Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and in support of the Stupak-Boucher substitute.

This bill does nothing to help us gain energy independence, to increase refining capacity, or lower prices at the pump. And no Member, and particularly no one who represents the Midwest, should vote for this bill.

The Federal Energy Information Agency predicted that the price of natural gas would increase by 71 percent in the Midwest this winter. In Chicago, the average heating bill is predicted to be $1,475 per household. Yet, instead of addressing an impending heating crisis and protecting consumers, this bill is filled with giveaways to the same energy companies that are making record profits in the aftermath of the hurricanes.

This bill's attempt to prevent gasoline price gouging is little more than a charade. But this bill does not even pretend to prevent natural gas companies from gouging consumers. Even though natural gas prices are four times what they were in 2001, there is no mention of natural gas in the price gouging section of this bill. For natural gas suppliers and distributors, this bill is a green light to jack up the prices.

In Illinois, to qualify for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a family of four must earn under $29,000 a year, under that. Because of increasing energy costs, LIHEAP has covered a smaller share of a family's average heating bill over the last 4 years, and that share will be lower this year due to these record price spikes. This winter, millions more Americans may find that they cannot pay their home heating bills, not just poor Americans. What are we doing to protect them?

The Democratic substitute gives the FTC new authority to prevent and punish corporations that gouge consumers for the oil, gasoline, and natural gas they need to get to work, heat their homes, and run their businesses. It is

the only proposal before the House today that will address the impending heating crisis facing millions of Americans this winter.

Mr. Speaker, we were unprepared for Katrina. We cannot let that happen again. Members in this body are faced with a choice: representing consumers and small businesses, or big oil companies. We should not leave the American people in the cold this winter while energy companies are left with money to burn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support all the women and children who have survived domestic violence, and for all the women whose lives have been claimed by domestic abuse. It is abhorrent that violence within our homes continues to be prevalent today--nearly one in four American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. Violence against women is a profound and extremely pervasive problem, striking across borders, across economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and across all age groups. It is an epidemic that affects not only women, but their children and families as well.

As we recognize National Domestic Violence Awareness Month this October, it is time that we actively work to end violence against women. I would like to draw special attention to immigrant women who continue to lack access to many resources that would enable them to escape domestic abuse. While we were able to include many critical provisions of relief to battered immigrant women when we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act in 2000, there are still battered immigrants, like asylees and the elderly, who are forced to remain in abusive relationships, unable to appeal for protection from law enforcement and the courts for fear of deportation. I have introduced H.R. 3188, the Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act, which will allow them to safely escape their abusers without fear of deportation or other negative immigration consequences. This legislation would also provide a safety net for battered legal immigrants and their children by allowing them access to work permits, health insurance, food, and other benefits required to escape their abuser and gain economic independence.

It is time that we change attitudes in this country so that violence against women is no longer tolerated. We are devoting extensive resources to ending terror around the world, while at the same time one in four women continue to be terrorized by domestic violence and sexual assault in their lifetime. It is time that we devote the same amount of resources to ending a form of violence that terrorizes over half the population of this globe. We must teach our sons that violence of any kind is unacceptable; we must give our daughters encouragement and support so they have the self-esteem to leave abusive relationships; and we must start to envision a world free of violence against women. I believe that if we all work together, we can turn this vision into reality. But it is going to take resources, hard work, and, most of all, incredible resolve. I challenge my colleagues to make the fight against domestic violence a top priority, and together we can make this country a safer place for our mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of provisions of my bill, H.R. 3188, the Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act, which are included in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. These immigrant provisions reflect hard, bipartisan work of many Members of Congress, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership on this issue.

This bill is a good start. It would help immigrant women who need to leave their abusive spouses by preventing their deportation while their application is being considered. It would provide them access to work permits, so that they can get a job on their own and gain economic security independent of their abusers. In addition to spouses, this bill would also protect battered children, as well as parents, from abusive family members.

However, we can do more. For example, this bill does not include provisions which would allow battered victims access to health insurance, food and other benefits required to escape their abuser. I will work hard to include these provisions in the final bill enacted.

As a first generation American and someone who represents an immigrant rich community in Chicago, I understand the unique challenges immigrant women face. ``My neighbor called the police, but I did not sign the report out of fear,'' said a Mexican immigrant and mother of four at a press conference I held in Chicago. She said she stayed with her abusive husband for 13 years to be with her children.

This is the voice of women across the country that need our help to get out of the cycle of abuse. This Congress must remain vigilant in its fight to protect one of the most vulnerable populations in this country. I challenge my colleagues to make the fight against domestic violence a top priority.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Pete Stark, in introducing the Medicare Informed Choice Act, an immediate and essential first-step in protecting Medicare beneficiaries.

