Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of MG Mary L. Saunders. General Saunders has served her country for more than 34 years and will retire from the United States Air Force on October 1, 2005.

General Saunders was born in Nacogdoches, TX, and grew up in Houston. She was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force after earning a bachelor's degree from Texas Woman's University in 1970, and served in a variety of assignments during her military career, excelling in key logistical positions. The general made her mark on Air Force logistics in a variety of transportation squadron, air terminal operations, and contingency plans staff positions. In August 1996, General Saunders was selected as the director of Transportation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and Logistics, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. In 2004, the Department of Defense, in recognition of her superb organizational skills, appointed the general as the vice director of the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA, Fort Belvoir, VA.

From early in her career, General Saunders' exceptional leadership abilities were evident to both superiors and subordinates as she repeatedly proved herself in select command positions. These include serving as deputy commander and commander, Military Air Traffic Coordinating Office, Military Traffic Management Command, McGuire AFB, NJ; commander, 475th Transportation Squadron, Yokota Air Base, Japan; and commander, Defense Supply Center, Columbus, OH.

During her long service as a logistics expert, General Saunders was a crucial voice for critical Air Force policy and programs, always providing clear, concise and timely counsel to her service's senior leaders. Her later role in the joint service arena proved invaluable to the Department of Defense as she led a variety of logistics, acquisition, and technical services for DLA in times of peace and conflict. Always, the general put a human face to the Air Force's core values of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. Her increasingly responsible positions and public recognition bear this out.

I am especially pleased to note that upon her retirement, General Saunders plans to return to her home State of Texas to continue

her life of service at her alma mater. In January 2006, she will become the executive director of the Leadership Institute at Texas Woman's University at Denton.

As General Saunders transitions from her role as a military leader to a community leader, we wish her great health and happiness. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation for her many years of service. I am confident in the years ahead, Mary Saunders will continue to leave her indelible mark on our country.

Mr. Speaker, many people responded admirably and effectively in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast. But the fact is that a natural disaster was turned into a human travesty because of incompetence, disorganization, and misplaced priorities.

And the answer does not lie in the firing of Michael Brown. It has been apparent to many who have watched what has happened within the Department of Homeland Security that FEMA has been unvalued within this administration, and as a result became a dumping ground for political hacks.

The fact is that 75 percent of FEMA's money has had to go to terrorism-related situations, such as paying overtime for TSA airport screeners, which means that preparation for the possibility of flooding in New Orleans or an earthquake in San Francisco get very low priority.

In fact, we are not even preparing adequately now for an earthquake in San Francisco when two out of three of FEMA's highest priorities have already occurred with New York and New Orleans.

Mr. Speaker, another natural tragedy cannot be allowed to become another human travesty. We have to get into the guts of this organization, weed out the incompetents and fund it adequately and appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues from Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey to introduce legislation recognizing the importance of a national memorial at the Pentagon to commemorate and mourn the terrorist attack against the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

This legislation is modeled after a resolution (H. Res. 175) my friend and colleague from New York introduced earlier this year in support of efforts to create a September 11, 2001 memorial at the site of World Trade Center.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is appropriate that we establish memorials at the sites of these attacks to honor the victims.

On that fateful day four years ago, the 59 victims of American Airlines Flight 77 and 125 military personnel and Defense Department employees at the Pentagon died and scores more were injured in a dastardly and unprovoked attack against the American people.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have joined the pantheon of national tragedies and become a defining moment in United States history.

These attacks of September 11, 2001 affected all Americans, not only for the tragic loss of life, but also for its emotional toll on our public conscience. Two-thirds of Americans report that the attacks had a great emotional impact on them, and virtually all Americans can recall precisely where they were and what they were doing when they learned of the attacks.

And while all of us were beset by the tragic loss of life and untold suffering, we found solace in the inspiring and heroic actions taken by the crew and passengers of Flight 93 and by the firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, military personnel and ordinary citizens who raced to the scene of these attacks and saved lives, keeping the attacks from taking an even greater toll.

It was a tragic day, but a defining moment in our nation's history.

I applaud the efforts of those who have worked to build the memorials to honor and

commemorate the fallen and to acknowledge the impact the horrific attacks have had on all of us.

I encourage my colleagues and those listening to support these memorials and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation failed its people last week. There was a violation of the trust that the American people have a right to vest in their government. The importance of that trust cannot be overstated. It is why we let our sons

and daughters go to foreign lands to fight wars. It is why we pay our taxes. It is why we obey official laws and orders.

