Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute. This amendment retains the vast majority of the provisions in the underlying bill, while responding to the most egregious and one- sided provisions in the legislation. There are a number of significant differences between our substitute and the underlying bill:

1. Means Test: First and foremost, we fix the rigid one-size-fits-all means test used to determine an individual's eligibility for bankruptcy proceedings. Rather than relying on the debtor's actual cost of living, the bill relies upon IRS collection standards which lay out no specific standards for the deduction of living expenses.

By contrast, the Democratic substitute would modify the means test and require the court to take into account the debtor's actual income and expenses and income. This is based on the same language that passed the Senate overwhelmingly in the 105th Congress.

2. Alimony and Child Support: As the bill presently stands, it is a disaster for single mothers and their children and it will have a particularly harsh impact on the payment of alimony and child support. The basic problem arises from the fact that bankruptcy and insolvency are by definition a zero-sum game. By design, the bill will increase the amount of funds being paid to unsecured creditors, and it therefore should come as no surprise that such payments will often come at the expense of other, less-aggressive creditors, such as women and children owed alimony and child support. This problem is by no means insignificant given that an estimated 300,000 bankruptcy cases per year involve child support and alimony orders.

The Democratic substitute mitigates this problem by eliminating provisions in the bill concerning luxury good purchases, cash advances, and credit card debt used to pay taxes which place credit card companies on equal footing with alimony and child support payments.

3. Small Business: The Republican bill also imposes a whole host of arbitrary deadlines in small business cases designed to speed up the bankruptcy process. The effect of these changes would be to make it much harder for small businesses to reorganize and stay afloat. That is the last thing our economy needs.

These provisions have drawn the strong opposition of organized labor. For example, the AFL-CIO has earned that the small business provisions will ``threaten jobs by placing substantial procedural and substantive barriers in the way of small businesses' access to the protections of Chapter 11 . . . threaten[ing] their overall ability to successfully reorganize.''

The substitute allows for the extension of the arbitrary deadlines where it can be shown that the reason for the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the small business. Thus, if the reason a deadline cannot be met is because a regulatory process--such as a hearing on an environmental claim--must take place before a plan can be developed, we would give the court discretion to waive the deadline.

4. Credit Card Abuse:

Perhaps the bill's most glaring omission is its failure to address the problem of abusive lending practices. At the same time the legislation responds to every conceivable debtor excess--whether real or imagined--it gives a pass to the transgressions of the credit industry. This despite the fact that we now have 3.5 billion credit card solicitations per year and $1.3 trillion in consumer debt now outstanding.

Our substitute cracks down on the very worst of these abuses, such as soliciting minors who have little ability to pay their debts and failing to disclose clearly on their account statements the total amount and total time it would take to pay off balances if only the minimum amount due was paid each month.

5. Protecting Employee Wages and Benefits in Bankruptcy: The Democratic substitute makes several significant changes to protect employee wages and other benefits in bankruptcy. First, it increases the dollar amount of employee wages and other benefits to $13,500 from $4,650 to take full account of inflation over the last 30 years. Second, it increases the period of time a court may avoid fraudulent transfers to corporate insiders from 1 to 4 years. Given the complexity of these transfers, this is needed to help us protect against future Enron situations.

The Democratic substitute also requires that before business assets are sold in bankruptcy, we learn about the potential adverse impact on employees and retirees health care and pension benefits. All too often corporate bankruptcies become an excuse to void promises of pension and health care benefits, and the Democratic substitute responds to that problem.

6. Use of Bankruptcy to Evade Lawful Debts for Civil Rights Violations: Finally, the Democratic substitute prevents debtors from using the bankruptcy court to evade lawful debts for civil rights violations, including discrimination against members of the Armed Forces, discrimination to deprive a person of a federally protected right, threats to religious institutions, or individuals on the basis of religion, or using force or threats to deprive a woman of a right to see a doctor.

Of particular note is the fact that this year's bill drops a provision from the conference report dealing with a very serious problem facing woman as a result of the Bankruptcy Code--the fear that violent and reckless individuals will be able to terrorize and blockade abortion clinics and eliminate their liability from that violence through the bankruptcy process. The Democratic substitute closes that loophole.

For those of the Members who want to support real and balanced bankruptcy reform--without unnecessarily piling on the middle class, single mothers and their children, harming employees, and without giving the credit card industry a complete pass--I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come to the floor this evening to continue a very important discussion that deals with our duties and responsibilities in connection with the circumstances surrounding Iraq.

I begin with a review of the duties that we have. First I pray for our soldiers whose roles are pretty well defined, and I would like to point out that we in the Congress have a duty as well, a constitutional duty, that requires under the Constitution that we alone can decide war. And why is that? Because of Article I, section 8. It is important for us to note that this duty is nondelegable. We cannot pass it off. We cannot turn it back. It can only be done by us. So the question of who decides becomes very important.

On this past Monday, the President of the United States said he has decided that he will begin this war, and that this is a matter that did not require him to consult with Congress, that there was no debate in the Congress, that it was a matter that he has been telling us in innumerable ways on innumerable occasions precisely what he was going to do, and that Saddam Hussein's time has run out, and there are no more options, and that negotiations are futile, and that the United Nations can do what they want, that everybody has to decide in the family of nations, that they are either with us or against us, and that it does not matter whether the inspection regime required by the United Nations has been concluded or not.

It does not matter whether the United Nations approves or disapproves. He has decided what he will do, and he is going to do it. Why war? And why now? A war could be justified only if our national security is threatened. There has not been the case made that that is the present circumstance, and it of course has to be weighed very carefully against the death and the destruction not only that we put in our own military's path but also the innocent people in another country who will likely be killed in the course of this activity. And of course none of this has been debated by the Congress. But what about the tactics of the 43rd President of the United States? He has repeated on more than one occasion that war is the last resort. ``My last resort,'' when everyone knows that it is his first objective. How can he be declaring that war is the last resort, that he has exhausted negotiation when actually he is short-circuiting the whole process?

And then we have the coalition, the fig leaf coalition of the willing, which bears not that much analysis. Who they are and why they are there speaks generally for itself. And then of course we have the central issue here that there is no compelling evidence that Iraq is a current threat to our national security. None. We waited for the grainy photos of the Secretary of State when he was supposed to have conclusively made the case. We have waited for the Secretary of Defense when he was supposed to have conclusively made the case. We waited for the President and the Vice President when they were supposed to have made the case. It was the Vice President who first announced early on that Iraq had nuclear

weapons. That turned out to be incorrect; and we have heard little of it, nothing of it since.

Then we had the assertion again by the Vice President of the United States that Iraq was linked to the tragedy of the attack on the United States on September 11. That has never been proven, and little has been made of that so far. Then of course it was asserted that our intelligence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. Not so. That has not happened either. So what we have here is a sorry compendium of misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and public relations gambits that do not do the most democratic government and the most powerful Nation on the planet any credit.

So the President has determined to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction that will be dropped upon a nation of 20 million people, a city of 6 million people within that country; and all of us who hold human life precious should watch this clock run down as we lurch toward an unnecessary war that the President seems determined to start.