I believe that fundamental changes are needed to make the new Medicare drug benefit more affordable and less complicated. Along with my colleagues Representative Marion Berry and Bob Andrews, I have introduced H.R. 752, the Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act, which would establish a meaningful drug benefit in Medicare and require Medicare to negotiate for price discounts, as the VA and large employers do today. In the meantime, however, it is clear that Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries need immediate relief from the confusion and complexity of this fall's enrollment process. The Medicare Informed Choice Act would provide that relief by providing three simple changes in 2006: elimination of the late enrollment fee, a one-time opportunity for every beneficiary to switch plans, and protection against the loss of retiree health benefits.

I recently received a letter from a constituent, Phyllis Arist from Evanston, Illinois. She wrote:

I urge you to suspend the late-enrollment penalty for

Medicare Part D.

Enrollment in Part D will be a challenge for anybody and

everybody, whether that person is health care savvy or not.

There will be dozens of complex plans that consumers will

have to confront. How would you choose among a slew of

different drug plans, each covering different drugs, using

their own cost-sharing scheme, working with different

pharmacy networks, and no guarantee that the plan will be

around next year?

If Medicare Part D were a straight-forward benefit like

Medicare Part B, the penalty might be justified. But given

the circumstances, it is unfair. People with Medicare need

more time to understand the new Medicare drug benefit.

More time, combined with reliable and comprehensive

information, will ensure more people are making the right

choices and not taking a leap of faith into the unknown.

I agree with Ms. Arist. It is abundantly clear that the enrollment process for the new Medicare drug benefit is complicated, confusing and can result in bad decisions by beneficiaries. Any of us who have tried to explain the basic benefit to our constituents knows how difficult it is to do so, let alone explain the variations in the multiple private plans that will be available to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Private plans will vary in terms of premiums, cost- sharing requirements, covered drugs, and pharmacy sources. Beneficiaries taking multiple medications will find it difficult to sort out their options, especially in areas like Chicago where about 50 plans are expected to be available.

No one who is on the ground believes that the support and outreach services will be available to provide the one-on-one counseling

that beneficiaries and their families will want and will require to make informed choices. As the former executive director of the Illinois Council of Senior Citizens, I know that it will take hours with each beneficiary, many of them taking multiple medications, to fully explain private plan options and how each choice will affect their access to the drugs they need. A majority of beneficiaries lack regular access to a computer or have the ability to navigate websites. A recent HHS Inspector General's report found that 44 percent of callers to the Medicare hotline had difficulty accessing information. Many beneficiaries are frail, some suffer from dementia, and others are not English-proficient. We have to reach beneficiaries living in Centers for Independent Living, nursing homes and isolated areas. And, of course, we have to address the needs of the evacuees from Hurricane Katrina.

Tina Kitchin, director of the Oregon Department of Human Services, is not alone in saying ``I don't know how Oregon will successfully do this within this timeframe.'' The State Health Insurance Program coordinator for McLean County, Illinois, is asking beneficiaries to call early because, ``There are too many people for us to handle all of them on or after November 15,'' the first day that enrollment can begin. Already, the constituent advocates in my own district office have had difficulty getting answers to questions about how the new federal drug benefit will coordinate with our state's pharmaceutical assistance program. And already, we are seeing constituents who are confused, scared and angry about the inability to get answers to their questions while being pressured to make a fast decision.

It is time to recognize that the late enrollment penalty imposed in the Medicare Modernization Act is unfair to the 42 million beneficiaries who want to make informed choices, will not have access to unbiased assistance in making those decisions, but who will face substantial and permanent late enrollment fees if they don't act by May 15th. The Medicare Informed Choice Act will give beneficiaries the time they need to make the decision that is right for them.

Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will face obstacles in getting access to independent information, but they will be inundated with materials from private plans seeking customers. Beginning next month, Medicare beneficiaries and their families will be subjected to multi-million advertising campaigns by insurers. As reported in The Wall Street Journal (``Insurers Bet Big on New Drug Benefit,'' September 7, 2005), ``The payoff could be big. The new drug benefit is expected to boost 2006 revenue at seven of the largest health insurers by at least $4.45 billion in 2006, and lift earnings by 2 percent to 4 percent according to CIBC World Markets analyst Carl McDonald.'' Some companies expect increased profit levels of 4 percent to 6 percent.

The pressure to make a quick decision will be enormous, particularly when coupled with a sales pitch arguing that failure to choose will result in a permanent, financial penalty. Without adequate, independent and personalized counseling, many beneficiaries will make the wrong decision. Getting rid of the late enrollment fee is only part of the solution. Our bill will give all beneficiaries the opportunity to switch their plan and enroll in one that better meets their needs, whether they enrolled by mistake or because they succumbed to sales pressure.

Finally, there is massive confusion about how the new Medicare drug benefit will mesh with current retiree benefits. Unfortunately, a beneficiary's misunderstanding and enrollment in a Medicare drug plan could result in the loss of retiree benefits. Again the Medicare Informed Choice Act gives a one-year grace period to sort out confusion and correct any errors.

