Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, no one disputes that rising medical malpractice premiums are a major, major problem. Unfortunately this bill before us will do nothing to solve that problem. It would limit consumers' ability to hold negligent doctors, profit-driven HMOs, insurance companies, and prescription drug companies accountable.

The claim is made that excessive or frivolous lawsuits are the cause of rising premiums. The problem is that lawsuits affected by the bill are by definition not frivolous.

Where large damages are awarded, it is a jury that has found that the patient has been severely harmed, and, in fact, over the last 5 years, malpractice insurance payments to patients have actually gone down, and that while premiums continue to go up. Now, something is wrong with that ratio.

There is no evidence that capping the damages to an injured person because of malpractice is the way to solve this problem. It will not lower premiums. It will not even stabilize them. All this bill will do is to make very sure that as the malpractice insurers collect outrageous premiums, they will be able to continue to pay out even less to the patients who have actually been harmed. This will penalize innocent victims of medical negligence.

Furthermore, the bill goes far beyond lawsuits against doctors. It would also protect drug companies and HMOs from lawsuits filed by people injured because of their policies.

In 3 years of considering this issue, the majority has not presented a shred of evidence that drug companies need these protections. They are making billions of dollars in profits. If this bill becomes law, the ability of injured patients to hold negligent drug companies accountable would be dramatically limited. We have all seen the recent stories about Cox-2 inhibitors, other medications. So many have tragic outcomes. They highlight the fact that drugs may harm patients. Those studies expose how dangerous this bill can be. We should be helping doctors with malpractice insurance premiums. But this bill is not going to help doctors, and it will hurt patients.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us look for real solutions to rising medical malpractice premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose the CAFTA-DR deal. But I want to talk about one reason that has not gotten much attention, the inclusion of tobacco products.

Mr. Speaker, tobacco is a unique commodity, killing millions of people around the globe each year. Trade agreements are supposed to benefit consumers by spurring competition and reducing prices for beneficial products such as wheat, computers, and auto ports.

While increased trade may offer a range of benefits for exporters and importers alike, these benefits do not apply to tobacco products. Reducing tariffs on cigarettes, other tobacco products, or removing public health measures that may run afoul of trade agreement's rules on non-tariff barriers is going to result in increased smoking rates, needless preventable deaths, and disease. That is a fact.

Tobacco products were excluded from the tariff schedules in the U.S.- Jordan and U.S.-Vietnam free trade agreements negotiated under the Clinton administration.

This administration has done an about-face including tobacco products in the U.S.-Chile agreement at the behest of Philip Morris. This unfortunate turn of events should not be repeated. I urge my colleagues to reject the CAFTA-DR trade agreement. It is bad for workers, it is bad for the environment, and with the inclusion of tobacco products, it is bad for health.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge this is a very strong bipartisan effort on behalf of the Congress, the Women's Caucus and the Iraqi Women's Military Caucus as well. We acknowledge their presence here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who spoke so eloquently in opposition on the Floor.

At this particular moment, it is clearly in our national interests to strengthen the democratically elected Abbas government. This is especially true in the face of the imminent Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and because the Palestinian Authority is up against a strong challenge from Hamas in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

The amendment states that the United States should promote the emergence of a Palestinian government that combats terrorism. We all agree with that. But at the same time, we must continue to urge the Israeli government to stop settlement activity and ease the conditions of occupation. Both sides have obligations under the Road Map.

And more than anything, the U.S. government must use this opportunity to work with both parties to ensure that the turnover of Gaza from Israel to the Palestinians is carefully coordinated and that the myriad of security, economic, and infrastructure issues are dealt with fairly and quickly.

Mr. Chairman, not only must the Berkley amendment be defeated, but I wish the underlying bill would not have included such onerous conditions and limitations on Palestinian aid.

I support the efforts of President Bush who has twice used his waiver authority to grant funding directly to the Palestinian Authority and who opposes the inflexible language in this bill.

Instead of passing one-sided and punitive amendments like this one, it is incumbent upon the United States Congress to try to help both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront the extremists on each side who seek to derail the peace process.

Fragile as it may be, a flicker of hope and optimism has been kindled in the Middle East.

But it may truly be our last hope.

And what a great tragedy it would be--for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for America--if we didn't do everything in our power to bring an end to this terrible conflict.

Defeat the Berkley amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I also speak today in tribute to the 157th anniversary of the historic Seneca Falls convention, which paved the way for women's equality in the political world. Without the principles set forward by those courageous women and men at that convention, neither I nor the other 68 Members of the House currently here would ever have dreamed of being where we are today.