But last week this trust was breached. Whether it is because we are not used to seeing poverty so visible or the results of institutional racism so stark or because of just pure incompetence, it was criminal to abandon thousands and thousands of men and women, mothers and children and grandparents to rot in the squalor of complete government neglect. There has to be an immediate, rigorous and harsh determination of accountability for this criminal neglect.

But there must also be a response worthy of a great and prosperous and noble Nation. A person of the caliber of a Colin Powell, perhaps, must be given singular authority and responsibility to resettle when necessary, to rebuild where possible, and to return eventually New Orleans to its status as one of America's great cities. The people of New Orleans are asking for no more and the American people should demand no less.

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and individuals devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Reports that displaced residents in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast are unable to receive medical attention and basic supplies are truly horrible. This is an unacceptable situation for the wealthiest country in the world. The conditions are desperate and the full force of the Federal Government must be turned towards helping those in need.

The Federal Government is prepared to provide an unprecedented level of disaster assistance, starting today with a $10.5 billion emergency aid package.

The recovery effort has raised several issues that must be addressed. First, once the immediate need for medical assistance, food and other resources is met, the massive job of providing housing in different communities throughout the country for the thousands of displaced victims must be undertaken. This will require an unprecedented level of coordination between federal, state and local governments and the private sector. Also, decisions must be made in terms of the reconstruction of the areas most devastated, in a manner that ensures that a tragedy of this magnitude will not repeat itself.

Second, the alleged unwillingness of the federal personnel assigned to the disaster to use the resources available to them in a timely fashion must be investigated. The fact that there was one instance of a military helicopter being fired upon is not an excuse for helicopters not to land or buses not to transport people. Questions with regard to class, race and discriminatory attitudes must be addressed in a candid and constructive manner.

Third, the personnel and agencies responsible for responding to this disaster are the same as the nation would call on in the event of a terrorist attack. Their present response, in the President's words, has been unacceptable and inexcusable. We must ensure that future responses are dramatically different.

In the coming days and weeks ahead, I encourage every American to consider volunteering to help our fellow citizens in this time of great need. My offices have received hundreds of phone calls from constituents who are eager to help in anyway possible, and this will allow the generosity of the human spirit to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of one of our nation's most vital and successful social programs: Medicare. To this day, it remains one of the greatest accomplishments, providing near universal coverage to America's most vulnerable citizens.

Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has drastically reduced the number of Americans

living below the poverty line, and considerably reduced the financial burden on seniors and their families. The program has increased life expectancy among Americans, giving minorities greater access to health care, and given individuals with disabilities access to health care that was never previously available. All the while, this program has operated efficiently with our tax dollars. Administrative costs average less than two percent of expenditures, a fraction of what private insurance companies spend on such costs.

Yet while we have seen remarkable success in the last 40 years, we must ensure that the mission of Medicare is carried on through this new century. So far, this Congress has fallen woefully short. The Republican majority pushed through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to provide prescription drug coverage to American seniors. A noble idea, but this law falls far short of the universal coverage and prohibits the government from using common sense negotiation strategies to keep drug costs low.

As future generations reflect on the legacy of this Congress, in many respects it will be shaped by the commitments--rather than the rhetoric--that we make to our seniors. Medicare is a program that offers stability and hope for millions. It is our responsibility to continue the strong history Medicare has built. Let's give America's seniors the drug and medical coverage that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 40th anniversary of Medicaid on July 30, I want to underscore the importance of Medicaid to children and adults with serious illnesses. Medicaid is a public health insurance program that helps 52 million low-income and disabled Americans, including 540,000 Virginians, stay healthy. Nationally, half of Medicaid enrollees are children.

Medicaid is particularly important to people with serious illnesses. Medicaid can be the only way to pay for care.

Many people with serious illnesses must turn to Medicaid for several reasons. Many insurance policies have a lifetime upper limit of $1 or $2 million. Approximately 51 percent or 87.5 million people with employer-based insurance have a lifetime cap, according to a 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Many private insurance plans impose pre-existing condition and other exclusions and refuse to insure people with serious illnesses and disabilities. Many working Americans do not have job-based health insurance because their employers do not offer it. The cost of individual health insurance policies is often out of reach. And most Americans are too young for Medicare.