I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Informed Choice Act so that we can protect our constituents from unfair penalties or the loss of retiree benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues Representative Chris Shays and Danny K. Davis in introducing the Microbicide Development Act, along with twenty seven of our colleagues. This bipartisan legislation recognizes the need to coordinate and accelerate federal microbicide research and development programs in order to provide a new and effective tool in fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic here and around the world. At the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok last year, microbicide development was listed at one of the ``10 most promising biotechnologies for improving global health.'' It is time that we turn that promise into reality.

Microbicide products that can be applied topically--like gels or foams--are being developed today to help prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases in women. Microbicides would block infection by creating a barrier between the pathogen and its target cells. A computer modeling study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that if an effective microbicide were used by 20 percent of women in just 73 low-income countries, it would prevent 2.5 million HIV infections over three years.

The Microbicide Development Act would help us realize the life-saving potential of microbicides. It would require development and implementation of a federal strategic plan to coordinate ongoing activities among the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the United States Agency of International Development (USAID). Through this increased emphasis and annual reports to Congress, we can ensure that the United States moves forward effectively and quickly as part of the global effort to stop AIDS.

The need to act to cut HIV infections and AIDS deaths is overwhelming and immediate. Most of us are aware of the stark figures. In the last 25 years, 40 million people around the world have been infected with the disease. Nearly 3 million lives are lost each year. In Africa alone, it is projected that 80 million people will die by 2025 unless we act decisively to stop the spread of AIDS.

Not as many are aware of the changing face of HIV/AIDS--the growth of infection rates among women. Over 14,000 people are infected with HIV each and every day--about 7,000 of them are women. Many of these women live in monogamous relationships but, because they are unable or too afraid to ask their husbands or partners to use condoms, they have no prevention tools at their disposal.

In fact, as Dr. Zeda Rosenberg, director of the non-profit International Partnership for Microbicides, points out, ``For women, in many parts of the world, being poor, young and married are the most significant risk factors for acquiring HIV infection.'' Microbicides-- products like gels or foams that can be applied topically--would provide an effective prevention tool that women can use to protect themselves, without having to rely on their partners.

Microbicides hold particular promise in Africa, where, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in 2003, women must be placed at the center of the HIV/AIDS strategy. ``If you want to save Africa, you must save the African woman first,'' he said. ``It is they who nurture the social networks that help societies share burdens.'' Yet, as Lesotho's Minister of Health and Social Welfare Deborah K. Raditapole describes, many African women have little ability to protect themselves or their children: Having sex with her husband is considered a wife's duty, even when she knows that her husband has had other partners and wishes to protect herself. If she insists that he uses a condom or refuses to have sex with him, she may be beaten or abandoned. Even if a woman suspects that her spouse may have been exposed to HIV, she has nowhere to turn for support, and there are no laws to protect her.

That is why Ilene Wong, a Stanford Hospital physician, calls microbicide development a ``lifesaving safety net.'' In The Washington Post last summer, she wrote: In my nightmares, I see the women we have failed to protect from AIDS. . . . I despair for my sisters in Africa, who know that abstinence is rarely an option for the powerless and poor. Rather, it's a luxury for those confident that they will eat tomorrow. A truly comprehensive and farsighted global AIDS program would recognize that women need their own weapons against HIV. They need microbicides.

In the Gleneagles statement issued last July, the G8 recognized the need for a greater commitment to global health and joined the chorus of respected health organizations calling for expedited microbicide development. Other organizations that have recognized the potential of microbicides include the Global Coalition on Women and AIDS, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the National Institutes of Health, the National Women's Health Network and the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Microbicide development is not just a life-and-death matter for women in other countries, it is equally crucial for women in the United States. In Illinois, over 30,000 AIDS cases have been reported and we have suffered 16,400 deaths since 1981. As in other parts of the world, women and especially women of color represent a growing proportion of new infections in Illinois. The AIDS Foundation of Chicago has been a leader in calling for expanded microbicide R&D as part of their comprehensive efforts to address the AIDS epidemic. David Munar, Jim Pickett and others at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago have been instrumental in helping to design this bill and in bringing attention to the need to put prevention tools against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases directly into women's and men's hands.

I also want to thank the many women who, infected themselves, have come forward to push for microbicide development in order to protect other women. Women like Chicagoan Debra Fleming, an African American woman who has lived with HIV for 20 years and says, ``I know plenty of women who really don't have a choice when it comes to using protection with their partners. Condoms are just an option for them because a lot of these women are battered. With a microbicide, a woman can protect herself from both HIV and a black eye.''

