Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one hundred and thirty-three years ago, a man named Elisha Gray helped found the picturesque Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois in my district. This extraordinary man was not only a pioneer in developing Chicago's North Shore, but also a prolific inventor.

Born in 1835 in a small Midwestern town, young Elisha Gray grew up among humble surroundings. Following the death of his father, he took on a part time job at the age of 12 in order to help support his family. Mr. Gray paid his way through college by using his boat building skills, acquired in his early years, to make specialized equipment for the science departments at Oberlin College.

Although he considered a life in the ministry, Mr. Gray always knew that his true calling was in engineering. In 1867, he received his first patent, capturing the interest of the Western Union Telegraph Company. Mr. Gray would have a lifetime association with the company. Soon after in 1870, Mr. Gray co-founded the firm of Gray and Barton, then relocated the company, named Western Electric Manufacturing Company, in the Chicago area.

While working in Chicago, Mr. Gray helped found the town of Highland Park, one of the many fine suburbs located today within my 10th Congressional District of Illinois. At home, Mr. Gray worked tirelessly on his inventions and scientific breakthroughs. In 1876, he filed a caveat, or a preliminary patent application, for an invention soon to be called the telephone. A. Edward Evenson, Gray's biographer and author of The Telephone Patent Conspiracy of 1876, believes that Mr. Gray's caveat predated that of Alexander Graham Bell's well known patent, which was filed on the same day. Regardless, Mr. Gray is undoubtedly a contributor to the vast body of science that underscored the modern uses of the telephone.

Throughout a life dedicated to the pursuit of technological prowess and the scientific advancement of mankind, Elisha Gray patented over 50 inventions in the United States. Besides his contributions to the telephone, Mr. Gray is most noted for his work on the first commercially successful fax machine, the Telautograph. Businesses and homes throughout the world are indebted to Mr. Gray's early work on this now widely used technology.

Elisha Gray also led the field in scientific publications and academic achievements. He wrote four books. He was a lecturer and professor at his alma mater, Oberlin College, and received a number of honorary degrees.

The entrepreneurial spirit of Mr. Gray must not pass unnoted. His Chicago area firm helped foster the growth of greater Chicagoland and Northeastern Illinois. In recognition of a life dedicated to the improvement of mankind, Mr. Gray received numerous awards, including the French Legion of Honor Medal, France's highest award. Elisha Gray should be honored as a man who not only founded one of my district's cities, but who, from that bucolic place, invented many things that we take for granted today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Ms. Ada Sanders, who has recently retired from 30 years of teaching primary school in the state of Wisconsin.

Ada Sanders was originally hired as a substitute teacher but after demonstrating her immense talent and love of teaching, she was quickly hired as a full time teacher. In Ms. Sanders' 30 years devoted service to third and fourth grade students in Stevens Point, WI, she taught for 18 years at the Madison School and spent her last 12 years at the Bannach School.

Her caring demeanor and loving devotion to students has allowed her to touch the lives of many. Ms. Sanders is not only an extraordinary individual, but a role model to all.

Mr. Speaker, Ada Sanders deserves this special recognition for her 30 years of devotion to America's children. I wish her much success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the following vote, rollcall No. 436, H.R. 2738. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the United States and our allies need a democratic succession plan for the Government of Azerbaijan. Our country's energy policy depends in large part on foreign energy supply, and much of it comes from the Caspian region in Azerbaijan. The former President there, President Aliev, a former KGB leader, is coming in and out of a coma on death's door and trying to have his son succeed him.

I think for the long-term future of the United States' interests and those of our allies, we need to back a true democracy in Azerbaijan with a wide range of candidates, but right now some of the most powerful and important candidates are not allowed to register. For example, the former Speaker of the House in Azerbaijan has had no opportunity to stand before the people of Azerbaijan for election.

Mr. Speaker, this administration, and the administration of our allies, needs to support a true democratic process so we can have a stable Caspian region which is so important to the world's energy supply and so important to the economy of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this bill, as a member of the committee but also as a veteran.

Since 1999, our Congress has provided an almost 40 percent increase for VA medical services. We provided in this bill over $200 million in construction to repair and rehabilitate and realign VA facilities, and this bill also fully funds the demand for a National Cemetery Administration.

It is important to point out one key fact, though, that this bill fully funds the projected medical needs for all veterans 50 percent, service-connected disability and above. This bill funds all of the medical needs for all veterans 30 to 40 percent, service-connected. This bill fully funds all of the medical needs for prisoners of war, Purple Heart veterans and service-connected, 10 to 20 percent, service disability veterans.