A serious, chronic illness can be emotionally and financially devastating. While we have made great strides in treating cancer today, everyone fears cancer. In 2004, 1.4 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed. In 2005, 34,000 Virginians will have cancer, says the

American Cancer Society. Since 1990, over 18 million new cancer cases have been diagnosed nationwide and 9.6 million Americans are alive today with a history of cancer. Some cancer drugs can reach $300,000 a year. Hospitalization, chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, and other treatments can be very expensive and people with insurance can reach the lifetime limit of their policy quickly.

Consider also the example of hemophilia. For the typical hemophilia patient, clotting factor to prevent bleeding, needed for a lifetime, can cost $250,000 each year, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation. Look at cystic fibrosis. The care for a person with moderate cystic fibrosis can climb to $70,000 a year. The average cost of care for all people with cystic fibrosis is $58,000 a year, reports the National Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Drugs for rare genetic diseases can reach $200,000 a year, says the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Caring for a person with spinal cord injury can be beyond almost anyone's ability to pay and it can be for a lifetime because spinal cord injury is most common among teenagers. The Spinal Cord Injury Information Network estimates that the average yearly expenses (health care and living expenses), for severe injury (high tetraplegia, C1-C4), the first-year cost would be $683,000; each subsequent year, $122,000. As for lifetime costs, for someone who is severely injured at age 25, costs could reach $2.7 million. If one is severely injured at age 50, can be $1.6 million.

Most American families cannot handle costs like those. This is why Medicaid is called ``America's safety net''; it is often the only way to pay for care.

I'd also like to focus also on the importance of Medicaid to children. Over 25 million American children, one-fourth of all children, are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest public provider of health insurance for youngsters.

In Virginia, 23 percent of our children are Medicaid enrollees. Sadly, 8.6 percent or 163,501 of Virginia's children have no insurance. Insured children are more likely to get health care. Insured children are healthier, happier children.

We also need to understand how important Medicaid is to children's hospitals, where very sick children are often treated. In 2003, Medicaid-covered children were 47 percent of all discharges and 50 percent of all inpatient days of care at children's hospitals. According to the National Association of Children's Hospitals, children covered by Medicaid tend to need more care than other children's hospital patients. Children's hospitals provide 40 percent of the hospital care required by children on Medicaid. Children with particularly complex and life-threatening illnesses are frequently treated by children's hospitals and without Medicaid, these special institutions could not survive.

Medicaid has played a vital role in our country these last 40 years. I call on my colleagues to join me in working to strengthen Medicaid. It is truly a lifeline, especially for those unfortunate children and adults with serious illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time the gentleman has on his hour.

Would the gentleman be willing to yield me the remainder of his time?

Mr. Speaker, should I just ask for unanimous consent since there are no other Members present in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, I rise because what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), my friend, has said is terribly important to be said. And what is even more important is that it be made available to the public at large.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, appropriate, to inform the gentleman and the rest of the Congress who may not be aware that the elements of the strategy for success, the identical language which the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has requested in the form of an amendment, has actually been included in an appropriations bill, the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, passed earlier this year.

That language was included in an amendment that I submitted to the Iraq supplemental bill. It also included the benchmarks that the gentleman has suggested, as well as even more specific information. We have received that report on the strategy for success, Mr. Speaker.

The most important elements of that report, in fact though, were included in an addendum which was classified. And so I and those who have seen the report are not at liberty to give the kind of specific information that at least I feel should be shared with the American public.

But I would like to address what was in the body of the report, which does in part respond to the very specific questions, as to Iraq's military capability, its economic viability, and its political stability.

The American people need to know whether in fact Iraq will ever be able to fully control its borders and provide security for its society and its economy. And we need to know how successful we have been in training and equipping Iraqi forces, because we have been working at that for more than 2 years.

The American people also need to know what has happened to the tens of billions of dollars that we have appropriated for economic reconstruction.

Will Iraq ever be or is even close to being economically viable? Is its physical infrastructure in place so that its economy can rebound in a way that will provide economic opportunities for its population?

The American people also need to know, in addition to where Iraq is in terms of military capabilities and economic viability, how stable its government can ever be and at what point will the decisionmakers, the policymakers in Washington decide that its governance is stable enough to be able to return Iraq over to a democracy that is worthy of our military efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this war. I voted against it. I voted against most of the funding for it. I did vote for the Iraq supplemental because it included this language that I felt was vitally important, requiring what, while we do not call it an exit strategy, is certainly appropriately entitled ``a strategy for success.'' That language was included and could only have been included if it was offered in a bipartisan, nonpolitical context, without a whole lot of fanfare. But working with the majority we could get some answers to the questions that the American people, our constituents, are asking. We did not have those questions answered when we went to war.