And I want to thank my constituent, Patrice Dean, who has been HIV+ for 15 years, who is also part of the fight for prevention. ``If microbicides would have been available to me, I may never have become infected,'' she says. ``They are important for all women, especially women of childbearing age who want to have a child but not risk infection. They are also important for married couples, where it may be difficult for a woman to negotiate condoms. Men don't like condoms, never have, never will. That is always an issue.''

Women will soon comprise over half of the world's HIV/AIDS-infected people. They need HIV-prevention tools that they can use themselves, without having to rely on reluctant and sometimes even abusive partners. The Microbicide Development Act will spur development of those tools. I hope that my colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this bill and in pushing for its enactment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate Simon Wiesenthal, who passed away last night at the age of 96. Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor, was responsible for bringing over 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice. Equally as important, he played a major roll in the founding of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and the world renowned Museum of Tolerance, which works diligently for the defense of human rights and the Jewish people.

The work of Mr. Wiesenthal is especially important to my district which is home to one of the largest concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the United States. Just this past weekend I stood with many of those survivors and several of their liberators in Skokie, Illinois to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps. As the conscience and voice for not only the Holocaust's 6,000,000 Jewish victims but for the millions of others who were murdered by the Nazis as well, Wiesenthal was and will always remain a hero to our community.

When Simon Wiesenthal was asked why he chose to pursue the Nazi criminals and, bring them to justice, Wiesenthal responded, ``You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, `What have you done?', there will be many answers. You will say, `I became a jeweler.' Another will say, I have smuggled coffee and American cigarettes.' Another will say, `I built houses.' But I will say, `I didn't forget you'.''

When the Holocaust came to an end, Simon Wiesenthal never forgot. And because he became the leading representative of the victims, determined to bring the perpetrators of history's greatest crime to justice, we will never forget Simon Wiesenthal. Many have noted that the heinous acts of the Holocaust, for their scale and brutality, make real justice for victims and survivors impossible. No punishment, even death for those Nazi criminals who were later apprehended, could match the horrific misery suffered by Hitler's victims. But, nonetheless, Simon Wiesenthal's work, his tireless pursuit of the last century's most abhorrent criminals, brought a measure of justice and a measure of peace to the Jewish community. Most importantly, he was a reminder that ``Never Forget'' is not a guarantee, but a pledge, one for which we all share responsibility. Mr. Wiesenthal's work reminded the world that crimes against humanity left unpunished, will be repeated. With the passing of Simon Wiesenthal, the world now has an additional responsibility to embrace the lessons of the Holocaust and fight hatred and intolerance wherever it exists.

Mr. Chairman, I have asked for unanimous consent to be removed from the list of cosponsors on H.R. 3132. My name was added to the list unbeknownst to me and my staff due to a clerical mistake made by the House Judiciary Committee Majority Staff. For the record, I did not ask to be added to the list of cosponsors.

Sexual crimes against children are terrible and reprehensible acts. I believe that it is vital that we take every precaution to protect our

children from sexual violence and that we punish those criminals who prey on our children. However, I stand today in opposition to H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act. While I support many of its provisions, I am concerned that this bill would expand the use of the death penalty, impose mandatory minimum sentences, and punish more young people as adults.

Although I believe that harsh penalties and aggressive prosecution of sex offenders are necessary, I oppose this bill because it would create at least two new death penalty provisions. I strongly oppose the death penalty because it is fraught with problems such as inadequate representation for the accused, lack of access to DNA testing, police misconduct, racial bias and other errors. Experts have found a national error rate of 68 percent, which means over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing phase. In fact, former Illinois Governor Ryan declared a moratorium in 2000 after 13 people were released from death row because of innocence. The error rate in Illinois is 66 percent. Therefore, I believe capital punishment is inconsistent with Constitutional requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process.

This bill would also create 36 new mandatory minimum sentences which are arbitrary, ineffective at reducing crime, and unfair. The United States Sentencing Commission found that minorities were substantially more likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive mandatory minimums sentences with no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences had any more impact in reducing crime than sentences where the judges had discretion. Judges are exercising their discretion responsibly under advisory guidelines, and there does not appear to be an epidemic of judicial leniency. A proliferation of mandatory minimums is not the answer.

I agree that sexual abuse crimes against children are serious concerns today. Unfortunately, this bill takes the wrong approach. I am especially concerned that this bill allows for more youths to be tried as adults. For example, a 19-year-old who has consensual sex with a 17- year-old would be treated the same as an older adult predator of young children. The vast majority of children and teenagers show a high response rate to treatment and often do not become adult sex offenders. This bill would mandate lifetime sex offender registration for children and youth, and subject them to long prison sentences. Research shows that young people who are prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release than youths who go through the juvenile justice system.

Representative Conyers offered as an amendment to H.R. 3132, the provisions of H.R. 2662, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2662, and strongly supported this amendment to H.R. 3132. This legislation would make it easier for the federal government to investigate, prosecute and prevent hate crimes across the country. And I hope it is enacted.

