I think maybe it was the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, maybe Mr. Rumsfeld.

But that was grossly exaggerated. Now we discover that General Shinseki is absolutely correct. When I asked during the course of a House Committee on International Relations hearing to the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Dan Fife, simple questions, I think his responses are informative; and if I could indulge, I asked Secretary Fife, ``We read different estimates of the cost of reconstruction to the American taxpayers. What is the current estimate of the administration in terms of the cost to the American taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq?

``Mr. Fife: There is no total estimate for the whole government for the whole range of things.

``Mr. Delahunt: There is no estimate. Is there a range?

``Mr. Fife: I am not aware that anybody has pulled together all of the threads.''

So then I said, ``Well, I would hope that they would pull the threads together, and if you can get that information to me in writing, I would appreciate that.''

This is maybe several weeks ago rather than at the end of the combat, the hostilities announced by the President. I would hope, in fact, that these estimates would have occurred months before the military intervention was launched. Then I go on, ``You have answered my question, but I would like to receive something in writing, Mr. Secretary, and I would like to share it

with my colleagues. I think it was General Shinseki that estimated some 200,000 troops would be necessary to secure stability in Iraq. What is the current estimate from the Department of Defense and for how long would they be required?''

The Under Secretary's response: ``These kinds of questions have been an issue for some weeks, and we are continually being asked. And we are, obviously, not getting through on a key point which is there are so many things, so many different aspects of reconstruction and security, and each aspect depends on events and it depends on things we do not know about and we cannot know about. For example, how smoothly is the transition to an Iraq interim authority going to take place, and how quickly are the Iraqis going to be organizing?''

I responded, ``I respect that, Mr. Secretary, but at the same time I would hope that the department would have been prepared to provide a range in terms of worst- and best-case scenarios. I think we have a right to that information. Let me ask you another question: Do you have an estimate in terms of when an election in Iraq may occur?''

The Under Secretary responded, ``No, we do not.''

``I appreciate your answers. You indicated there appears to be a narrow popular support for a theocracy similar to the one in Iran. Do we have polling data to support your thesis, or is this just an opinion through intelligence?''

Mr. Fife responded, ``It is an opinion that comes from intelligence. It comes from diplomatic reporting.''

``But there is no polling data, I take it?''

``I do not know whether there are. I do not know off the top of my head whether there is polling data.''

So then I said, ``Let me ask this question. Let me pose you a hypothetical question. If we have a free and fair election and if as a result of that election there is a leadership that does not necessarily feel warmly towards the United States, are we unconditionally willing to accept that particular leadership, presuming again free and fair elections?''

Mr. Fife answers, ``We are going to be working with the Iraqis to get a government organized, and part of that is going to be organizing a constitution and a bill of rights.''

We do not seem to be hearing that anymore.

Or lockboxes, either, for that matter. As the both of you were talking about the men and women that really made us all proud, and we consider our very best, I think it is important to state unequivocally that when they return, it is not simply about parades, it is about respecting them and delivering the promise and the commitment to veterans that I know each and every member of our party is willing to make. No cuts in veterans' benefits. None at all. That is unacceptable and would be unconscionable.

But let me end my digression and go back to the issue of nation building and just read a paragraph from the May 19 Washington Post. It is entitled ``Plan to Secure Postwar Iraq Faulted.'' The author writes the following paragraph:

``In interviews here and in Washington and in testimony on Capitol Hill, military officers, other administration officials, and defense experts said the Pentagon ignored lessons from a decade of peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and Afghanistan.''

Let us be candid and let the American people hear this: that in Afghanistan, we are at great risk of returning to that kind of chaos, that kind of volatility, instability that occurred prior to our invasion of Afghanistan. It is a mess in Afghanistan. The President of that country, President Karzai, cannot leave Kabul. The rest of that nation and many sections of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan are rife with Taliban and with other terrorist groups. And we have failed miserably in reconstruction efforts there. I would hope that this administration and this House would look to Afghanistan as an example of what not to do and go forward with a sensible plan that we can all support, because we know our responsibility.

I think what is rather ironic, of course, is in Afghanistan, our NATO ally Germany is playing a key and vital role. Afghanistan militarily was truly a coalition of the willing, not a coalition of the coerced, the bribed, but a coalition of the willing. But I think it is important that we approach the reconstruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq on a multilateral basis. We cannot ask the American people to continue to bear the full burden. We have already made a comment in Iraq which practically guarantees a new hospital in every Iraqi city, 100 percent maternity coverage for Iraqi women that is going to be funded by the taxpayers of the United States. And what are we doing here in this Congress under this Republican leadership to Medicare? We are cutting it by $95 billion. That is not fair to the American taxpayer. It is not fair to the American people.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debates.