I opposed the war because I felt that it was unjustified. I knew that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Suggestions to the contrary were a ruse. The reasons given were at best unjustified; at worst, deliberately deceptive.

I also opposed it because as our senior military officers will tell you we ought not go to war without a plan to win the peace. We had no plan to win the peace. And, in fact, the 41st President of the United States, George Bush, when he had the opportunity to go into Baghdad and take out Saddam when we had Saddam's Republican Guard on the run, he chose not to do so because his advisors, understanding the country, acting with foresight and knowledge of the political context within the Middle East, were afraid that we would be thrust into the role of an occupier. And they knew, and I think were absolutely right, that the United States should never be playing the role of an occupier, but always that of a liberator. So they chose not to go to Baghdad. The son chose differently with very different people advising him, and I think for different reasons.

But now that we are in Iraq, what do we do? That is what senior military officers are asking us. And it is certainly what the mothers and fathers of the young men and women who are fighting this war are demanding to know. They need to know what is our strategy. How long will we be there? How much more money is absolutely necessary to continue this military engagement? And they are getting none of those answers.

Unfortunately, I cannot disclose any of the specific information that has now been provided, but I certainly can share, at least with my constituents, the fact that in my judgment we are nowhere near being able to withdraw a substantial number of our troops in a responsible manner because, in my judgment, the Iraqi military is nowhere near being able to secure its borders. The Iraqi police forces are nowhere near being able to restore law and order in that country. The economic infrastructure is nowhere near being able to support a viable economy. And even the government is nowhere near being able to pass a Constitution that not just would be acceptable to the American people who have sacrificed so much to bring it about, but it is not even in the situation where it would be enduring and accepted by the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a quagmire here. We need answers. We need answers from the people who put us in that quagmire. It is wrong to continue to be sending troops to a war that is this unwinnable, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I suspect what is going to happen, and it was further confirmed yesterday by the Secretary and by some of the senior military officers who have been in a consultation with them, that we will start a substantial withdrawal. But I think that withdrawal, I feel that withdrawal will be motivated more for political reasons than for military or foreign policy reasons. We have our fist in the middle of a beehive, and we are getting stung. The advisors that sent us there are not getting stung because they figure they can say or do anything

to avoid repercussions and accountability. But, boy, our young men and women are being stung every day.

We need to figure out how to extricate in a way that is responsible and will justify their sacrifice. We cannot cut and run. And yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), one of the most respected Members of the House, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, is afraid and, in fact, predicts that is what we will do, and we will do it for political reasons, not for substantive policy reasons.

We need to get more countries involved in a real way, not in a way so that with a few troops they can list their participation. We need to go through international bodies like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. We need to work with the United Nations, which we continue to bash and beat up on and scapegoat for our own problems in terms of our credibility throughout the world. We need to get the rest of the world involved because the rest of the world had a stake here in getting rid of a ruthless dictator, in restoring stability in Iraq, in giving Iraq some ability to seize control of its own destiny, but in a way that it chooses. That is what we should be about.

We should not be about, in my estimate, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build an American Embassy in Baghdad that only serves to confirm what our enemies are telling their recruits, that we are there for the long run; that we are there as occupiers; that we are there to take advantage of their oil reserves; to exploit Iraq's resources, and to exploit its people for our own political purposes. They are wrong, but we have to prove that they are wrong.

We have to show the world that we have a strategy for success, a responsible one. It will leave Iraq in better shape than before we entered it. We never, as I said, should have entered, but now we have a responsibility to fix it before we leave. And that strategy for success, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is not going to be achieved unilaterally. It is going to have to be achieved by working with the rest of the world in an international context, letting the Iraqi people control their own destiny, not dictating to them.

As much as I would love for us to hand them a Constitution that made us feel good about what we have accomplished, I do not think that is going to work. They have to own that Constitution. I pray to God that they will not exclude women, that they will not continue some of the arcane habits, the laws and the regulations that only serve to support religious clerics and a very conservative, even extremist in some cases, religious system of governance, but, in fact, will open it up to a true democracy where both men and women can fully participate a free enterprise, an uncorrupted economy, and, in fact, a strong military and police force that will provide the security to the Iraqi people that they have not had in generations.