It is the responsibility of Congress to the young people of this nation and to all citizens to combat violence against children. Unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction. 33 scientific researchers, treatment professionals and child advocates have written to express their opposition or serious concerns with this bill. Although this bill included the provisions of H.R. 2662, which I strongly support, I oppose H.R. 3132 because it would treat youths as adult criminals and lead to a potential increase in the number of innocent people being executed or languishing in prison.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3132.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 216, a resolution commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law on August 6, 1965.

Forty years ago, in many parts of the American South, it was almost impossible for people of color to register to vote. African Americans had to pay a poll tax and pass a socalled literacy test in some States in the South. There were black men and women who were professors in colleges and universities, black lawyers and black doctors who were told that they could not read or write well enough to register to vote. People were turned away from the courthouse when they attempted to register. Some were jailed.

The turning point came 40 years ago, on March 7, 1965, when about 600 men and women, and a few young children attempted to peacefully march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, the State Capitol, to dramatize to the world that people of color wanted to register to vote. And the world watched as they were met with night sticks, bull whips; they were trampled by horses, and tear gassed. One of the historic marchers is now a member of Congress, our colleague Representative John Lewis.

In the wake of what is now known as Bloody Sunday, under the leadership of President Johnson, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, and on August 6, 1965, it was signed into law. This was a nonviolent revolution in America, a revolution of values, a revolution of ideas. The passage of the Voting Rights Act helped expand our democracy to let in millions of our citizens. We are a better country because of it.

Before we move toward reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, we must take notice of how far we have come and where we now stand, so that we can move together to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act. Today many, including elderly adults, persons with disabilities, and people of color, continue to fight for the right to have their vote count while our nation's election system has yet to catch up and meet the needs of all of America's voters.

Today, we remember the people who fought to expand democracy 40 years ago. But we must do more than just remember; we must use their example to continue the struggle today until the dreams of those who fought for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 become a reality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Act. The civil justice system is about giving injured consumers their day in court, allowing them the opportunity to hold wrongdoers accountable, recover damages and change dangerous behaviors. H.R. 5 is a frontal assault on those consumer rights.

H.R. 5 is a dangerous, anti-consumer bill that would impose an arbitrary ceiling $250,000--on the amount a patient injured by medical malpractice, HMO denials, nursing home abuse or defective drugs or medical devices could receive for noneconomic damages, no matter how devastating the injury. In many cases, the victim may have few out-of pocket losses, but suffer great harm. For example, an l8-year old woman who loses her ability to have a child for the rest of her life may suffer no monetary loss. Under H.R. 5, the most she could recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit would be $250,000.

Politicians should not impose arbitrary caps on non-economic damages. We are no substitute for a jury of one's peers, which has the ability to look at the facts and weigh the evidence in individual cases. There are some who say that it is appropriate to limit non-economic damages since economic damages are not capped. But non-economic damages are not ``extras,'' they are not inconsequential. Unbearable and long-term pain, loss of sight and mobility, the inability to bear children, the loss of an infant or a grandparent--these may not be as easily quantifiable as lost wages but the losses are just as real. And, for many consumers who have been injured or lost a loved one, noneconomic damages might be the only damages available.

The National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform has provided actual histories of nursing home residents harmed by medical negligence. Frances G's physician described her as ``the victim of gross nursing home neglect. Her pressure sores and dehydration were inexcusable.'' Her nursing home was consistently understaffed, her physician's orders were repeatedly ignored, and she endured excruciating and continual pain from pressure sores but was given no pain medication. Gertrude H., according to charge nurses, was grossly neglected and suffered life-threatening pressure sores. Her physician stated that, ``I have no doubt that Gertrude experienced severe and unrelenting pain from June 27, 2000 to February 6, 2001, from the deep, eroding pressure sores.'' Because both Frances and Gertrude were senior citizens, any compensation would come in the form of non-economic damages. Do my colleagues really believe that $250,000 is ``reasonable'' compensation for Frances and Gertrude and their families?

Children are also adversely affected by caps on non-economic damages. Shannon Hughes had a long and difficult labor. The doctor was called repeatedly and finally showed up at her 35th hour of labor. At 37 hours, the doctor performed an emergency C-section. The umbilical cord was twice wrapped around the child's neck. Tyler suffered cardiac arrest for 18 minutes. As a result, Tyler, who is now 7 years old, is severely brain-damaged and bedridden. He must be turned every two hours, is

fed through a tube, suffers seizures daily and is non-communicative. Shannon says, ``My son has no future but pain and suffering. No politician in Washington has the right to decide what is proper compensation for him.'' Like many parents, Shannon may need to use whatever noneconomic damages she received in order to pay for Tyler's care once her economic compensation runs out. In many instances, because of rising medical costs and new technologies, the damages awarded for medical care run out while the medical bills keep coming.