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

Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this measure are so determined to end safe and legal abortion in this country, no matter what the procedure, that they are unwilling to consider reasonable amendments that would protect the health and life of the woman and also would ensure the constitutionality of the underlying bill.

We will vote shortly to reject the Greenwood-Hoyer-Johnson amendment, which would permit the particular medical procedure banned by the bill if the physician determines that it is necessary to spare the woman from serious adverse health consequences. I understand from the hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary that supporters of the bill expressed concern that the term ``health consequences'' could very well allow the attending physician too much latitude.

But what is fascinating is that another amendment that was proposed by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and myself that would have placed even more stringent restrictions on the use of this particular procedure, permitting it only to protect the mother from serious adverse physical, and let me repeat, physical health consequences, was not made in order.

This rule should be defeated, Mr. Speaker, because without the language that I just enumerated, this bill can put women at risk and threaten their daughters with prosecution if they care for them in the way they determine to be medically safe and sound.

Furthermore, without this language, the bill is susceptible to being considered by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional again.

Now, why pass an extreme measure that would be found unconstitutional, rather than accept an amendment that would address its potential constitutional defects? Perhaps because we are not serious about enacting a bill into law that passes constitutional muster, using this bill, if you will, as a perennial political exercise.

But I would suggest that that is not what we ought to be about. Let me submit that this bill, as it is presently before this body, is a disturbing example of legislative excess.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and he is absolutely correct. What this bill does is bad enough, but what it fails to do is even worse.

The sponsors have named it the Pension Security Act, but it does nothing to protect workers and retirees from the corporate abuses that have put their hard-earned savings at risk. If this is the Republican's pension security plan, one shudders to think what they would do with Social Security.

At company after company, top executives have awarded themselves millions in bonuses, stock options, severance packages, driving their companies into bankruptcy and leaving their workers holding the bag. What does the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing.

Airline executives lose billions, lay off thousands of workers, but then go and set up secret trusts to protect their own retirement assets and put it out of the reach of creditors. What does this bill do for them? Not a thing.

Polaroid executives in my home State of Massachusetts cancelled retirees' health insurance and terminated workers on long-term disability, all the while awarding themselves millions in bonuses and severance packages. Once the company was sold, the new CEO terminated the pension plan as well. What does the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented wave of business failures, rising unemployment and growing numbers of Americans who cannot afford health

insurance premiums, let alone a 401(k) plan. What will the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing, nothing at all.

This bill is a fraud, and it deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I rise today in tribute to the Zildjian family of Massachusetts, whom we join today in marking an anniversary of an American success story. The Zildjian cymbal sets a standard for excellence--with skill, perseverance and devotion to family, employees and the community.

They arrived on our shores with an idea and a dream, and worked hard and smart to fulfill it. Now musicians around the world--from symphony percussionists to R&B drummers--swear by K/Z HiHats and Remixes and enrich the quality of our lives every day through the gift of music. On Friday of this week, May 9, a variety of friends and admirers will gather at the company offices in the town of Norwell, Massachusetts, to celebrate the 380th anniversary of the Avedis Zildjian Cymbal Company.

Zildjian Cymbals is the oldest, continuously owned family business in the United States--now in its 74th year of operation. However, the firm has a history going back almost four centuries. Zildjian was originally founded by Avedis I, an alchemist and subject of the Ottoman Empire living in Constantinople in 1623. He created a process--still a Zildjian trademark--to treat metal alloys to create cymbals of superior clarity and quality. As a result of his discovery, he was given the title ``Zildjian'' or Cymbalsmith by the Sultan.

After three centuries of manufacturing cymbals in Constantinople, the family business relocated to Quincy, Massachusetts, largely at the behest of Avedis Zildjian III, who had immigrated to the United States in 1909 and went into business for himself. When it came time for him to take over the family business in Turkey, Avedis pushed for America as the company's home. Although the foundry's establishment coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression, devotion of the family and from some of the great musicians of his day, helped Avedis persevere. Eventually, the company flourished.