American women everywhere would never have dreamed of being able to contribute what they have over the last century and a half. They have excelled as leaders of political movements and pioneers of important policies.

The women at Seneca Falls set forth an agenda that would guide the women's rights movement for centuries. Their efforts paved the way for the ratification of the 19th amendment, without which women could not cast votes on issues that directly affect them.

Despite strong opposition, they knew then that extending equal rights to women would lead to a more successful society. And 157 years later, we know they were right, and we continue their dream of a United States with full and active participation of all women in politics.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 373--``yea''; rollcall No. 374--``yea''; rollcall No. 375--``yea''; rollcall No. 376--``nay''; rollcall No. 377--``yea''; rollcall No. 378--``yea''; and rollcall No. 379--``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this motion would do one thing: it urges conferees to reject a provision granting MTBE manufacturers a waiver from liability for the damage their products have caused to groundwater supplies throughout this country.

This broad liability waiver for MTBE manufacturers should be rejected for a number of reasons.

First, and most recent, a new draft risk assessment on MTBE written by the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that MTBE is a likely, and I quote ``likely,'' human carcinogen. According to the publication ``Inside EPA,'' the study pinpoints kidney and lymph node tumors as a result of MTBE exposure.

Up until now, most of the concern about MTBE contamination has been that a tiny bit of it makes water smell and taste like kerosene, rendering the water unusable. But now EPA has released information that says MTBE in water may mean more than an unpleasant taste or smell: it may threaten your health.

MTBE contamination is a huge problem, and it is not going away. To date, this contamination has been found in over 2,300 water systems serving 36 States. Two recent studies have reconfirmed that the cost of removing MTBE from drinking water is substantial. The new studies put MTBE cleanup costs in the range of $25 billion to $33 billion and could be as high as $85 billion or more, and that is the cost for existing pollution.

Third, documents unearthed in court cases show that MTBE manufacturers knew as early as the mid-1980s about the damage their products caused to groundwater sources; and yet they continued to add it to gasoline. That is why juries have found that MTBE is a defective product. They also found that oil companies acted with malice because they knew what could happen with MTBE, and they did not do anything to stop it. That is why these oil companies have settled their cases. They did not pay millions of dollars to Tahoe, Santa Monica, and other communities out of good citizenship. They did it because they knew that juries would lower the boom on them for their actions. That is why this bill voids defective product lawsuits, because that is the way oil companies are being held accountable for their actions.

Fourth, CBO has found that the liability waiver in this House bill is an unfunded mandate. This protection for MTBE manufacturers is a huge unfunded liability that would shift the cost of the cleanup, literally billions of dollars, on to towns, cities, and water districts, on to your constituents, I say to my colleagues; and that is just plain wrong.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, the House narrowly voted down my amendment to strike the MTBE liability waiver from our bill. Many Members voted ``no'' because of some impending deal to address the cleanup issue once and for all. Well, reports of this deal have leaked out. They are not pretty, and they will not address the MTBE contamination that your constituents face today or may face in the future.

The deal would provide full liability protection to MTBE producers and establish a $4 billion to $8 billion trust fund to address the contamination crisis. One big problem: remember, the cleanup of MTBE contamination is going to cost between $25 billion and $33 billion and could be as high as $85 billion, dwarfing this deal's cleanup fund.

Another problem: at least half of this fund comes from taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, why should taxpayers pay to clean up MTBE contamination? MTBE manufacturers caused this problem, and they knew it when they did it. They should clean it up.

This is a deal written by the industry for the industry. And it is no surprise that no one from the water industry, no cities, no counties, the people who will have to deal with the contamination, none of these people support this bill.

Finally, these are the controversial MTBE provisions that killed the energy bill in the last Congress. The Senate bill did not include MTBE provisions in their bill, and for good reason. They knew that giving these manufacturers protection from liability would

end the chances of the bill becoming law. With the country continuing to experience record energy prices, the need for comprehensive energy legislation is clear, and MTBE provisions once again threaten the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the MTBE industry knowingly caused widespread groundwater pollution, and now it is trying to shirk its responsibility to the communities living with this huge problem.

So I urge my colleagues to support the Capps motion to instruct conferees and to reject this ridiculous bailout for the MTBE industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman form Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers, just closing comments of my own.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my esteemed colleague, who is in opposition to this amendment and, indeed, he, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is my friend and friends of all of us who have spoken today who are members of his committee. But I wish to comment on some of the remarks he made in his speech.

First, regarding the list funds which he spoke about as being a place for managing this pollution. Stopping the leaks from the tanks stops additional MTBE contamination, Mr. Chairman, but it does nothing about existing contamination, and that is the contamination that has polluted over 2,300 water districts across this country in 36 different States.