So for the brave young men and women of our armed services who will be headed into harm's way, we offer them our support and our prayers for their safe return. But we also must be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers, and that is the solemn duty to decide after thorough consideration amongst us whether or not this great Nation should go to war. So the Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted the decision to the Congress alone. This is not some recently determined statement of constitutional theory. Our Founding Fathers, as we review the debates that they had in writing the Constitution, were adamant that the executive not play a role, although once war began, the executive is the Commander in Chief to implement that decision. And those men who came together over 215 years ago were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the executive. This was debated centuries ago.

I know that some believe that the Congress properly authorized a war against Iraq and a resolution in October, but that is not the case. We have not yet performed our duty. We did enact a resolution that generally authorized the President to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous United Nations resolutions on Iraq, but in reality that resolution bucked the constitutionality conferred on the Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. It dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that is exclusively our own, an authority that cannot be delegated.

The administration argues that legal precedence allowed the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely used formal declaration of war, which entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue. It is who really decides, and it was clear at that time in the beginning from the congressional debate, from the executive branch statements and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first by going through the U.N., subsequently in response to a broad national consensus the United States spearheaded with the passage of resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. The United Nations Security Council went along with the United States, and it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off at that time unmistakably, and in the months since then it has become increasingly clear that the decision to go to war would turn on two crucial assessments. First, there would be an assessment of the results of the inspection team that was there checking to find out if there were weapons that could be destructive weapons or chemical or biological materials that would be in violation of the terms that had been imposed upon Iraq.

But the second assessment and the ultimate judgment would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the United States against the full costs of casualties, of the economic costs, the diplomatic fallout, and the increased terrorism in this country that could result from going to war. Clearly these are not exclusive military judgments reserved for a Commander in Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred very deliberately on the Congress in matters of war and peace. Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that all-important decision. Rather, the entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war. The President has boldly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution of the United States. Even if one argues that the Congress properly exercises constitutional duties and that the President thereby has all the necessary authority to start a war, a fundamental question yet remains: Why war now? The Bush war would have disastrous far-ranging consequences for many years for every American citizen. War is about devastation, destruction, and death.

The American people are not blood thirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war is human and economic costs and moral costs are too great. It robs us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and those less fortunate. Even in terms of national security, an all out war would rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense, which is homeland security on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of September 11.

As the President repeats his unverified mantra of threats to national security, cities across this land are laying off police officers, firemen, emergency medical service teams, and the so-called first responders to any new terrorist because this administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries have been, briefly, too bad, tough. This is not a partisan spat nor a Washington insiders policy dispute.

The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul, and that struggle has not been particularly successful nor has it been a failure, because all across the Nation, there have been demonstrations, marches, protests, rallies; and I can tell you in the great State of Michigan there have only in the last few days been demonstrations in Detroit and Lansing and Grand Rapids and Traverse City and many other places throughout our state.

So we must commit ourselves to this cause with the same dedication and urgency in which many of us, most of us, strove to stop segregation and to end the Vietnam War, another conflict which finally brought our government to its senses. For the President to repeatedly insist that for him war is a last resort is contradicted by his actions which reveal that war is really his first choice and has been all along. His attempts to make it palatable by badgering, bullying, coercing, bribing countries into a so-called coalition of the willing has been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world.

The President has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to nimbly stay one jump ahead of various truth squads at the United Nations, among skeptical Members of Congress, and among the media and even of its own intelligence agencies, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency.

Americans have borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened with great resilience, but America cannot in good conscience start a war so costly in blood and life and treasure on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the United States, because this war against Iraq is a war that will devastate a country of 20 million or 26 million and cause damages that will take decades to undo; a war that will see many American casualties and that could fracture our fragile

economy; a war that will destabilize the Middle East and likely beyond; a war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits all over the world; a war that will weaken our fight against terrorism at home and abroad, and that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in all of our cities; a war that will set a terrible precedent in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, where atomic energy supplies can be bought at bazaars, on street corners, in a number of places in the world already, in a world where nations are anxious to get their hands on these ingredients and will do anything to get them, and some, I regret to report, are succeeding.

For any country to launch a preventive war against opponents that are deemed a possible future threat is an improper exercise of the power of war in this country, a war not really wanted by the American people and not desired by many of our military commanders on a personal level, and certainly not among our allies.

Worst of all, it is a war that, as the Central Intelligence Agency admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam Hussein will unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, against Israel and our other allies.

There is no evidence that Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, he may well seek to play the role of Sampson.

Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading papers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq, in which article after article noted with an air of sudden reportorial discovery that the war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, and that it would almost certainly escalate dramatically the number of terrorist attacks that could happen in the United States; that many U.S. military commanders fear that it would undermine the real war against terrorism; that there could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians who have a great deal of reason to be opposed to Saddam Hussein; and that even following a quick military victory against Saddam Hussein, if there is to be one, we would be mired in an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and guerrilla warfare for decades.

It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered the costly side of this war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the administration, most of the media focused overwhelmingly over the question of whether it would be preferable to prevent Saddam's use of armaments and remove his regime, as if there were no competing costs on the other side of this ledger that had to be carefully balanced and weighed in deciding whether this would be an action that would result in a net plus for America.

Now, there may be still time for the President to avoid starting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is still time, admittedly precious little, for the American people to speak out against the war that so few of them seem to support.

We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni, the Marine Commandant and head of the U.S. Central Command which guards the Middle East, who reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead until the national interest is clearly at stake.

On the other hand, the Marine Commandant warned, those who have never worn a uniform or have never seen combat are often the quickest to beat the drums of war.

So the administration will condemn whoever utters them as unpatriotic and partisan, just as the Johnson White House condemned Martin Luther King, Jr.'s questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander in order to stop the erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are the families of those who were killed on September 11 in New York and Pennsylvania who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous.

I know many of my colleagues in good faith have been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now, and they are entitled to their opinion, but they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially with the Vice President of the United States' early insistence that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks on the United States, and that he had nuclear weapons, both of these assertions which have long been disavowed by our Intelligence Community, our spy organizations. There have been many other assertions and premises used by the administration to market their product, in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of Staff, which have crumbled under close scrutiny in the White House Chief of Staff's revealing terms.

So, I would ask this administration to reconsider their view and to ask themselves, almost the entire world is against this war. Every major city in the United States has gone on record in opposition to this war. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Pope, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American labor movement, the AFL-CIO, 13 million people, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have all gone on record against this war.

Leading retired U.S. military commanders, such as General Zinni, General Schwarzkopf in his original views, have voiced opposition to this war. Numerous Active Duty generals have told reporters off the record of their serious concerns about a war at this time against Iraq. General Scowcroft, an adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, is against the war. And all of this opposition has arisen before the war has started, before a war has started, an unprecedented phenomenon in our history.

In view of these facts then, it is perhaps just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises, something unconnected in his logic and his rejection of further efforts to resolve these issues peacefully.

I urge my colleagues to reflect upon these circumstances and join me in continuing to press and urge and pray for our President to find another way to follow the path of peace, for blessed are the peacemakers.

I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my friend and colleague for many years, even before he became a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness, and I am deeply grateful for him joining me tonight.