Tyler survived, but many babies do not. Where medical malpractice results in the death of a child during labor, a mother most often will not have any physical injury but only emotional distress of losing her child. In this case, under the proposal by H.R. 5, no amount of economic damages will be awarded, and the non-economic damages would be capped at $250,000.

Non-economic damage caps have a disproportionate effect on women who work inside the home, children, senior citizens, children and low wage- earners who are more likely to receive a greater percentage of their compensation in the form of non-economic damages if they are injured. But caps on damages are not the only anti-consumer provisions in this legislation.

In addition to the arbitrary ceiling on non-economic damages, H.R. 5 lets wrongdoers--those found guilty of medical malpractice--decide whether to pay damages on a periodic basis, even if the injured consumer wants and needs damages paid upfront.

H.R. 5 eliminates joint and several liability. This means that a consumer injured by more than one wrongdoer will not be fully compensated if one of those wrongdoers declares bankruptcy or cannot pay their share.

H.R. 5 eliminates the collateral source rule, which could mean that an injured consumer's health insurer--not the wrongdoer--pays the medical bill.

H.R. 5 also places limits on punitive damages, gives special protections for drug companies and medical device manufacturers, caps attorneys' fees for plaintiffs but not defendants, and shortens the statute of limitations. Finally, it includes a state preemption provision that leaves in place state laws more favorable to medical providers and organizations while overturning state laws more favorable to injured consumers.

While it is clear what H.R. 5 would do in terms of eliminating consumers' rights, it is equally clear what it won't do. No insurance company executive has yet to come forward to say that passage of H.R. 5 would reduce medical malpractice premiums. In fact, according to American Insurance Association spokesman Dennis Kelly, quoted in the January 3, 2005 Chicago Tribune, ``We have not promised price reductions with tort reform.'' The General Counsel for the American Tort Reform Association admitted that ``There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring.'' (Los Angeles Times, 10/22/04).

At the same time, multiple studies have indicated that medical malpractice premiums are not connected to jury award or settlement levels. A recent analysis of the top 15 medical malpractice insurers found no rise in payouts from 2000 to 2004, at the same time that premiums doubled. Some companies significantly increased premiums while their claims actually decreased. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the number of tort cases fell 4 percent from 1993 to 2002 and that the real causes of higher premiums were economic factors and insurers' investment decisions.

H.R. 5 takes away consumers' rights and particularly hurts women, children and seniors, while doing nothing to help doctors with high malpractice insurance premiums. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005.

To support NASA's mission is to support the fundamental ideals of the United States of America: discovery, progress, freedom and imagination. President John F. Kennedy said in September of 1962 that ``we set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.'' President Kennedy understood the value of the exploration of space and his foresight was correct. Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats, and NASA remains a leading force in scientific research to this day.

Innovations created by our space program have found their way into the clothes we wear, the food we eat, our national security, the medicines we use, the computers we rely on and in the vehicles that transport us. More importantly, NASA's exploration of space has allowed us to view Earth and the universe in a new way. While the tremendous technical and scientific accomplishments of NASA demonstrate that humans can achieve seemingly impossible feats, we also are humbled by the realization that Earth is just a tiny speck in the universe.

I am pleased to know that the Science Committee brought a bill to the floor that provides clear policy and funding provisions to ensure that NASA remains a multi-mission agency with robust research and development activities in science, aeronautics and human

space flight. In addition, I am happy to know that the House has continued its investment in the Hubble Space Telescope which has provided inspiration worldwide to young and old, scientists and non- scientists alike. Hubble is one of the most important astronomical instruments in the history of NASA, and has made extraordinary contributions to scientific research and the inspiration of our youth. Finally, I am grateful that this Authorization includes language that will help ensure equal access to NASA education programs for minority and under-privileged students. The bill also properly funds the Space Grant Program which helps to promote strong science, mathematics and technology education from elementary school through graduate school.

The innovation, discovery and invention that NASA has brought to not only the United States, but also to the world is not complete. We must continue to explore the bounds of space, demand scientific breakthroughs, and enrapture the minds of children. Congress' stewardship of NASA allows our Nation to reach for the stars.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When the ADA was signed on July 26, 1990, it promised ``equality of opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, inclusion and independence'' for people with disabilities. This landmark legislation--one of the most important civil rights bills of our generation--is designed to allow the disabled to be full and productive members of our society. The goal of the ADA is that no one should be isolated or denied the opportunity that is the American dream.

The motivating idea behind the ADA is the recognition that persons with disabilities deserve to enjoy true equality and independence, to be part of our Nation not isolated within it. The ADA says it is wrong that individuals cannot join their friends at a movie theater or restaurant or sports stadium simply because they are in a wheelchair. It is wrong that disabled individuals are not hired because employers refuse to make workplace accommodations. It is wrong that, because individuals must deal with a disability, they must also deal with the lack of accessibility to public buildings, transportation and services. That kind of discrimination goes against the fundamental principles of our Nation. It is those types of obstacles that the ADA has sought to eradicate. By integrating people with disabilities into the workforce and community, we have all benefited.