Second, the chairman referred to the very minute amounts of MTBE that have polluted all of this groundwater that we have been discussing. And it is true that the groundwater is rendered unusable because of the strong smell and taste of kerosene, even in a very small amount of MTBE which is in the groundwater. But I would argue, respectfully, that the American people deserve to know that the Environmental Protection Agency has a report, even though it is a draft report, because it identifies the state of a likely carcinogen that MTBE contains. Even if it is nothing more than a small amount, I do not believe, as a public health nurse, that we want to contaminate our drinking water with even a small amount of a likely carcinogen.

Third, I want to get back to the point about the liability of manufacturers of MTBE who knew when they created this product in the 1970s as an additive to gasoline that it was toxic and that it would pollute groundwater. Here is a statement from the deposition of Curt Stanley, a Shell Oil remediation expert, which is part of the testimony for the South Lake Tahoe water district when it was presented with a huge lawsuit against the Shell Company.

The question was asked: ``So is it fair to say,'' and this is taken from testimony, ``that by 1981, the Shell Oil Company knew that MTBE in its gasoline could contaminate public drinking water supplies?'' The answer is: ``Yes.'' Question: ``And is it also fair to say that they knew by that time that it created taste and odor problems in public drinking water supplies?'' The answer: ``Yes.'' And the final question: ``And did you report those facts to the Shell management?'' And the answer is: ``Yes.''

Since at least that time, 1981, the oil companies, the MTBE manufacturers knew that they were making a defective product and knowingly they continued to manufacture it.

Now, the chairman described the compromise that has been worked out on the underlying bill, and in doing so, interestingly, acknowledges fault on the part of the MTBE manufacturers, because they are liable if they are going to be part of the deal in coming to a conclusion. ``They should pay,'' he

says. I say, ``they must pay.'' They must be held accountable. And the deal that is struck is one in which they will pay only a portion of the damages and the taxpayers will pay the remainder.

The House Republican energy bill fails to address this Nation's record gas prices. And according to the Bush administration's own Energy Department would actually cause gas prices to increase, and that at a time when they are increasing. This energy bill we are now going to be considering in conference will do nothing to cause containment of that increase in gas prices. Instead of giving real relief to consumers, this Republican bill gives loads of new tax breaks and loopholes to special interests. And the worst example of these special interest giveaways is the complete liability shield for MTBE manufacturers, a shield that will shift billions of dollars in cleanup costs from MTBE manufacturers to the American taxpayer.

MTBE is responsible for polluting groundwater in so many communities across this country. Cleanup costs are estimated in the billions, $28 billion to maybe as high as over $50 billion. MTBE manufacturers are now being held accountable in court, but this provision would end that accountability. I would remind Members that it was the special protections granted to MTBE manufacturers that brought this bill down in the last Congress. Senate leaders have made it clear they are not including this grossly unwanted get-out-of-jail-free card for the MTBE this year either.

So I know many Members of the House have school boards, have water districts or towns with lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers, and those lawsuits are going to be voided. Null. They are not going to be able to proceed under this energy bill. Your constituents would lose their right to hold these manufacturers of MTBE accountable for the pollution in their groundwater. And the billions in MTBE cleanup that your communities face will be shifted from the oil companies, who have record profits and who caused the problem, to your constituents, who have to live with the problem.

Make no mistake, that is what this vote is all about. By voting for the motion to instruct conferees, you will be saying that it is not okay to make your constituents pay for pollution that they did not cause, but that was caused by MTBE manufacturers. The special protection in this bill for MTBE manufacturers is completely unwarranted and it will cost your constituents a fortune.

So I urge you to vote for the motion to instruct conferees. Vote for the Capps motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment. The current policy of trying to starve Castro out of Cuba by imposing travel bans and embargoes was put in place in 1960. Since then, Castro has outlasted nine Presidents, from Eisenhower to Clinton, and he may outlast a 10th.

It does not seem like this policy has been very successful. It has not driven Castro from power. It has not caused him to improve his human rights' record. It has not prevented him from oppressing his people. In the meantime, the power of American economy and culture has brought about changes in terrible and despotic regimes in various corners of the world.

This amendment, and others like it, simply recognizes the truth about the situation; that our current policy is a failure and needs to be replaced by something that has demonstrated success. By easing travel restrictions and the economic embargo we have a chance to overwhelm Castro with America's culture of freedom, democracy, and free markets. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rangel amendment.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, the House narrowly voted down my amendment to the energy bill to hold MTBE manufacturers accountable for the groundwater contamination their product has produced. Many Members voted ``no'' because of some impending deal to address the issue once and for all. Now reports of the deal have leaked out. They are not pretty, and they will not address the MTBE contamination our constituents face.