It is a pleasure to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who has worked in civil rights activity, and is a man of great thoughtfulness and perseverance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.

Owens) for his powerful, intellectual, and passionate discourse. It has helped this discussion immeasurably.

I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives. From the time she entered the Congress, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, has worked at my side on numerous issues and causes, a dear friend of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), for her critical analysis of what we can do other than what we are about to do: that this person, Saddam Hussein, should be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague court, the international criminal court, as Milosevic was and others; and that we could repair even at this late hour from a course that we think is disastrous. I thank the gentlewoman for joining me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, there is one word that best describes this closed rule: cowardly. This is a Republican leadership that fears a real debate on this cold hearted proposal that would rob victims of medical malpractice. They fear that too many of their own Members would vote for a democratic bill because it makes sense and would address the problem.

They have decided to dodge a clean vote on a real bill and bury real debate in procedural doubletalk. They have decided to let their Members hide behind parliamentary tricks.

The Republican leadership has shredded any semblance of fairness or open debate. Just last year, for the first time since 1910, this Republican leadership denied the Minority party a motion to recommit. Today, the two most senior members of the House of Representatives, who are also the two Ranking Democrats on the Committees of jurisdiction, are being denied the opportunity to offer the amendment of their choosing.

The Republican leadership's bill doesn't solve the problem of medical malpractice insurance rates skyrocketing. It has no insurance reform at all. Doctors who are being price gouged by insurance companies will not see one cent of savings from this bill.

The simple fact is that draconian caps on damages do not reduce insurance premiums. In a comparison of states that enacted severe tort restrictions in the mid-1980s and those that resisted enacting any tort reform, no correlation was found between tort reform and insurance rates.

Our bill takes away the antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurance providers that has allowed those providers to collude to jack up rates for doctors.

The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about the deadly problem of medical malpractice that costs victims literally their life and limb. Between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year because of medical negligence in hospitals and the Republican answer is to take away the rights of surviving family members and accountability for bad apple health care providers.

H.R. 5 does nothing about the fact that 5% of all doctors are responsible for 54% of malpractice claims paid. H.R. 5 does nothing to solve the problem that medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death in the country.

Our bill preserves accountability in the health care system.

The Republican leadership's bill does nothing about frivolous lawsuits, only hurts victims. All this bill does is take away compensation from the most seriously injured plaintiffs. These are the victims who have a case that has so much merit that a jury of their peers decides they deserve more than $250,000 in non-economic damages.

Our bill requires an attorney to file a certificate of merit that an action is not frivolous and, if that certificate is false, that attorney can be disbarred.

The Republican bill takes a chain saw to the health care system instead of a scalpel. It is no wonder they fear a fair and honest debate and a clean vote.

I urge Members to:

(1) Vote ``no'' on the Previous Question so that we can make in order a vote on Conyers-Dingell and other worthy Democratic amendments.

(2) If we are not successful in defeating the previous question, vote ``no'' on this one sided, anti-democratic rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 139--Medical Malpractice: H.R. 5--Help Efficient Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the

following:

``(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting

of the text of H.R. 1219 if offered by Representative Conyers

or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention

of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall

be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''

Conyers/Dingell Democratic Substitute--H.R. 1219, ``The Medical

Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2003''

section-by-section analysis

Scope. The legislation narrowly defines ``medical

malpractice action'' to cover ``licensed physicians and

health professionals'' for only cases involving medical

malpractice. These definitions are intended to include

doctors, hospitals, nurses, and other health professionals

who pay medical malpractice insurance premiums. See, sec.

107(8).

Title I--Reducing frivolous lawsuits

Sec. 101.--Statute of Limitations. This section limits the

amount of time during which a patient can file a medical

malpractice action to the later of three years from the date

of injury or three years from the date the patient discovers

(or through the use of reasonable diligence should have

discovered) the injury. Children under the age of 18 have the

later of three years from their eighteenth birthday or three

years from the date the patient discovers (or through the use

of reasonable diligence should have discovered) the injury.

Sec. 102.--Health Care Specialist Affidavit. This section

requires an affidavit by a qualified specialist before any

medical malpractice action may be filed. A ``Qualified

Specialist'' is a health care professional with knowledge of

the relevant facts of the case, expertise in the specific

area of practice, and board certification in a specialty

relating to the area of practice.

Sec. 103.--Mandatory Sanctions for Frivolous Actions and

Pleadings. This section requires all plaintiff attorneys who

file a medical malpractice action to certify that the case is

meritorious. Attorneys who erroneously file such a

certificate are subject to strict civil penalties. For first

time violators, the court shall require the attorney to pay

costs and attorneys fees or administer other appropriate

sanctions. For second time violators, the court shall also

require the attorney to pay a monetary fine. For third time

violators, the court shall also refer the attorney to the

appropriate State bar association for disciplinary

proceedings.

Sec. 104.--Mandatory Mediation. This section establishes an

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system for medical

malpractice cases. Participation in mediation shall be in

lieu of any other ADR method required by law or by

contractual arrangements by the parties. A similar approach

is recommended by the Committee for Economic Development

(CED), which suggests that defendants make and victims accept

``early offers.'' The effect of the ``early offer'' program,

according to the CED, is that defendants will reduce the

likelihood of incurring litigation costs, and victims would

obtain fair compensation without the delay, expense or trauma

of litigation.

Sec. 105.--Punitive Damages. This section limits the

circumstances under which a claimant can seek punitive

damages in a medical malpractice action. It also allocates 50

percent of any punitive damages that are awarded to a Patient

Safety Fund managed by HHS. HHS will administer the

Patient Safety Fund through the Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality. The Secretary will promulgate

regulations that will establish programs and procedures to

carry out this objective. See also, Sec. 221-223.

Sec. 106.--Reduction in Premiums. This section requires

medical malpractice insurance companies to annually project

the savings that will result from Title II of the bill.

Insurance companies must then develop and implement a plan to

annually dedicate at least 50 percent of those savings to

reduce the insurance premiums that medical professionals pay.

Insurance companies must report these activities to HHS

annually. The section provides for civil penalties for the

non-compliance of insurance companies.

Title II--Medical malpractice insurance reform

Sec. 201.--Prohibition on Anti-competitive Activities by

Medical Malpractice Insurers. This section would repeal

McCarran-Ferguson Act to ensure that insurers do not engage

in price fixing. The Act, enacted in 1945, exempts all anti-

competitive insurance industry practices, except boycotts,

from the Federal antitrust laws. Over the years, uneven

oversight of the insurance industry by the States, coupled

with no possibility of Federal antitrust enforcement, have

created an environment that fosters a wide range of anti-

competitive practices.

Sec. 202.--Medical Malpractice Insurance Price Comparison.

This section creates an internet site at which health care

providers could obtain the price charged for the type of

coverage the provider seeks from any malpractice insurer

licensed in the doctor's state. This section specifies the

availability of online forms and that all information will

remain confidential.

Title III--Enhancing patient access to care through direct

assistance

Sec. 301.--Grants and Contracts Regarding Health Provider

Shortages. This section authorizes the Secretary of Health

and Human Services (HHS) to award grants or contracts through

the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to

geographic areas that have a shortage of one or more types of

health care providers as a result of dramatic increases in

malpractice insurance premiums.