In 1972, Zildjian opened a new manufacturing facility in Norwell, Massachusetts where an untold number of cymbals have been created by more than 100 dedicated employees and sold to musicians in every genre in dozens of countries around the world. After handing over the reigns of the company in 1977 to his son, Armand, Avedis Zildjian passed away in 1979. Under Armand's leadership, Zildjian continued its leadership in the production of high quality cymbals and opened a drumstick factory in Alabama. In 1995, Zildjian became the first Percussion Company to obtain the ISO 9001 Quality Certification, a standard recognized around the globe for facilities that meet and exceed rigorous quality standards.

In 1999, yet another milestone was reached, as Armand Zildjian appointed his daughter, Craigie, to be the Chief Executive Officer, the first woman to hold that distinction since the entity's inception in 1623. With the passing of Armand Zildjian in 2002, Craigie Zildjian is poised to continue the Zildjian name brand and tradition of superior workmanship into the decades to come.

On May 9, 2003, a host of well wishers will join the entire Zildjian community and gather at the company headquarters to commemorate Zildjian's contribution to our universal heritage, our region's economy, the lives and livelihoods of its employees and the entrepreneurial spirit reflected in the evolution of this fine corporation. The festivities would doubtless have made Avedis Zildjian proud. And it is with equal pleasure that I enter this tribute into the Congressional Record so that this milestone is officially recognized and recorded in the official history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who dedicated his life to ensuring that the veterans and working men and women of our country had access to the best quality health care available. He was an individual of the highest integrity and character. Sadly, he passed away on Thursday, January 23, 2003, after a long illness. Hailing from Mashpee, Massachusetts on Cape Cod, his was a life devoted to his fellow men.

John Lawlor Quigley was born on April 29, 1922. He was married to Jean Regan and leaves three children--Jan, Kristen and John. He was also the proud grandfather of nine grandchildren.

He served his country honorably as a member of the United States Marine Corps during World War Two, and earned the Purple Heart for being wounded on Iwo Jima in 1945. After the war, he returned to Massachusetts, determined to become a positive force in his community. He graduated from Georgetown University and Boston College Law School with a law degree before making a run for Massachusetts House of Representatives. Though unsuccessful at his first run in politics, it may have been a blessing in disguise as his work then focused exclusively on veterans and health care issues.

John's commitment to America's veterans and to equal healthcare access for working families was instilled in him from an early age. His father, Lawrence F. Quigley, an 11 term mayor of Chelsea, Massachusetts, was the Commandant of the Chelsea Soldiers' Home, a state facility for homeless veterans as well as those with medical conditions necessitating long term care from 1934 to 1948. John succeeded his father and oversaw the Home for over 3 decades, from 1948 to 1980. The Quigley legacy over the last 7 decades is such that the Home's hospital has been renamed after John's father and in a sense it is fitting that John's final moments were spent in a place that he had nurtured and had truly become part of the fiber of his being.

He also was heavily involved in health care issues nationally. He served as President of the Massachusetts Hospital Association from 1961-62, Director of the American Hospital Association's Region 1 and President of the New England Healthcare Assembly. Membership in these organizations enabled John to tackle the many varied and constantly evolving issues in the healthcare industry. It was a platform he used to good effect. The loyalty of his peers, employees and fellow veterans is proof of that.

In addition to his many personal and professional responsibilities, John also made the time to be an active member of his community through involvement in a number of civic organizations. He lived his life with a concern for his fellow man and genuinely cared about the future of America. John Quigley is an example for all of us and as he looks down on us today, I want to add my voice to the chorus of accolades he has earned many times over for his devotion to veterans, love of country and dedication to family. I salute you and may God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote for this bill. It includes provisions that I strongly support--including the ``AMBER Alert'' system that would aid in finding missing children. But those children have been taken hostage by a bill that also includes so- called ``sentencing reforms''--radical, sweeping changes to the Federal sentencing system that were never considered by any committee of either House. Provisions that would cause an explosion in the number of people behind bars--including many who simply do not belong there.

Just three days ago, the Justice Department reported that the number of people living behind bars in the United States had exceeded two million for the first time in our history. Two million. And included in that number is a staggering 12 percent of African-American men aged 20 to 34.

If this bill is the congressional response to that situation, the public may well conclude that we have finally taken leave of our senses.

The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of such advanced nations as Germany, Italy, and Denmark. A primary reason for this is that a large number of our prisoners are serving long

terms for minor nonviolent offenses. And if this bill becomes law, there will be a lot more of them.