While there were many individuals who were instrumental in winning the passage of the ADA, I want to acknowledge and thank two leaders in the disability rights movement: Justin Dart and Marca Bristo. Justin Dart was an inspiration for all of us who care not just about disability rights but about human rights. Marca Bristo, a constituent and friend, continues to lead the effort to expand opportunities and respect for persons with disabilities. I have had the personal privilege of knowing and learning from them and, like so many others, have been profoundly influenced by them.

Justin Dart was born in Chicago in 1930, contracted polio in 1948 and spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Although he died in 2002, his legacy lives on both through the thousands of advocates he has inspired and through the work of Yoshiko Dart and the rest of his family. He was known for his grassroots activism, touring the Nation, rallying people to support disability rights. In 1981, Mr. Dart was appointed by President Reagan to be the vice-chair of the National Council on Disability. He and others on the Council drafted a national policy that called for national civil rights legislation to end the centuries-old discrimination against people with disabilities--what would eventually become the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In 1988, he was appointed to lead the Congressional Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities. Mr. Dart toured the Nation, touting the ADA as ``the civil rights act of the future.'' In 1990, Justin Dart received the first pen used by former President Bush at the signing ceremony for the Americans with Disabilities Act. For the reminder of his life, Justin Dart continued to work passionately to see that disabled persons were given the rights they deserve and to win ``Justice for All.''

Marca Bristo is a nationally and internationally acclaimed leader in the disability rights movement. In 1977, Ms. Bristo suffered a spinal injury in a car accident. Her new condition forced her to see life in a new way, and she has since been a passionate and tenacious advocate for disability rights. In 1980, she founded Access Living in Chicago, one of the Nation's first centers for independent living. Ms. Bristo served as the Presidentially-appointed chairwoman of the National Council on Disability from 1994 to 2002 and while heavily involved in the drafting of the ADA, has not been afraid to point out the need for improvements in it. As chairwoman of the NCD, she released a report on the ADA 5 years ago which focused specifically on implementation problems and has persistently argued that rights must be enforced in order to be real. Marca Bristo continues to work hard for disability rights and to improve the lives of people in Chicago and around the Nation.

Our Nation has come a long way in the 15 years since passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have changed, we have become a more inclusive society, but we have not achieved our goal. The ADA has done much to break down barriers for the disabled, but we must recognize that we have far more to do to end discrimination. For 15 years now, it has been illegal for employers to discriminate against job applicants because of their disabilities. Yet, 2 of every 3 disabled persons are unemployed. It is illegal for state and local governments to deny disabled persons access to public services such as mass transit. Yet, funding constraints still leave persons with disabilities without accessible and convenient transportation options. Public and commercial buildings must be constructed and, where possible, modified to accommodate disabled persons. Yet, homes are still being built that lock people out instead of being built to be accessible and inconclusive. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1441, the Inclusive Home Design Act. Finally, too many people are still locked out of their communities because of the lack of home- and community-based services. We need to build upon the initial success of the ADA to solve these problems. Yet, today we are defending against Social Security privatization schemes that would slash disability benefits for 8 million people with disabilities and against Medicaid cuts that would jeopardize health and long-term care services.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has changed our society in these past 15 years. However, as with most civil rights issues, there is still so much more progress to be made. We must remember the vision of Justin Dart and listen to the message of Marca Bristo. While we take time to celebrate today's anniversary, we must never be content until the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act becomes reality so that every person is guaranteed ``equality of opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, inclusion and independence.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 59, which honors and commemorates the contributions of women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women to vote in the United States.

The women's suffrage movement began with women speaking out for women's rights when their efforts to participate equally with men in the great reform movements of the mid-1800s--including antislavery and temperance--were rebuffed. These early feminists demanded a wide range of changes in women's social, moral, legal, educational, and economic status.

Although women in this country now have the right to vote, we must look back at the efforts of these pioneers and apply their passion to the continued fight for women's equality today.

Since 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment finally granted women the right to vote, women have made great strides. Women have voted at a slightly higher rate than men in every Presidential election since 1964. What is even more encouraging is that more and more women are seeking elected office. For 20 years after Jeanette Rankin of Montana was elected to Congress in November 1916, the number of women in Federal office following each election never exceeded 9. I am proud to say that that number has dramatically increased since then. In 1980, women comprised 4 percent of the Congress. In 1990, 6 percent. Currently, in the 109th Congress, there are 83 women serving--69 in the House of Representatives and 14 in the Senate--over 15 percent of the Congress.