We fully fund all of the medical needs for veterans with catastrophic problems. We fully fund all of the medical needs for no- and very-low- income veterans and, of course, fully fund the needs for the service- connected World War I, Mexican incident and Gulf War veterans.

Our veteran brothers want to make sure that this government honors, first, its commitment to service-connected veterans, and we want to make sure that our comrades in arms who are wounded and are still suffering have their needs fully met.

As a veteran, I can say that I want service-connected veterans to stand first; but there is another opportunity in this bill, and it will be addressed in an amendment coming up, and that is the chance to share resources with other Federal agencies, particularly the military. We have the chance in this legislation to save several hundred million dollars by sharing facilities between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For example, in my own congressional District in north Chicago, Illinois, we provide excellent military health care at a naval hospital and excellent veterans health care at a VA center, but those two Federal institutions with separate galleys, separate security forces, separate steam and heating plants, separate medical staffs are 1 mile apart. This kind of geographic collocation happens in many parts of the country and the ability to combine these institutions gives us the opportunity to upgrade medical care, not just for the active duty, but for veterans.

It will happen in northern Illinois. It is happening in Denver. It is happening in New Mexico. It is happening in South Carolina.

So I urge support for this bill. I think this bill moves us forward, especially on the sharing issue, and it is important to note this bill meets all of the medical needs for veterans in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that calls on the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the Department undertakes with the Department of Defense.

I understand this amendment has been cleared with the majority and minority.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, our distinguished ranking minority member.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a technical amendment that calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to submit a report to Congress reporting on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the department undertakes with the Department of Defense (DoD).

Every American knows that the face of health care has changed dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military and veterans' health care. It is clear from all the studies undertaken by the departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs that the integration of health care services--where possible--will enhance the quality of care for the men and women who are serving our country today and those who served blur nation in the past.

My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital. During the last Administration, officials cafe two attempts to close ate North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June 19, 2001 the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to impose veterans health care in the Chicago area, each of which recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The CARES study also recommended increasing the level of cooperative between North Chicago VA and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital, located less than a mile apart.

Integration of the two medical facilities is both practical and also urgent in North Chicago, Illinois, where the Great Lakes Naval training Center Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans Medical center both sit underutilized and in such close proximity. Combining these two facilities in a state of the art, federal health care center will maximize the use of tax payer dollars, enhance the training opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel, and, most importantly, bring the health care we promised them men and women into the twenty first century. By directing the VA to report Congress on the issues facing resource sharing Congress will be able to better understand and utilize resource sharing agreements when moving forward with this cost shaving approach.

I have met with Secretary Principi and Secretary Rumsfeld to discuss enhanced cooperation and health care resources sharing between the DoD and the VA. Both secretaries are committed to providing our men and women in uniform, veterans and retirees with world-class health care in an efficient manner. Both agree that cooperation between the two agencies when possible, will enable the departments to meet the growing needs of active and retired soldiers.

As an officer in the Naval Reserve and fellow veteran, I understand the sacrifices made by the men and women who wore their country's uniform. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would like to close by thanking Chairman Walsh, ranking member Mollohan, and the staff of the VA-HUD subcommittee for their help with this amendment. I hope to continue working with them on this issue as this bill moves into a conference committee with the other body.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York for one thing in particular. They have created a work atmosphere between the two parties on this bill that is the envy of the Committee on Ways and Means. I really take my hat off to both of them. I also wanted to take one moment to talk about the bill we just passed, the Commerce-State-Justice bill, which every Member of this Congress has helped fund the rewards program.

The State Department rewards program is the key program that led to the incident with Uday and Qusay Hussein and their untimely demise. It is this program which sometimes gets down to one basic fact: Who helping the United States wants to be a millionaire? We will pay this $15 million set of rewards, and it is this program that I think gives us the best chance to capture Saddam Hussein.

But turning now to the foreign operations bill, this bill represents a bipartisan decision by the American people since World War II that foreign policy matters, a subcommittee created by the Marshall Plan that is designed to reduce or prevent war and to lower the number of casualties or deployments by the U.S. military around the world. This bill visibly helps us respond to new challenges, Iraq and North Korea, Iran and Liberia, by substantially reducing the chance that the U.S. military will be deployed in other places in support of our allies. And look particularly at the Middle East where the little democracy of Israel has not faced a direct threat to her existence in the 1980s or 1990s, largely because of support from this legislation.