Sec. 302.--Health Professional Assignments to Trauma

Centers. This section amends the Public Health Service Act to

authorize the Secretary to send physicians from the National

Health Service Corps to trauma centers that are in danger of

closing (or losing

their trauma center status) due to dramatic increases in

malpractice premiums.

Title IV--Independent advisory commission on medical

malpractice insurance

Sec. 401-402.--Independent Advisory Commission on Medical

Malpractice Insurance. This section establishes the national

Independent Advisory Commission on Medical Malpractice

Insurance. The Commission must evaluate the causes and scope

of the recent and dramatic increases in medical malpractice

insurance premiums, formulate additional proposals to reduce

those premiums, and make recommendations to avoid any such

increases in the future. In formulating its proposals, the

Commission must, at a minimum, consider a variety of

enumerated factors.

Sec. 403.--Report. This section requires the Commission to

file an initial report with Congress within 180 days of

enactment and to file annual reports until the Commission

terminates.

Sec. 404.--Membership. This section specifically

establishes the number and type of commissioners that the

Comptroller General of the United States must appoint to the

Commission. Generally, the membership of the Commission will

include individuals with national recognition for their

expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science,

medical malpractice insurance, insurance regulation, health

care law, health care policy, health care access, allopathic

and osteopathic physicians, other providers of health care

services, patient advocacy, and other related fields, who

provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic

representations, and a balance between urban and rural

representatives.

Sec. 407.--Authorization of Appropriations. This section

authorizes that such sums be appropriated to the Commission

for five fiscal years.

(Prepared by the Democratic staffs of the Committee on the

Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the debate off on our side by yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, where this bill would have gone had there been subcommittee hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for the benefit of my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, on the Committee on the Judiciary. She does not know, as she leaves the floor, that a census conducted by the Pennsylvania Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund found that between 1990 and 2000, the number of doctors in Pennsylvania increased by 13.5 percent, while the population increased by only 3.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following citation for the Record:

In Pennsylvania a census conducted by the Pennsylvania

Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund found

that between 1990 and 2000, the number of doctors increased

by 13.5 percent, while the population increased by only 3.4

percent. Not only is Pennsylvania not losing doctors, it had

more doctors in 2001 than it did in the preceding

five to ten years. Furthermore, the Philadelphia Inquirer

notes that in 2000, ``Pennsylvania ranked ninth-highest

nationally for physician concentration, a top-10 position it

has held since 1992. There were 318 doctors for every 100,000

residents in 2000, according to the American Medical

Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, only for the benefit of the gentleman from Georgia, who asserts that this bill does not take away anybody's rights, the gentleman must be aware, sir, as a Member of Congress and a doctor, that there is a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, unless he thinks that is not taking away anybody's rights.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what about the States that have no caps?

In other words, the gentleman is sticking to his statement that this takes away nobody's economic rights, is that correct?

If the gentleman will just answer yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, if may I kindly and politely reclaim my time, and I would ask the gentleman to seek his own time from this point on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has really worked hard on two committees and covered a lot of territory as a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Conyers-Dingell motion to recommit. It started out originally as the Conyers-Dingell substitute motion which, in the wisdom of the Committee on Rules and the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, was determined not to be necessary. We did not need to waste this much time worrying or going over the same matter twice. So let us just have a 5-minute discussion on each side about a multibillion-dollar measure that affects every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. So I will take a couple of minutes and ask the dean of the House to spend the rest of the time making sure that we all understand what it does.

First of all, we do something about the problem that has been complained of grievously by every Member that has taken to the floor today. We do something about it. That is, we limit frivolous lawsuits by requiring that there is mandatory mediation for every malpractice lawsuit filed in the United States of America and that we require that attorneys' certificates of merit and mandatory sanctions occur. We require that affidavits of merit be provided from qualified medical specialists. We attempt to, in short, weed out frivolous lawsuits that will not restrict the rights of those with legitimate claims. Of course, finally, it is very important to realize that we reexamine the antitrust exemption that has been enjoyed by the insurance industry all of these years.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield the balance of the time to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, we yield back any time that may be remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember a failed experiment the U.S. government tried in the 1920s called Prohibition. Back then, the government tried to prevent people from drinking alcohol by making it illegal. We know what happened--speakeasies flourished, alcohol consumption spiraled, and organized crime infiltrated and profited from the provision of alcoholic beverages.

Today, Congress is rushing to pass a similar type of ill-conceived prohibition: the prohibition of Internet gambling. Gaming prohibitionists believe they can somehow stop the millions of Americans who gamble online from visiting Internet gaming sites by passing legislation to prevent the use of credit cards and other bank instruments to gamble on the Internet. Just as outlawing alcohol did not work in the 1920s, the current attempts to prohibit online gaming will not work, either.

Instead of imposing an Internet gambling prohibition that will drive gambling underground and into the hands of unscrupulous merchants, Congress should examine the feasibility of strictly licensing and regulating the online gaming industry. A regulated gambling industry will ensure that gaming companies play fair and drive out dishonest operators. It also provides a potential tax revenue source for financially-strapped States.

That is why I am introducing legislation to create a national Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Study Commission to evaluate how best to regulate and control online gambling in America to protect consumers, to provide badly needed tax revenue, and to prevent criminal elements from penetrating this industry. Rather than passing ineffective prohibition legislation in the vain hope that the problems related to Internet gambling will simply go away, the Commission will confront the issues head-on and formulate realistic, workable solutions.

Today in our country, gambling is a highly regulated, $26 billion dollar industry that creates substantial tax revenue for the States and provides a safe environment for the 52 million people who gamble in U.S. facilities. The Commission will explore whether the same conditions that afford safety and fair play in land-based casinos can and should exist for Internet-based casinos. In addition, the Commission will study whether the problems identified by gambling prohibitionists--money laundering, underage gambling, and gambling addictions--are better addressed by an ineffective ban or by an online gaming industry that is tightly regulated by the States.

First, some claim that Internet gambling sites are being used to launder money for terrorists or other criminal organizations. Although there is no evidence that Internet gambling is any more susceptible to money laundering than other types of e-commerce, it is still a significant law enforcement concern. In this regard, it is useful to compare a system where Internet gambling is legal and regulated to another legislative proposal that would prohibit the use of credit cards and other financial instruments for online gambling. What that other bill essentially says to gamblers is this: use cash and offshore bank accounts if you want to bet online. This is nonsensical on its face. If you truly want to prevent money laundering, the last thing you would do is eliminate the financial controls and recordkeeping that credit cards and U.S. bank accounts provide. To the contrary, a regime where there is strict oversight by the States and transparent recordkeeping is far more likely to prevent money laundering and give law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute criminals and terrorists.

Second, the problem of underage gambling should not be discounted. Children can be kept off of gambling websites, however, by requiring the use of a credit card, PIN numbers, and other screening devices. In fact, Congress recognized the usefulness of credit cards as a tool to protect minors on the Internet when it passed the Children's Online Protection Act. Since Internet gambling prohibitions will not eliminate online gambling--just drive it underground--children will be better protected by a gaming industry that is held accountable to strict standards established by the States.