That has got to be our objective. We cannot achieve it on our own. We have got to work with the rest of the world. We have got to sit down and maybe even eat a little humble pie and come up with an international solution for this, and to not require our soldiers to bear the brunt of the injuries and the death that they have.

Changing Iraq's leadership was more in the interest of so many other countries than it was in America's interest. We went because we had the ability to go, and I am afraid there was some political motivation involved as well. But now that we are there, we in the Congress need to require of the executive branch that they give us the answers, that they share with us and then to the American people, they need to share with the American people what is their plan, what is their strategy for success. And if they do not do that, there will be political accountability as there ought to be.

Mr. Speaker, the report that we received 2 weeks late, but that we did finally receive 2 weeks ago, is an important first step, but it is grossly inadequate. The language that I put in the appropriations bill several months ago required a 90-day update. Every one of those updates needs to be more specific, needs to be fleshed out better than the prior reports. And most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it needs to be shared with the American public. It is their money. It is their sons and daughters. That is what this war, unfortunately, is about, from their standpoint.

How do you make this worth the effort? How do you succeed in a way that their sons and daughters can be proud of what they contributed and the risk they undertook? The administration owes that to them. We will continue to insist that it provides that information, not in a classified document that can be kept from the public's eyes and ears, but within a spirit of full disclosure. And if they do not have a plan that will work, they need to come up with one.

They need to consult with the rest of the world, be willing to work with the legislative branch, with our other allies and even those we do not consider allies. It is in this planet's interest to bring about a free world, a safe world for its future generations.

So I ask the administration that has been twice elected to do the right thing, to get us out of Iraq, but to get us out in a way that we can turn back knowing that we have accomplished something that was deserving of the sacrifice, the loss, the risk that our best young men and women have been willing to undertake.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

I applaud the work of the conferees and their willingness to find compromise and drop the most controversial and anti-environmental provisions, particularly the authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the liability exemption for the petroleum industry to finance the clean up of drinking water contaminated with

Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifteenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Signed into law by George H. W. Bush on July 26th in 1990, and enacted with bipartisan support in the Congress, the ADA served as the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities.

Following in the footsteps of civil rights legislation from the 1960s, this landmark legislation has sought to end discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace and encourage full integration into American society, particularly through enabling independent living.

In its fifteen years of existence, the ADA has accomplished much. Access ramps, curb cuts, Braille signs, and assistive listening devices at movie theaters now appear in communities around the country. Transit and communications systems have become more accessible. Indeed, the ADA has contributed to a greater awareness among Americans as to the needs and potential of people with disabilities.

Yet despite this progress, I remain deeply concerned that the promise of the ADA has not been fulfilled for many of America's 54 million citizens with disabilities. For example, empirical evidence demonstrates that there has been little change in the employment rate of people with disabilities. Only 32 percent of

working-age people with a disability are employed. Today, people with disabilities are three times more likely than those without disabilities to live in poverty. There is much progress still to be made.

Unfortunately, in recent years the federal courts have narrowly interpreted the ADA and have not enforced key provisions of the Act, especially in regards to the workplace and the applicability of ADA to state law. Moreover, the Administration has proposed funding cuts to key programs--Section 8 housing, Medicaid, and vocational rehabilitation and assistive technology--which enable many people with disabilities to achieve self-sufficiency and live independently.

On this anniversary of the American with Disabilities Act, we must make sure that we fulfill the promise made to our disabled brothers and sisters fifteen years ago. Indeed, the goals of the ADA could not be more pertinent than they are today, when thousands of soldiers are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe injuries. It is my hope that we can move forward today to fully realize the goals of equality and integration set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, which purports to help stem rising medical malpractice insurance premiums and relieve health care professionals, but, in reality, will have very little effect.

What this body should be considering today is comprehensive medical malpractice reform and this measure does not even come close to achieving this important goal.

Last night, the Rules Committee did not make in order several amendments, which taken together, would have achieved true comprehensive medical malpractice reform.

Earlier this year, I, along with Brian Baird, Dutch Ruppersberger and Dan Lipinski, introduced the Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2005, which would have achieved three key goals, namely (1) constrain the cost of medical liability insurance and reduce unwarranted litigation; (2) protect the rights of patients who have been harmed to receive proper and justified compensation; and (3) improve overall the quality of health care in our country.