This deal would provide full liability protection to the MTBE producers and establish an $8 billion trust fund to address the contamination crisis. One big problem: the cleanup of MTBE contamination will cost between $25 billion and $33 billion. It could be as high as $85 billion, dwarfing the deal's cleanup fund.

Another problem: at least half of this fund comes from taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, why should taxpayers pay to clean up MTBE contamination? Manufacturers caused this problem, and they should clean it up. It is a deal written by industry for the industry.

No surprise that water districts, cities, and counties across the country do not support this deal. They are the people who have to deal with the contamination. I urge my colleagues to oppose the liability waiver of MTBE and any deal like this.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is one of the best vehicles Congress has to address an issue of paramount importance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This bill contains important Middle East provisions, but I believe we could have done better in our efforts to bring peace to these two long-suffering peoples.

I support our $2.3 billion package for Israel. Maintaining Israel's military superiority in the region is a prerequisite for any peace agreement, and I am pleased that the bill fulfills the President's request for an additional $150 million for the Palestinians. The President believes, as do I, that it is imperative to deliver U.S. assistance quickly to improve the Palestinians' quality of life and empower their democratically elected leadership. But I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on Appropriations could have seized this historic opportunity and provided direct funding to the Palestinian Authority. Instead, this bill prohibits direct funding and places excessive conditions and limitations on the aid package.

Of course, we must ensure transparency and accountability. But the requirements in this legislation continue to go far beyond what we ever demanded in the Arafat era. This strikes me as shortsighted. We should join with President Bush in strengthening President Abbas, especially in the face of a strong challenge from Hamas in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

As Israel and the Palestinian Authority prepare to implement the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza, it is incumbent upon the United States to help both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront the extremists on each side who seek to derail this process. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that when this bill comes to the conference with the Senate, we can redirect some of our assistance directly to the Palestinian Authority. Fragile as it may be, a flicker of hope and optimism has been kindled in the Middle East. It may truly be our last hope, and what a tragedy it would be for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for America if we did not do everything in our power to bring an end to this conflict.

I thank, again, the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown amendment. Over the objections of many of us, the budget resolution arbitrarily cut $10 billion out of Medicaid. According to CBO, Medicaid provides health care for 28 million poor children, 16 million working parents, 6 million elderly people, and 9 million disabled people.

Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not illusory. They are not tiny amounts of money. They are billions of dollars that go to our hospitals, our doctors, our nursing homes, and our home health providers. They are the indispensable link in ensuring that these 55 million people Medicaid serves get the health care they need. The cuts will mean one of three things. States will make up the difference. Unlikely, since they are making do with less already. Or providers will take less for the services they provide, and they are already losing money, so scratch that idea. Or the third scenario, poor people will get less health care, and that is, unfortunately, what will happen.

I oppose these cuts. I did not support the creation of the Medicaid Commission. The challenges we face in Medicaid are not caused by Medicaid. They are caused by a failing health care system.

Using a commission to arbitrarily cut Medicaid funds by $10 billion will not solve anything. It will just pass the buck to those around us, those in society who have the least and who are the neediest.

This is an immoral action which does not reflect the values of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of Title IX and pay tribute to the significant advancements made for women's educational and athletic opportunities. Not coincidentally, this year is also the 33rd anniversary of the UC Santa Barbara Lady Gauchos basketball team, this year's Big West Conference champions.

I hold a basketball signed by the team members of the 1997 team who participated in the NCAA tournament here in Washington, DC. Any woman who has played for this team can attest to the numerous benefits afforded to them by receiving the same opportunity as men to participate in college athletics.

There is a clear interest for women to play sports, and schools must respond.

To anyone who disagrees, I would like you to know that the UCSB women's basketball team sells more season tickets than the men's team.

So I am appalled that the Bush administration is trying to weaken the enforcement of Title IX in our Nation's colleges and universities.

On this anniversary of Title IX, we must stand up and protect it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time, and I apologize for speaking out of order on an amendment that I did not understand the rules for providing debate time for.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Owens-LaTourette amendment. This bill before us endangers the lives of our Nation's nurses and our first responders, and it threatens the ability of our country to keep control of tuberculosis, and it blocks a critical requirement that nurses, EMTs, firefighters, and other first responders are fitted annually for tight-fitting respirators.

Mr. Chairman, these respirators are masks that protect these emergency responders, these health care professionals, from being exposed to deadly

diseases like tuberculosis or anthrax or any of the bioterrorist agents that could be used in a terrorist attack.