Finally, we must also consider the needs of problem gamblers and gambling addicts. Certainly, online gambling sites present difficulties for these individuals, just as land-based casinos do. Although unlicensed, unregulated gaming sites may have no incentive to prevent problem gambling, it is possible to establish a regulatory framework that can set financial limits on an individual's gambling, through the use of shared electronic recordkeeping. Technologies can even be employed to identify problem gamblers and put them in touch with organizations where they can get help. For this reason, the Internet affords the potential for greater protection for problem gamblers than land-based casinos.

Until now, Republicans and Democrats have stood together against those who wanted to cut off access to the Internet, restrict its boundaries, or use it for some special purpose. Except in the narrow areas of child pornography and other obvious criminal activities, Congress has rejected attempts to make Internet Service Providers, credit card companies, and the technology industry policemen for the Internet. We should not head down this road now. If we do, we'll be joining countries like Iraq, China, and other totalitarian regimes who limit their citizens' access to the Internet.

Attempts to prohibit Internet gambling in the name of fighting crime and protecting children and problem gamblers will have the opposite effect. Prohibition will simply drive the gaming industry underground, thereby attracting the least desirable operators who will be out of the reach of law enforcement. A far better approach is to allow the States to strictly license and regulate the Internet gambling industry, to foster honest merchants who are subject to U.S. consumer protection and criminal laws.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Medical Malpractice Insurance and Litigation Reform Act of 2003. This legislation responds to the real problems in the medical malpractice insurance market--namely, higher prices driven by lack of competition and investment losses by insurers leading to a boom bust cycle. To respond to these problems, Title I of the bill insures that the antitrust laws apply to medical malpractice insurers, price comparisons can be easily obtained, and procedural checks are in place to insure that premium increases are warranted and can be challenged by health care providers.

Above and beyond these requirements, the bill responds to concerns that medical malpractice is not available in parts of the country. As a result, Title II would create a Federal medical malpractice insurance association, housed within the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide medical malpractice insurance where it is not available at reasonable terms.

In addition, the bill responds to the complaint that medical malpractice insurance premiums are being driven higher as a result of frivolous complaints. Title III of the bill provides for a series of measures designed to insure that the lawsuit itself is not frivolous and that the pleadings filed in connection with the suit are accurate and meritorious. Title III also provides for alternative dispute resolution designed to encourage resolution of medical malpractice actions outside of court. The following is a more detailed description of the legislation.

Section-by-Section Analysis Medical Malpractice Insurance and

Litigation Reform Act

Title I--Medical Malpractice Insurance Reform

This Title constitutes an effort to respond to some of the

flaws apparent in the medical malpractice insurance

marketplace and the regulation of that market. Among other

things, the title insures that the antitrust laws apply to

medical malpractice insurers, price comparisons can be easily

obtained, and procedural checks are in place to insure that

premium increases are warranted.

Section 101. Prohibition on Anticompetitive Activities by

Medical Malpractice Insurers. Repeals McCarran-Ferguson to

ensure that insurers don't engage in price fixing. The Act,

enacted in 1945, exempts from the Federal antitrust laws all

anticompetitive insurance industry practices except boycotts.

Over the years, uneven oversight of the insurance industry by

the States, coupled with no possibility of Federal antitrust

enforcement, has created an environment that fosters a wide

range of anticompetitive practices.

Section 102. Medical Malpractice Insurance Price

Comparison. Creates an Internet site at which health care

providers could obtain the price charged for the type of

coverage the provider seeks from any malpractice insurer

licensed in the doctor's state. This section specifies the

availability of online forms and that all information will

remain confidential.

Section 103. Procedural Requirements for Medical

Malpractice Insurers' Proposed Rate Increases. Gives doctors

standing in any state administrative proceeding to challenge

proposed rate increases and requires insurance companies to

provide justification for any rate increase prior to

implementing such increase. Only a handful of states

(Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, and possibly

a few others) require that rates be filed and approved by the

state insurance department before they can be used.

Title II--Federal Medical Malpractice Insurance Association

There have been isolated reports that physicians are unable

to obtain medical malpractice insurance at any rate and this

title is designed to deal with that problem by providing a

federal backstop. The title also provides for disclosure of

information by private insurers so that more information can

be obtained on the reasons for any problems in the

malpractice insurance marketplace.

Section 201. Establishment; Purpose. Establishes an

Association within the Department of Health and Human

Services to provide medical malpractice insurance where it is

not available at reasonable terms.

Section 202. Board of Directors. Creates a board of

directors for the Association. The board has authority to run

the Association and to act like a governing body of a private

insurance carrier. This section sets out specifics as to the

number of appointments, eligibility, and vacancies.

Section 203. Administration. An administrator is appointed

to act as the Association's chief executive officer, in

charge of day-to-day operations and management of the

Association. The Association shall be fully operational no

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act.

Section 204. Rates. Gives the board authority to establish

rates to be charged by the Association. The board will use an

actuary to recommend rates, and rates shall be set at amounts

sufficient, when invested, to carry all claims to maturity,

meet reasonable expenses of conducting the business of the

Association and maintain reasonable surplus. The insurance

program shall be neither more nor less than self-supporting.

The Association is authorized to purchase reinsurance.

Section 205. Investment Policy. Provides that the board of

directors shall formulate and adopt an investment policy and

supervise investment activities of the Association. Gives the

Association the ability to retain independent investment

counsel and requires the board to periodically review and

appraise the investment strategy.

Section 206. Medical Malpractice Risk Management Program.

Requires the administrator to develop a risk management

program for all policyholders and to solicit input from the

National Association of Insurance Commissioners in developing

the program. Insurance may be refused or terminated if any

insured disregards the plan and the administrator may

consider compliance with the plan in determining premiums

of the insured.

Section 207. Seed Money to be Funded by Treasury Department

Loan. Provides for the funding of the Association by the

Secretary of Treasury through one or more 5 year term loans

in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000 for start-up funding.

Section 208. Disclosure of Data by Medical Malpractice

Insurers. This section requires each insurance provider to

file a copy of its annual statement with the Chairperson of

the Association. The insurer shall also provide information

regarding (1) closed claims; (2) verdicts, payment, and

severity of injury in connection with verdicts; (3) rate

changes; (4) premiums and losses by medical speciality; (5)

premiums and losses by experience of the insured; (6)

performance of the investments of the insurer.

Section 209. Annual Report by Chairperson. Requires the

Chairperson to file an annual report with the President and

Congress that includes: (1) a statement of the Association's

accounts, funds, and securities; (2) copies of reports

required by the National Association of Insurance Carriers;

(3) any requests for additional loans; (4) an assessment of

the medical malpractice insurance marketplace; (5) an

assessment as to why health care providers have been unable

to obtain insurance at reasonable prices; and (6) a report

summarizing the information disclosed pursuant to Section 208

and attaching the disclosed information.

Section 210. Financial Matters. Requires the administrator

to submit to the board an estimated budget of the expenses of

administering the Association. If assets exceed liabilities,

necessary reserves and reasonable surplus, the Association

shall declare a cash dividend or allow a credit to any health

care provider that has complied with the risk management

program.