Unfortunately, we, along with several other Members, were denied the opportunity to improve H.R. 5 with these amendments.

One of our amendments that was denied debate would have set reasonable limits on non-economic damages.

We all know that a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages is too low since some valid cases with catastrophic or lifetime injuries may merit additional compensation, particularly in the case of the negligent death of an infant.

Our amendment would have set a cap on awards for pain and suffering that is based on California's enactment into law of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act in 1975. Many provisions of H.R. 5, including caps on non-economic damages, are modeled after this California law.

Our amendment would have indexed non-economic damages at the rate of inflation, which comes to about $877,000 in today's market. Certainly a far more reasonable number than $250,000.

This amendment would also have weeded out frivolous lawsuits by going after lawyers who continue to file claims that are not substantiated by evidence or expert opinion. Courts would be able to impose a ``3 Strikes & You're Out'' law and suspend from practice for no less than one year, lawyers who file their third frivolous lawsuit.

Our comprehensive medical malpractice reform package also considers alternative dispute resolution, as a means of avoiding litigation, while at the same time, still addressing victims' rights. We modeled this provision after a successful program at Rush Medical Center in Illinois.

This first-ever hospital based mediation program has proven to be very beneficial to the hospital and other health care providers, and brings closure for individual plaintiffs and defendants.

Over the years, the number of suits against Rush has declined and other hospitals have conducted mediations and have reported favorable results. Our amendment would have given health care institutions the training necessary to implement mediation programs.

Another rejected amendment would have given liability protection to those health care providers, who in good faith, report to report to state medical boards regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician. These good-faith reporting health care providers would not be held responsible for attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of legal action.

According to data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 1990 to 2002, just 5 percent of doctors were involved in 54 percent of all medical malpractice payouts, including jury awards and settlements. More startling, the data shows that of the 35,000 doctors with two or more payouts during that period, only 8 percent were disciplined by state medical boards.

Health care providers need better whistle-blower protections. Currently there is an imbalance between the legal obligation health care workers have to report errors or unusual incidents and the legal protections they have against retaliation once they report these incidents.

Greater liability protections for health care workers would help to ensure that future medical errors are not made, as well as give state medical boards the opportunity to work with colleagues on weeding out those doctors that provide an inadequate quality of care to patients.

Those who are going to support H.R. 5 today will return to their respective congressional districts during the August recess and brag to the doctors that they voted in favor of medical malpractice reform.

What they will not tell their constituents is that H.R. 5 is DOA when it is sent to the Senate for consideration, and that the other body would not think of entertaining legislation with inadequate caps on awards.

Nor will proponents of this bill reveal that H.R. 5, if signed into law, would not stem rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, because not one provision contained in this bill reforms the insurance industry.

Last night our colleagues on the Rules Committee squandered a valuable opportunity to actually fix the root problem of medical malpractice.

Let us send a message to the American people that we are now prepared to take the issue of medical malpractice reform seriously. I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, because there are so many good people and true leaders among you, people who understand that we need to do more than we have done for Central America and Central Americans.

In a perfect political world, a Central American trade agreement should have passed on the Consent Calendar.

In a perfect world it would have, because there is virtually no Member of Congress who does not have undocumented immigrants who have risked their life and limb to come to the United States so as to provide some future for themselves and their families. Many of our grandparents could empathize, but surely we who were born here must at least sympathize.

We all know the conditions in Central America. You would have to be blind or without conscience not to recognize the suffering that Central Americans are enduring. Thirty percent of the population cannot afford the most basic foodstuffs. In most countries, more than half of the population are living in poverty. Certainly we feel some obligation, do we not, to do something about it?

I understand the politics, though, and I regret the politics. But from the standpoint of policy, certainly this could and should have been a much better agreement. We should have addressed labor conditions in a more robust way, likewise, in language to preserve the environment. But on the whole this agreement does much more for Central America than we will have the opportunity to do in a long time to come, and that is the reality.

Today we have a perfect storm of political confluence where the elected leaders of all of these nations are products of democratic elections, and their leaders are telling us they want this trade agreement to pass. The leader I have the most respect for, Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote an editorial, in the Post, and I trust we read it on both sides of the aisle. The thrust of his argument was, please give us an opportunity to stop having to export our people and let us begin to export our products and our services. And the only way that we can do that is to provide an incentive for all these multinational corporations, people with capital to invest, to invest it in Central America; ultimately invested in the human infrastructure, the roads and the bridges, the transportation and the communication systems, and the human infrastructure, the people, their education, their skills, their training. It will be in their interest. It is not in their interest now.