One of the big questions that we face today is funding to support our war against HIV/AIDS. As a staffer in this Congress, I helped start this program in 1987 with a small earmark of $30 million. Since that time, our commitment has grown substantially. If we look in this bill and years prior, what has our commitment to AIDS funding been? In fiscal year 1999, $139 million; in fiscal year 2000, $200 million; in 2001, $415 million; in 2002, $485 million; in 2003, $893 million; and in this bill, $1.27 billion, just in the foreign operations bill, just to fight AIDS, a substantial commitment, one that I am proud having seen in 1987, the start of this program that we have funded.

And it underscores one key point when we take on the commitment to treat someone with HIV, we need to fund a program that can sustain that commitment. If we provide money in ways that are not politically sustainable, we could have some sort of scandal in a provider that would undermine political support for this. That would lead to the international community withdrawing support for an HIV patient. By having a responsible uptick in our support for the fight against AIDS, we are understanding a key point. When we make a commitment to a patient with HIV, we are going to do so in a way that sustains that commitment because success right now in this battle is that this patient will survive, and therefore we need to continue funding our battle. If we do it in an unsustainable way or in an irresponsible way that undermines political support, bad GAO investigations, exposes on the fleecing of America, we will undermine political support. People's lives are at stake here, and that is why doing it in a responsible way, when we make a commitment to a patient we can keep that commitment.

And to the chairman, I really thank him for his personal commitment on the HIV issue because he has really sustained one of the highest ideals.

So when we look at the United States, we have to see what have we done as compared to other countries. The nearest commitment of any other country to the 1.27 billion commitment in this bill is the government of the United Kingdom, which provided $313 million in the fight against AIDS. In fact, the United States gives more money to fight AIDS than all of the European Union and Japan combined. That is a monument to the idealism and foreign policy foresight of the United States. It is underscored in this bill.

And to the chairman and to our ranking minority member I really want to take my hats off to them for sustaining this commitment. Hundreds of thousands of people's lives will be sustained by this, and this ramp-up in just several years from under $139 million to now $1.27 billion is a real testament to our idealism.

I also want to thank the chairman for his commitment to cross-border programs in Tibet. We understand that there are 140,000 Tibetans outside China, 6 million inside China, and this bill sustains a political effort to enhance the authority and role of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, and I really want to thank them because there is no voice for the Tibetans inside China, and this bill underscores that voice and gives them a real role in their own country where an overwhelming number of Tibetans live, and I want to thank the chairman for that.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, in 1985 and 1986, Abbott Laboratories and others invented the AIDS test. It was our first look at the kind of less expensive ways to find the proteins that identified the HIV virus. In an unprecedented donation by private industry, Abbott and others donated the test to the World Health Organization that looked at whether the popular wisdom at the time was correct: Was this a Haitian- New York-San Francisco epidemic, or was this something else?

I received a phone call as a staffer for John Porter in this House giving me the first results of what the test showed. The indications from the Central Hospital in Kinshasa, Zaire, showed a 10 percent serial positive rate, which indicated that this was not a Haitian-San Francisco-New York epidemic. It was an African epidemic and had been going on for quite some time to get serial positive rates at that level.

We reached out across the aisle to Congressman Bob Mrazek of Long Island, and John Porter and Bob Mrazek came together to say we should earmark a disease fund, the first ever in the foreign operations bill, to fight AIDS.

Initially the leaders of the committee at the time fought us and said it would be over their dead body that we would start this program. So we arranged that. And to their credit, the leaders of the committee changed their minds. The Global AIDS Program was born in 1987 with an appropriation of $30 million. It is one of the proudest things I ever did as a congressional staffer working for John Porter.

Since that time, the program grew considerably. I ran several hearings for this House on the Committee on International Relations, sometimes begging Members to actually come to hear the progress of our fight against AIDS, to hear Dr. Jonathan Mann, the legendary first director of the Global Program on AIDS.

He had run the Harvard School of Public Health, and he and his wife had really set the whole parameters for this battle in 1988 and 1989. We mourn the loss of Dr. Mann. He was killed when the Swiss Air explosion happened. And Dr. Peter Piot picked up where he left off to continue this battle.

Well, it is, as they say, long work in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, long years until we suddenly became an overnight sensation. And now the appropriations for this program have exploded. I could not be happier to see hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this program, which started out with such small appropriations at the beginning.

Now look at what our United States Congress has done with bipartisan leadership. We can see, starting from 1999 at under $200 million, a steady step up in appropriations, in this appropriations bill now totaling, with a 31 percent increase this year, at over $1.2 billion. It is very important that these

appropriations increase; and it is very important that we provide more resources because, remember, under the enabling law that now governs this program, half of the resources go to treatment. But remember what that commitment is. We are making a commitment to treat people with HIV, and that means that they will depend on us, long term, for their survival. Once we make that commitment to their treatment, we cannot back out, because their lives are at stake.