For these respirators to be effective, they must fit properly. And since people's faces change over the years as they gain or lose weight, they must be checked on an annual basis, which is currently required by law. It is a commonsense law.

Language inserted into this bill would eliminate that requirement. The Owens-LaTourette amendment would protect current law and the requirement for annual fit-testing of respirators. Retaining the requirements that respirators be fit-tested annually is essential to our efforts to control tuberculosis and to respond to bioterrorism.

If these respirators do not fit properly, the emergency responders we are counting on to prevent the spread of contagion, disease, and death may become infected themselves, and that would increase the number of patients we have to deal with and reduce our ability to effectively respond. It would certainly affect the ability of caregivers to respond. This is not the right way to prepare our Nation for bioterrorism or public health emergencies.

I urge my colleagues to support nurses, to support EMTs, firefighters, and other first responders by voting for the Owens- LaTourette amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and opposition to the Hunter amendment.

Religious freedom is bedrock principle for which the United States stands, and which the military is meant to defend.

Unfortunately the environment at the U.S. Air Force Academy appears consumed by religious intolerance.

Some chaplains encourage cadets to convert their colleagues to Christianity.

And one has publicly declared that cadets who do not accept proselytization will ``burn in the fires of hell.''

The football coach is reported to use his position to urge players to go to church and to be Christians.

He even went so far as to put a banner in the Academy football team locker room reading ``I am a Christian first and last. I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.''

Cadets who do not go to church are organized into groups called ``Heathen Flights'' by their cadet officers.

And high ranking officers, including the Commandant of Cadets, have given the Academy's official sanction to religious events geared towards promoting Christianity, including screenings of ``The Passion of the Christ.''

The problem is so pervasive that the Superinendent of the Academy, Lt. General Rosa, publicly acknowledged it in a speech to the Anti- Defamation League.

It is appalling that the young men and women who volunteer to defend our Nation should be subject to religious harassment and intolerance of this kind.

It clearly violates the Constitution. And it undermines the unity of the armed forces.

If this were going on at University of Colorado, students could easily just ignore it as they probably do almost everything else the school tells them.

But Air Force cadets are members of the miltary and part of the chain of command, and all that entails.

The Academy tells cadets when to wake up and go to sleep, when to eat, how to dress, where to go and when to go there, when they can leave campus and how they must behave.

If the cadets ignore their superiors on any of these issues they would be sternly disciplined.

This is why it is critical that the officers and staff at the Air Force Academy not be permitted to inappropriately press their religious beliefs onto their cadets.

This is where the coercion that Mr. Hostettler was asking about takes place.

The military has a special obligation to ensure that its members do not abuse the extraordinary influence that chain of command gives them.

Clearly, that has not been the case at the Air Force academy. And now Congress has a duty to address these concerns.

When the Constitution of the United States is being disregarded in such blatant fashion we have no choice. We must act.

For that reason I applaud the leadership of Ranking Member Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee.

The language they included clearly expresses our objection to these practices, and demands a plan of action from the Air Force Secretary.

I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Israel for offering this same language in the Armed Services Committee.

Last month I, along with 45 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation.

I am pleased to know that the Air Force's internal investigation of these issues will soon be complete. This is a good first step.

Unfortunately there has been a history at the Air Force Academy of trying to cover up embarrassing scandals rather than deal with them.

It took considerable Congressional pressure to force the Air Force and the Academy to take the matter of sexual harassment and assault seriously.

The Academy's initial response to the issue of religious freedom has not inspired confidence that they are acting differently here.

One Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, pressed hard for changes to ensure religious tolerance and was recently removed from her post and her reassignment has the appearance of the Air Force punishing an officer for looking after the spiritual well-being and constitutional rights of all the cadets.

So the Congress clearly has enough information to take the step included in this bill.

The language in this bill will send an unmistakable signal to the Air Force that we are watching, and we will not allow them to sweep this under the rug.

We should not dilute it by passing the Hunter amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome three women Members of Parliament from the main opposition party in Zimbabwe, the Movement for Democratic Change: the Honorable Thokozani Khupe, the Honorable Paurina Mpariwa, and the Honorable Priscilla Mishiairambwi.

In the face of continued repression, this Movement for Democratic Change is working tirelessly to realize democracy for Zimbabwe. The Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues is honored to host these leaders of Zimbabwe today.

All three women have a remarkable record of advocating passionately for the issues that affect women and society in Zimbabwe. It is a real pleasure to welcome leaders from other nations who are working to bring about peaceful democratic changes within their country, and I know my colleagues will join me in extending a warm welcome to them today.