Central Americans have paid the price for a system of government that continually exploited people who had no power; that was ruled largely by a handful of elite families, many of them descendents from the original European settlers who came there half a millenia ago. For 500 years they have been suffering. It is time to put an end to their desperation and isolation. They need and deserve a seat at the table of the global economy.

I am not going to try to justify or rationalize or excuse all of the problems with a globalized economy. Certainly people lose their jobs and people are hurt, but the global economy is a reality of today's world. And if you are not at the table, you will suffer. We cannot maintain even the status quo in Central America any more than we can in this country. If CAFTA doesn't pass poverty will get worse in Central America. Jobs will continue to be lost at an even faster pace to China and other countries who are more competitive, and capital will go elsewhere if we do not pass this trade agreement.

It is in so many ways deficient. I am not going to argue about that. But it is a fact that over the next 4 years $160 million is going to be invested in enforcement of labor laws, labor laws that are actually pretty good on the books of these nations. They are not enforced, but today this is the best opportunity to have them enforced. There will not be another opportunity to

have them enforced, and we have that commitment. And, likewise, the environment will not be exploited to the degree that it has been.

It is not a perfect agreement, but it is our responsibility, our duty, as far as I am concerned, to pass this agreement now, to work with Central America, to work with the people that will invest in Central America to bring about a better world. A world one day of opportunity for the best and brightest Central Americans in their own country, so they don't have to risk everything in pursuit of it outside their country of birth. I do understand that it is important to be on the right side of the political equation tonight, but it is even more important to be on the right side of history, and I think the right side of history will prove to be a yes vote for CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 525, which will allow small businesses and associations to band together to purchase health insurance coverage for their workers and their families.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act can directly benefit the over 2,300 small businesses and associations in my congressional district and their employees.

H.R. 525 would allow AHPs and small businesses to be certified under one Federal law, instead of 50 different State regulations.

Like large employers and labor unions that offer health insurance to their employees and members, AHPs would be regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Many opponents of the Small Business Health Fairness Act claim that AHPs will ``cherry pick'' and therefore only benefit healthy people. This is not true.

All AHPs must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group plans from excluding high- risk individuals that have required repeated health insurance claims.

H.R. 525 also guarantees that only bona fide professional and trade associations can sponsor an AHP. This measure ensures that AHPs will undergo a strict, new certification process before they will be allowed to offer health benefits to employers. This new certification process includes stronger solvency standards, including stop-loss and indemnification insurance.

Studies have shown that AHPs would save the typical small business owner between 15 percent and 30 percent on health insurance.

Currently, there are 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Even more troubling is the fact that 60 percent of uninsured Americans work for small businesses that lack the resources to provide health care benefits to their workers.

In fact, 65 percent of small-business owners indicate high cost as the main reason why they do not offer health insurance.

Small employers are facing 50 percent premium hikes, even as many insurers are leaving the small group market because it is not profitable enough.

The time to offer small businesses and associations the ability to band together to offer health insurance to their employees is now.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act represents a first step in helping to lower the number of uninsured Americans, many of whom work for small businesses.

H.R. 525 would introduce more competition into the market, reduce unnecessary regulation and administrative costs and make health coverage more affordable for small employers and their employees.

I urge support of H.R. 525.

Mr. Chairman, the devastation of 9/11 shook our collective consciousness to the core; but it should not have shattered the foundation that defines who we are as a people and serves as a beacon of individual rights and liberties throughout the world.

Our Nation has been able to overcome the challenges of the past by proving to ourselves and to the world around us that our rights and our values are the indispensable conditions of being an American. If we allow the threat of fear and terror to undermine our civil liberties, we will have failed not only the Founding Fathers who bestowed upon us the philosophical foundations of this great Nation, but more importantly, we will have failed the future of America as the last great hope of mankind.

Mr. Chairman, an unforeseen consequence of these infringements on American citizens' civil liberties is the erosion of our standing as the international leader of the rights of people. With each fundamental mistreatment of our own citizenry, we broadcast an image around the world that will, in fact, come back to haunt us. We will become what we deplore: a hypocritical pseudo-democracy of freedoms granted from the government down instead of from the people up.

Mr. Chairman, do not rewrite our precious Bill of Rights. Vote against this bill just as our Founding Fathers would have.