Section 211. Definitions.

Title III--Limiting Frivolous Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

The complaint is frequently heard that medical malpractice

insurance premiums are being driven higher as a result of

frivolous complaints. This title responds to that charge with

a series of measures designed to insure that the lawsuit

itself is not frivolous and the pleadings filed in connection

with the suit are accurate and meritorious. The title also

provides for alternative dispute resolution designed to

encourage resolution of medical malpractice actions outside

of court.

Section 301. Health Care Specialist Affidavit. This section

requires an affidavit by a qualified specialist before any

medical malpractice lawsuit may be filed. ``Qualified

specialist'' is defined as a health care professional with

knowledge of the relevant facts of the case, expertise in the

specific area of practice at issue in the case, and board

certified in a speciality relating to the area of practice.

Section 302. Sanctions for Frivolous Actions and Pleadings.

Sets out sanctions for filing improper pleadings in medical

malpractice actions violations, such as those which are

designed to harass, are frivolous, or are factually

inaccurate. For first time violators, the court shall require

the attorney to pay costs and attorneys fees and may also

strike pleadings, dismiss the lawsuit, or administer other

appropriate sanctions. For second time violators, the court

shall also require the attorney to pay a monetary fine. For

third time violators, the court shall also refer the attorney

to the appropriate State bar association for disciplinary

proceedings.

Section 303. Mandatory Mediation. This section establishes

an alternative dispute resolution system for medical

malpractice cases. Participation in mediation shall be in

lieu of any other ADR method required by law or by

contractual arrangements by the parties. A similar approach

is recommended by the Committee for Economic Development,

which suggests that defendants make and victims accept

``early offers.'' The effect of the ``early offer'' program,

according to the CED, is that defendants will reduce the

likelihood of incurring costs of litigation and having to pay

large and uncertain punitive and noneconomic damages, and

victims would obtain fair compensation without delay, expense

and trauma of litigation.

Section 304. Applicability. Specifies that the title

applies to any medical malpractice liability action brought

in state or federal court, except for claims arising from

vaccine-related injuries.

Section 305. Definitions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with Congressman BACHUS, the Health Care Improvement Act of 2003. This is the successor legislation to the Campbell/Conyers bill from 107th, which passed the House by an overwhelming 276-136 vote. The legislation responds to two alarming anti-consumer trends--the ever increasing level of concentration among health insurers and exclusionary contracting practices by health insurance companies. The last five years have seen a massive consolidation in the health insurance and managed care market as more than a dozen health insurance competitors have been eliminated through mergers and acquisitions.

The dangers posed by this ever increasing market concentration are exacerbated by the

practice of health insurers engaging in heavy-handed negotiating tactics and requiring exclusionary contractual commitments from health care providers. Such restrictive contractual terms are frequently proffered on a ``take it or leave it'' basis to health care providers, under the threat of the loss of the provider's patients or exclusion from their access to other patients.

Our legislation responds to the problem by allowing physicians or other health care professional to collectively negotiate with a health plan over contractual terms or plan policies. Presently, joint negotiations with a health plan by physicians or other health care professionals who are not financially integrated are illegal per se under the federal antitrust laws if they involve fees or prices. Under this legislation, such activities would be subject to review based on a more liberal ``rule of reason'' analysis, which could take quality of health care into account.

I have taken a particular interest in this legislation because of the unfairness of the current market situation on African American doctors. I am aware of a number of incidents in Detroit and around the country of minority physicians being threatened that they will lose all of their business unless they enter into one-sided service contracts. This bill gives physicians the ability to respond to these abuses on a collective basis.

The legislation is strongly supported by a wide array of health care professional and trade organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I voted ``present'' on the resolution offered by the Gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) on the Israel- Palestine controversy. Because of the extensive interest in that resolution, I would like to explain the basis of my vote. For nearly a year, I have worked more intensively on this controversy than on any of the other pressing matters before us, with the exception of the looming disaster in Iraq. My aim has been to convince my colleagues that-- despite the understandably intense feelings many have on this matter-- it is crucial that we promote and engage in honest dialogue about the terribly difficult questions posed by the Middle East crisis. That delicate dialogue must be marked by as much civility and mutual respect as we can muster, and by a relentless effort to understand viewpoints we may not share.

Finger-pointing, brandishing claims and grievances may seem totally justified and important to express. The intensity of feeling is obvious and understandable. But surely the goal of halting violence and resolving the dispute is paramount. I believe its priority requires that my words and conduct in this body be consistent with advancing this dialogue. At the end of this long national debate, we must somehow achieve a national consensus.

Dr. King once reminded us that countries, like people, which have been the bitterest enemies must someday realize their fate is intertwined.

``We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny''

Over the course of the last ten months, I have spoken with many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of the Capitol, urging that we create and continue an inclusive forum in which different views about the Mideast could be freely expressed freely and listened to carefully.

With several other equally concerned colleagues, I convened a series of discussion meetings to which all Members have been invited. House Members of all faiths have attended them. They also have been attended by rabbis, ministers, priests and imams, as well as by senior officials of Arab-American and Jewish-American organizations concerned about the Middle East crisis. Other participants have included Yitzhak Rabin's son; President Carter's NSC officer for the Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt; one of President Clinton's negotiators in the 2000 Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' representative on institutions in the Holy Land; the Vice-President for International Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, the President of the Arab-American Institute; a Deputy Secretary General of the National Council of Christian Churches, and two representatives--one Israeli and one Palestinian--of an association of bereaved parents of victims of the violence. While we all have been distracted by other pressing national security issues, I plan to resume these panels, as soon as possible.

All the attendees agreed on the importance of maintaining genuine dialogue and of minimizing inflammatory or divisive declarations. I agree, and that conclusion guides my vote on this resolution.

I fully supported the creation of the State of Israel. My continuing support of its security and viability has never wavered. And I agree that one of Israel's lasting strengths has been it's fierce commitment to democracy, implemented once again in the recent elections. At the same time, my dedication to America's pursuing a just, equitable and lasting peace for all people in the region is equally strong.

I am sure that my colleagues fully share these goals, however much we sometimes may differ on the best path to reach them. I believe, nevertheless, that this resolution, though well-intentioned, would be counter-productive to progress towards those goals, especially at this perilous time when competing considerations should be carefully balanced.

This resolution is partially designed to reassure Israel of our friendship. I am convinced, however, that the Israeli Government and the Israeli people know well that the United States' commitment--and the commitment of this entire body--to their safety and survival is steadfast and will remain so.

Judged in the context of all these considerations, this resolution is simply too one-sided

to accomplish another of its presumed purposes, namely, advancing peace in the Middle East. Alternative formulations would be better suited for that objective.

I also do not think the Congress should try to involve itself in the internal politics of an allied nation.