Men in prison cannot raise families, cannot hold jobs, cannot pay taxes, and cannot support the economy. And when they get out, many who might have turned their lives around will have become hardened criminals, ready to return to the only life they know. Conservatives and liberals alike have recognized that this situation poses a threat to the future of our cities, our families, our economic well-being, and the health of our democracy itself. Growing numbers of prominent conservatives have joined in calls for an end to mandatory minimum sentences. Yet this bill takes a giant--and potentially catastrophic-- step in the wrong direction.

When Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it created a system of guidelines for judges to follow. But Congress also recognized that no system of guidelines can anticipate all of the facts and circumstances of a given case. And it wisely preserved sufficient flexibility to allow the judge to depart from the guidelines when necessary.

This bill would substantially eliminate that safety valve, barring judges from making ``downward departures'' in a large number of cases-- effectively transforming the federal guidelines into a system of mandatory minimum sentences.

When Chief Justice Rehnquist learned of this proposal, he wrote: ``this legislation, is enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' Justice Rehnquist is certainly no liberal. But even his concerns have been brushed aside.

Similar opposition was expressed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute and many other groups and individuals. All to no avail.

It is true that during conference, a number of improvements were made to the original language. But the final version retains many features of the original, and barely begins to address the concerns raised by the Chief Justice.

Title IV of the bill prohibits all downward departures in connection with child-related offenses and sex offenses. In all other cases, it discourages judges from making downward departures by subjecting them to burdensome reporting requirements and Justice Department scrutiny if they do so. And it directs the Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines to ensure that downward departures are ``substantially reduced.''

Since there has been virtually no debate on these radical proposals, we must guess at the reasons for them. Apparently, they are based on the belief that judges have been abusing their departure power by handing down overly lenient sentences.

No doubt errors and abuses occur. Judges are human, and some sentences will be too lenient while others are too harsh. But the system already provides a remedy for this: the government can and does appeal downward departures it considers inappropriate. And it wins approximately 80 percent of such appeals.

The truth is that the vast majority of the downward departures are sought, not by the judge, but by the government itself. Of the nearly 20,000 downward departures granted in 2001, 79 percent were requested by the prosecution--most in return for the cooperation of the defendant, and the rest in five Mexican border districts in which the government uses departures to clear cases more quickly.

If the sponsors of the bill have concerns about the rate of downward departures, the Justice department is where they should be making inquiries. As a former prosecutor, I can see plenty of reasons to question the overuse of departures as a law enforcement tool.

Inf act, the one thing that pleases me about the language as it came out of conference is that it instructs the Sentencing Commission to review not just those downward departures that are initiated by the sentencing judge but all downward departures--whether requested by the prosecution or the defense. I certainly hope that in fulfilling the congressional mandate to review these departures and ensure that their incidence is ``substantially reduced,'' the Commission will do so in a thorough and even-handed way.

Nevertheless, if there is a problem with departures, depriving judges of the ability to exercise discretion cannot be the answer. A rigid, mechanical system of sentences cannot do justice--either to the accused or to the society to which the millions we imprison today will one day return.

Mr. Chairman, I am genuinely concerned about our justice system in this country, both civilly and criminally. This bill is but the latest in a series of assaults by this Congress on the right of the people to apply to the courts to seek redress for their grievances. And it is also but the latest in a series of assaults on the right of the States to provide remedies under the law for the wrongs done to their citizens. If we continue, Mr. Chairman, we will have a justice system that is available only for business litigation. That is the direction in which we are going.

What situation, what emergency would have prompted the sponsors of this bill to deny victims their remedies? According to the findings in this bill, the emergency is ``lawsuits have been commenced'' against the gun industry. I am not kidding. The reason given is that lawsuits have been commenced. One wonders what other industry would have the clout, let alone the audacity, to come to Congress and seek blanket immunity from the consequences of their misbehavior because lawsuits have been commenced against it.

Lawsuits are commenced every day. Most of them never reach a jury. Sure enough, when I asked the industry witness how many of these lawsuits had actually resulted in a jury verdict awarding damages against the industry, he could come up with only one case in which a verdict had been returned, one case; and then it turned out upon further questioning that even that one award had been reversed on appeal. The truth is that this legislation will continue to erode our justice system as well as the 10th amendment. I cannot believe that this body continues to allow the rights of the individual States to be encroached on by the Federal Government. Whatever happened to devolution? Whatever happened to the 10th amendment?