We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. So today, as we honor the women who fought for the rights so many of us today enjoy, we recommit ourselves to the ongoing fight for equality for women and all who are oppressed in this country and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed unanimously an historic resolution in support of S. 1033 and H.R. 2330, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005. The resolution urges the passage of common sense and realistic legislation that gives a path to citizenship for America's hard-working immigrants. This is the first resolution of its kind in the nation and was supported by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, leaders from business, labor, community organizations and diverse faith traditions, as well as Governor Blagojevich.

America is a nation of immigrants. Nowhere is that more evident than in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois. We rely on the labor

and other contributions of immigrant workers, especially undocumented immigrants. Twenty percent of jobs in Chicago's growing restaurant, hotel, and manufacturing sectors function because of immigrants who support our economy. I believe this diversity is a source of incredible strength. Immigrants who come to this country work hard to provide for and educate their children and have a better life.

The Cook County resolution recognizes the need for immigration reform. The current immigration system separates families, reduces the effectiveness of national security programs, allows labor abuses, and neglects the hard work and taxes that immigrants contribute to this county. In order for immigrants to succeed, they need immigration laws that make sense, that keep families together, that allow them to send their kids to college, that help them get better jobs and that ease their way to citizenship.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act is our opportunity to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Sponsored in the Senate by Senators McCain and Kennedy and in the House by my Illinois colleague Rep. Gutierrez, it would provide opportunities for immigrants to earn legal status and fully realize their American dream, while protecting our borders.

I support this bipartisan immigration reform plan because it includes access to earned legalization and citizenship, guarantees protections for immigrant and U.S. workers, and addresses the current backlogs of family members who have wiated up to ten years to reunite with their families in the United States. Immigrants have historically and continue to this day to contribute to our economy and to the diversity and well-being of our communities. It is time for a comprehensive immigration reform.

I am pleased that the Cook County Board of Commissioners has unanimously passed this historic resolution. I urge my colleagues to look at the resolution, which I hope is the first of many, and support

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA or CAFTA. This trade agreement will eliminate thousands of American jobs without raising the quality of life for Central Americans and Dominicans. It is an agreement written to raise profits for multinational corporations at the expense of workers and the environment in the U.S. and the CAFTA countries. CAFTA should be renegotiated or voted down.

There is wide, bipartisan opposition to this bill here in the Congress because it endangers workers and jobs in the U.S. and abroad, it endangers our economy and it endangers the environment. Opposition to congressional ratification of this flawed agreement also runs deep outside of the Congress, throughout this country and the other signatory nations. The public as well as labor leaders, environmentalists, economists, and business owners and the clergy all strongly oppose the measure. Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans have taken to the streets to protest CAFTA.

I strongly support increased global trade for the United States. However, when negotiated, I believe free trade agreements should place human and labor rights and the protection of the environment on an equal par with the rights of capital. While CAFTA provides extensive protections for goods and capital, it provides no new protections for workers or the environment, and allows the signatory nations to do nothing more than enforce their own laws on labor and the environment.

Implementation of CAFTA would further the failed experiment that was NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, my home State of Illinois has suffered the loss of over 100,000 jobs. The Nation has lost almost 1 million jobs due to the displacement of production that supported them prior to the implementation of NAFTA. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and PNTR for China perpetuate the race to the bottom in the global economy. They lower working and living standards for workers in other countries and kill jobs in the United States. CAFTA's effects would be no different.

The labor provisions in CAFTA are intentionally unenforceable. Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. This violates the negotiating objective of current U.S. trade law that equivalent remedies should exist for all parts of an agreement. Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract investment.

Instead of pursuing policies that undermine the rights and security of U.S. workers and workers in other countries, the United States should lead the world by example through a trade policy that improves the lives of individuals and does not just add to the profits of major corporations. Our policies should benefit workers here in this country, create and sustain jobs and help our small and medium-sized and family- owned businesses grow. CAFTA will not accomplish those goals nor will it offer better opportunities to the people of Central America and the Dominican Republic.

The abysmal working conditions in Mexico should serve as a sign of what CAFTA will bring to Central America and the Dominican Republic. The Mexican middle class that was supposed to arise as a result of NAFTA is missing. I visited Ciudad Juarez on the tenth anniversary of NAFTA. Instead of finding a thriving Mexican middle class, I found workers living in the packing crates of the products that they were manufacturing. The poverty rates and disparities in wealth in Mexico have actually grown since NAFTA. CAFTA would just spread those conditions further south by offering multinational corporations new opportunities to profit off the backs of low-wage workers.

I dispute the attempts by free trade proponents to reduce the debate to a choice between ``free trade'' and ``no trade,'' ``this agreement'' or ``no agreement.'' We can do better. We can achieve our economic objectives and moral responsibilities through responsible trade. And we can and should go back to the drawing board and fix CAFTA if we want to protect workers and the environment and give

the people of the DR-CAFTA countries the chance for a better future. I urge my colleagues to vote no on CAFTA so that we can renegotiate this flawed trade agreement.