In addition, this president, like his predecessors, should be given the maximum flexibility to maintain the credibility of the United States with all parties; we should strive to preserve his ability to broker a permanent resolution. With equal conviction, I urge the president to use those capabilities to the fullest; to advance a timetable more vigorously, and to propose more detailed possible peace plans.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the frustrations and fears that have marked the past three years. And I know that Washington is now preoccupied with Iraq and with the threat of terrorism to our homeland security. But that is all the more reason that we should strive to keep this body poised to play its part in stanching violence in Israel and the West Bank, and in supporting any future peace initiatives. For me, it is difficult to see why, during these perilous times, the legislative body of the sole nation on earth which might bring this crisis to closure would do anything that could compromise that nation's ability to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored today to be joined by Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Maloney and 80 other co-sponsors to introduce the ``Violence Against Women Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2003.'' The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA'') was historic legislation that contained a broad array of laws and programs to address domestic violence and sexual assault in our country.

In addition to funding numerous programs such as law enforcement and prosecution grants to combat violence against women, a National Domestic Violence Hotline, and battered women's shelters and services, VAWA created both civil and criminal causes of action to target domestic violence and sexual assault.

In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of VAWA, which allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in Federal court. Importantly, that case, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) did not affect the validity of the rest of VAWA, which is clearly constitutional. But, Morrison is just the latest in a series of cases in which the Supreme Court has, in my view, improperly narrowed Congress' authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

The Court's 5-4 majority disregarded the mountain of evidence that Congress had amassed through four years of hearings, documenting the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce. The Court's majority substituted its own judgment for that of Congress--and this from supposedly ``conservative'' Justices who purport to defer to Congressional findings.

In response to the Morrison decision, I am introducing the ``Violence Against Women Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2003.'' This legislation will restore the ability of victims of gender-motivated violence to seek justice in Federal court, where there is a connection to interstate commerce.

For example, a rape victim could bring a civil suit against her attacker in Federal court where the attacker crosses a state line; if he uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate commerce--such as the roads, the telephone, or the Internet; or if he uses a gun, weapon, or drug that has traveled in interstate commerce. In addition, she could bring a case where the intent of the offense is to interfere with her participation in commercial or economic activity.

The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to prevent discrimination in the investigation and prosecution of gender-based crimes. This bill will ensure that all victims have fair and equal access to the courts.

I want to thank the domestic violence and sexual assault communities for their support of this legislation, especially NOW Legal Defense and Education fund, who defended Christy Brzonkala before the Supreme Court, and who has been instrumental in drafting this bill.

I look forward to working with the Majority, the Senate, and the White House to help pass this bill into law and restore the civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to commemorate Katherine Dunham for her extraordinary contributions to dance, culture, history and the world. Ms. Dunham has been called the ``Matriarch of black dance.'' Her unprecedented blend of cultural anthropology with the artistic genre of dance in the early 1930's, produced groundbreaking forms of movement, and in the United States, established black dance as an art form in its own right. Global awareness of folk dance in Haiti can be chiefly attributed to the work of Katherine Dunham.

It is important to share the history of this amazing woman. After various stays in Jamaica, Martinique, and Trinidad, Ms. Dunham arrived in Haiti in 1935. She chose to visit the Caribbean in order to study the intensity, depth and the African influence of the Caribbean dance culture. The Caribbean nations of Haiti and Jamaica provided Dunham with new insights, as the villagers began to trust her and invited her to join in some of their most sacred dance rituals. She would ultimately claim Haiti as her second home and even adopt their Vodum (or Voodoo) religion. She later chronicled much of her time spent in Haiti in a book entitled, Island Possessed. Shortly after leaving Haiti she completed a thesis on the dances of Haiti, entitled Las Danzi de Haiti. In 1983, the Center for Afro-American Studies at UCLA published a revised version, incorporating a long campaign of subsequent research. It was through her dance compositions that Ms. Dunham introduced the Haitian based vocabulary of movement to the world. This form of dance later became known as the Dunham technique.

Ms. Dunham' formal career begin in 1931, when the ``First Negro Dance Recital in America'' was presented in New York. At the time she was a 21 year old University of Chicago student who also served as the group's choreographer, teacher and chief dancer. The multitude of roles that she played in this initial endeavor were indicative of her great career which would span the next 50 years. In 1935, Ms. Dunham was given the opportunity to study both academic and practical aspects of dance when she received a Rosenwald fellowship which enabled her to undertake an anthropological study of dance in the Caribbean. As a result of her research, Ms. Dunham determined that African influences dominated three aspects of Black folk dance. These include: the incorporation of African religious dance into new ritual behaviors; the secularization of the African religious dance; and the interaction of African secular dance with European secular dance.

Upon returning to the United States, Ms Dunham reconstituted her dance group focusing primarily on her Caribbean experiences, particularly in Haiti. She choreographed and produced numerous production, Pins and Needles, Tropics, Le Jazz Hot--From Haiti to Harlem, Cabin in the Sky, Tropical Revue, Carib Song, Bal Begre which played in various location, including New York and Los Angeles. Ms. Dunham's company also appeared in the film Stormy Weather with Lena Horne and Bill Robinson. Specifically, the dance troupe is featured in fog-drenched ``Stormy Weather'' dream sequence.

Later, Ms. Dunham returned to the international stage by opening Caribbean Rhapsody, Tropics, Son, Chorus, Nanigo, Bahian, Shango, LAg Ya', Rites of de Passage, Flaming Youth and Blues in Europe. Ms. Dunham's success in Europe led to considerable imitation of her work in European revues. Her company also toured South America, Africa and Mexico. Ms. Dunham's dance troupe was so successful that it became the most widely recognized American dance company in the world. This distinction was later inherited by the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater in 1970's.

The Dunham company made its last appearance in New York in 1962. It performed a production entitled Bamboche! which featured a contingent from the Royal Troupe of Morocco. In 1963 in Aida, Dunham continued to secure her place in artistic history by becoming the first African- American to choreograph for the Metropolitan Opera. Dunham first appeared in films in 1940 in Carnival of Rhythm. Her other film credits include Cabin in the Sky, Star Spangled Rhythm, Casbah, and Pardon My Sarong.

In 1945, the Katherine Dunham School of Arts and Research opened and was comprised of a Department of Theater, Cultural Studies and the Institute for Caribbean research. It offered two, three and five year courses leading to professional, teaching and research certificates. The faculty numbered thirty, and the school's curriculum included classes such as dance notation ballet, modern and primitive techniques, psychology and philosophy. It also offered courses in acting, music, visual design, history and languages. During the 1940's and 50's, Dunham's School of Dance became the premier training facility for African American dancers by providing instruction in dance described as ``arresting,'' and ``highly theatrical.'' The student body was interracial and numbered approximately four hundred. The cost to run this school was enormous and absorbed most, if not all of profits earned by Ms. Dunham. However, during its tenure some of its more famous students included Marlon Brando, James Dean and Shelley Winters.

In 1967, Miss Dunham joined the faculty of Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, to create a performing arts training center and dance anthropology program. In 1969, Miss Dunham created the Katherine Dunham Center for the Arts and Humanities, a community-based arts education program in East St. Louis. The center provided East St. Louis residents with the opportunity to witness and participate in fine, performing, and cultural arts.