The State courts have been doing their job well. There has been no rash of questionable verdicts, no epidemic of excessive jury awards. In fact, the proponents have been unable to point to a single final judgment in any court in this country that supports the rationale for this legislation, not one. So, please, let us hear no more about lawsuits that have been commenced. Let them ask for immunity when the courts actually start holding them accountable for their negligence. That is when the proponents of this bill should come back to this Congress.

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

As others have stated, this for me, too, is a day of disappointment and sadness, profound sadness, of human rights violated, and of diplomatic opportunities squandered. As a sovereign nation, only Cuba can decide how to attend to its own national security. But over the last 3 weeks, decisions have been made in Havana that seriously undermine efforts to normalize relationships with the United States.

I come to the floor today as part of a group, the so-called Cuba Working Group. It is bipartisan in nature, 25 Republicans, 25 Democrats. We have spent considerable time and effort to tear the wall down that has divided our people for some 40 years. This has put us at odds with the White House. It has put us at odds with many of our colleagues that are sitting here today. But we are not at odds today.

At this moment, we stand together. In the past I have called on President Bush to lift the U.S. restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba, to let our people go. Well, today, I call on President Fidel Castro to let his people go.

For me, this issue is more than political, it is personal, because some of those who have been arrested are my friends. I want to speak about 2 of them. My colleagues have heard their names here. Hector Palacios, a Varela Project organizer, and Oscar Dhepe, an independent journalist. Their arrests and convictions pain me more than anyone in this Chamber can comprehend. They are men of exceptional character and integrity who seek peaceful change. They are not agents of violence or insurrection. Far from it. They acknowledge Cuba's advances in health and education brought about by the revolution, and they want to accelerate that progress in other areas, so they work through modest, small, yet courageous acts within the Cuban Constitution. They create and have made every effort to create political space.

Hector's apartment houses one of the first so-called independent libraries in Cuba, a few shelves devoted to old medical encyclopedias and geography texts, some children's books donated by members of my office. But when Hector was arrested, these books were taken away. Doctor Seuss is not a threat to the Cuban revolution.

During our visits, we talk about how to hasten a climate of mutual respect between the people of our 2 countries, between our governments. Ironically,

they argued persuasively for an end to the embargo and travel restrictions on Americans to Cuba. Let me quote from Oscar Chepe, who presently is incarcerated for 20 years in a Cuban jail. This is his quote. These are his words: ``Experience demonstrates that isolation breathes life into totalitarianism. On the other hand, contact between peoples free individuals from falsehoods and from the lives without dignity that they are forced to lead.''

As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) indicated, we are told that these arrests had nothing to do with the content of their words. Rather, they are intended to send a message to the United States in response to a perceived pattern of illegal provocations from our own State Department.

Well, I submit that the message we have received is very different and deeply disturbing. It is that diversity of thought is not welcome in Cuba, even at the expense of jeopardizing progress toward normalization. How else can we explain 20- and 25-year sentences for Hector and Oscar and dozens of others after only cursory consultations with their lawyers and quick trials, closed to the public, foreign diplomats, and the international media.

It is inconceivable, if one knows these men, that they were conspiring with the United States. Like dozens of other detainees, they were working in behalf of the Cuban people. Nobody else. They posed no threat to the Cuban Government.

As I said, I disagree with some of my colleagues in Cuba. For example, I have chosen to travel there, to visit with people like Hector Palacios and Oscar Chepe. And unlike my friends from Florida, some of my friends, I oppose U.S. policies which prevent ordinary Americans from offering the same solidarity to those seeking change in our relationship with Cuba, a relationship that has been stated so eloquently by another prominent Cuban dissident who was recently released from serving 5 years in a Cuban jail. His name is Vladimiro Roca, and he said that the relationship ought to be characterized by dialogue, negotiation, and reconciliation. Again, those are his words.

But that is a debate for another day. I might have written this resolution somewhat differently, but I commend my colleagues for bringing it to the floor of the House; and I urge my colleagues all of my colleagues to support it; and I ask the Cuban Government to release these people.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman's position, and I do agree with the chair of the subcommittee's position, the gentleman from Arizona. I think he articulates the reasons that we ought to support the money allocated to Turkey. And yet I have a question for him, if I can attract his attention for a moment, either the gentleman from Arizona or the chair of the full committee.

Again, while I applaud the democracy that we have noted in Turkey and the fact that they have been steadfast allies of this country, and that they did have a very healthy parliamentary debate and reached the conclusion, as democracies do, that they would not accept what I understand was a $30 billion package, at the same time I just recently read and I would like----

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey be granted an additional 30 seconds.