Further, The Katherine Dunham Dynamic Museum is also located at Southern University in St. Louis. This landmark building appears on the Illinois Historic Register, and houses Miss Dunham's superb collection of African, West African, and South American art. It is also located in the Pennsylvania Avenue Historic District which is registered with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The museum houses an outstanding collection of symbolic and functional art, including more than 250 African and Caribbean art objects from more than 50 countries. Tapestries, paintings, sculpture, musical instruments and ceremonial costumes from these and other areas of the world celebrate the human spirit. The museum also displays costumes, photographs, programs, letters, awards and mementos from Miss Dunham's career as a dancer, choreographer, teacher, writer and dance company owner.

Additional accolades attributed to Ms. Dunham include advisor on the First World Festival of Negro Arts, which was the subject of a television special entitled, ``Divine Drumbeats: Katherine Dunham and Her People.'' In addition, she received the Kennedy Center Honors Award in 1983, and has been inducted into the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame. Dunham has also been given a star on the St. Louis Walk of Fame for the field of Acting and Entertainment.

On January 7th, when the 108th Congress convenes, I will introduce this letter into the Congressional Record, adding this commendation to the tidal wave of many others, Thank you Katherine Dunham for your wonderful and marvelous contributions to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced today the ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003.''

Since this nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Immigrants work hard to make ends meet and pay taxes every

day. They have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that single these people out for no other reason than their status as immigrants violate their fundamental right to fair treatment.

Yet, for too many years, Congress has witnessed a wave of anti- immigrant legislation, playing on our worst fears and prejudices. Since 1994, we have considered proposals to ban birthright citizenship, ban bilingual ballots, and slash family and employment based immigration, as well as to limit the number of asylees and refugees. In 1996 we passed laws denying legal residents the right to public benefits and denying immigrants a range of due process and fairness protections.

We continue to see the tragedy of September 11th used as an excuse for even more assaults on the rights of immigrants. The Justice Department is now registering certain classes of immigrants and arresting them when law abiding immigrants arrive to register. The Department is holding deportation hearings in secret and detaining immigrants even after they are ordered released. The Attorney General is reducing both the independence and number of judges that handle the appeals of immigration cases. We are fending off legislation almost daily intended to reduce if not eliminate immigration to this country.

Those who urge us to restrict the due process rights of immigrants forget the reason these rights were established in the first place. We grant due process rights to citizens and non-citizens alike; not out of some soft-hearted sentimentality, but because we believe that these rights form an important cornerstone to maintaining civilized society.

The ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003'' furthers this proud legacy by restoring our nation's long standing compassion for individuals seeking to build a better life and reunite with their families.

The bill restores fairness to the immigration process by making sure that each person has a chance to have their case heard by a fair and impartial decision maker. No one here is looking to give immigrants a free ride, just a fair chance.

Justice and fairness, as well as our own economic interests, demand no less.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Gun Show Background Check Act of 2003'', legislation designed to close the loophole in federal gun laws which allow criminals to buy firearms at gun shows. I am joined by Representatives Frank, Berman, Nadler, Lofgren, Meehan, Delahunt, Wexler, Ackerman, Brown of Florida, Kilpatrick, Lee, Markey, Schakowsky, Blumenauer, Cummings, Fattah, Hastings of Florida, Kennedy, Towns, Deutsch, DeGette, Payne, Stark, Davis of Florida, Clay, Norton, Holt, Gutierrez, and McDermott.

As you know, under current law federal firearms licenses are required to maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before transferring any firearm. However, a person does not need a federal firearms license--and the Brady Act does not apply--if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling firearms pursuant to federal law.

My bill corrects these deficiencies by (1) requiring background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows, (2) defining gun shows to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and (3) by improving firearm tracing measures--in the event that a firearm becomes the subject of a law enforcement investigation. Thus, unlike other legislation introduced in the past which actually weakens the Brady law by shortening background checks to 24 hours and considerably limits the type of information in individual records that may be searched, my bill guarantees that over 2,200 additional felons, fugitives and stalkers will be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun.

Considering the many recent tragedies and threats of violence we have had in our nation's schools and the recent reports indicating that the U.S. gun industry sold numerous guns to members of Osama bin Laden's ``Al Qaeda'' terrorist network, the importance of enacting legislation that will promote a safe and sound environment can not be overstated.

It's time for smarter, better gun safety enforcement. The bill we are introducing today will move us in that direction. I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 2003, along with additional cosponsors. At a time when our Nation faces record low voter participation, this legislation represents an historic means of both expanding voting rights while helping to reintegrate former felons into our democratic society.

The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin and property. Over the past two centuries, these restrictions, along with post-Civil War exclusions such as the poll tax and literacy requirements, have been eliminated. It is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Unfortunately, the United States continues to stand alone among the major industrialized nations in permitting an entire category of citizens, former felons, to be cut off from the democratic process. It is time that the United States restored these fundamental rights and join the community of nations in this regard.

Denial of suffrage to these individuals is no small matter. A recent study by the Sentencing Project reveals that some 3.9 million Americans, or one in 50 adults have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction. This includes an estimated 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the total population of black adult men, a rate seven times the national average. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a federal offense; 32 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 28 of these states exclude felony probationers as well. In fact, in six states that deny the vote to ex-offenders, one in four black men are permanently disenfranchised. Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately disenfranchised.

In addition to diminishing the legitimacy of our democratic process, denying voting rights to ex-offenders is inconsistent with the goal or rehabilitation. Instead of reintegrating such individuals into society, felony voting restrictions only serve to reaffirm their feelings of alienation and isolation. As the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has concluded, ``if correction is to reintegrate an offender into free society, the offender must retain all attributes of citizenship.'' The purpose of correctional facilities throughout our history have been to make an offender fit to re-enter society. We should honor this conviction that once a felon has served his/her time, the he/she is ready to be a functioning member of society. Voting then must be allowed, as the most basic constitutive act of citizenship.

It is even more important for this legislation to pass when we look back at the 2000 election in Florida. In that election 400,000 ex- felons were denied their right to vote. In an election where it came down to 537 voters, this is a decisive number. Instead of contracting the voting pool we should be expanding it so that our elected officials can more accurately resemble the wishes of the people. Our nation has slowly seen the enfranchisement of all of its citizens. Though it has been a slow process we have always moved forward, giving more and more citizens the right to vote. This bill is merely the next step in the expansion of the electorate. And it is a step we must take.

Many states are beginning to take the lead on this issue. Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Mexico have all scaled back voting bans on ex-felons who have paid the price for their crimes and now want to participate in the democratic process as citizens. The growing roster of states which allow ex-felons to vote is encouraging. We must help along the process by enacting this bill and taking this crucial step at the Federal level.

The legislation we will introduce constitutes a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting state prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to federal elections. As such, our bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding federal voting rights laws.

The legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this critical legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor. This bill provides the federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary. I also would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue.

The Constitution mandates that the pay of federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide judges with annual COLA''s over the last decade, they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. Currently, federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it had decreased 25 percent for federal judges.

This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many federal judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified attorneys.

This is why I was surprised when the continuing resolution Congress approved last session gave a cost of living adjustment to most federal employees except judges. The bill before us remedies this oversight by authorizing a COLA for the judiciary that is retroactive to the start of the 2003 fiscal year.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.