If my colleagues are as experienced as I in watching government- appropriated programs, my colleagues know that we face a danger. If we spend money too quickly, too fast, we open ourselves to what I would call the fleecing-of-America danger, a GAO audit which undermines the political support for this program. And if the support for this program is undermined because some contractor in some country has irresponsibly spent money, lives could be lost.

It is very important here that we honor the commitment in a steady, well-run way to take care of these patients, and we ramp up the program in a very responsible way so that each patient the United States takes responsibility for is one that we will maintain and honor that responsibility for. Think of what happens if we pull the plug on that patient. They die. And so in ramping up the appropriations in a responsible way, we honor that commitment, and for those that we make the commitment to care for, we will care for.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the committee bill and for this responsible spending profile.

Mr. Speaker, the House will vote tomorrow on a free trade agreement, not just with Chile, but also with Singapore.

Free trade agreements have transformed other countries now allied to the United States. For example, our agreement with Jordan boosted Jordanian trade from $5 million to $400 million. We have that opportunity with Chile, a country whose economic policy sometimes is more advanced than our own. We proposed this agreement in 1991 when I served in the State Department. It is about time.

And Singapore. Singapore has become the de facto Southeast Pacific base for the United States Navy. With trouble from North Korea to Iran, strengthening our ties to Singapore strengthens our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on free trade with Singapore and with Chile.

Madam Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment, not because of my concerns over what is happening in China but my concerns over what is happening in Mexico. If you believe that we should reduce the population growth of Mexico, then you should be for the United Nations Population Fund which contributes to their program.

Is anyone in this Chamber concerned with the population of Haiti? If you are concerned with overly robust immigration from Haiti, especially illegal immigration, we should be concerned about smaller family size in that country. The UNFPA does that. And Nicaragua and Guatemala and El Salvador.

But much more directly, the Central Intelligence Agency has identified several countries of long-term concern to the United States, particularly the government of Pakistan which they believe may not survive this century. Are you concerned about population pressures there? Are you concerned about large numbers of Pakistanis entering the job market and not finding a job? Well, I am; and the UNFPA is directly supporting the Pakistani family planning program.

More directly, how about the UNFPA efforts to reduce the population size and pressure on Liberia, a government of direct interest to the U.S. national security community at this time? Or what about the mother of all countries in the Middle East undergirding our peace process there, Egypt? The UNFPA is the way that we support the Egyptian family planning program.

I would urge the defeat of this amendment for Mexico, for Haiti, for Pakistan, for Liberia, for Egypt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Today, as her people call for freedom and democracy, the Burmese military junta maintains a policy of repression and government-sponsored violence.

In 1990, the National League for Democracy, a party committed to peace and democratic principles in Burma, won the majority of National Assembly seats, offering real hope for change in Burma. Despite the overwhelming public call for democracy, the military regime nullified the election results and imprisoned and murdered several NLD leaders. While this act of government-sponsored aggression took place over a decade ago, the Burmese regime continues to brutally repress the people's opposition movement today.

In May, the Burmese regime ordered the ambush of a motorcade carrying several leaders of Burma's democracy movement, including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of her country, who has remained in detention by the regime since that murderous attack.

The Burmese regime has been granted countless opportunities to peacefully transfer power to the people while avoiding further bloodshed. In response to the international community's ongoing efforts to bring peace to the region, Burmese leaders have only responded with further acts of repression, aggression, and state-sponsored terror against its own people. Today, over 600,000 citizens within Burma have been displaced from their homes on account of brutal ethnic cleansing techniques employed by the Burmese regime. In response, we must make every effort to bring awareness to the mistreatment of Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy opposition leaders.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would take comprehensive steps to enhance efforts for democracy in Burma, while strengthening international sanctions against the Burmese junta. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative as part of the international community's response to the junta's ongoing state-sponsored terror against the people of Burma.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I especially want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for what has been included as a key project in this legislation.

We are beginning the work of a staff gym in the Congress. I served in the Pentagon, and there we have the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club. It is not a very nice facility, but it keeps the men and women during their headquarters tour in shape before returning to the field or sea. Such facilities are not available to congressional staff. Most large employers with over 5,000 employees in my district have on-site gyms. We employ over 10,000 people in the Congress and have no such facility.

As a former staff member, I think it is time we build a staff gym. We have spent taxpayer dollars for promotion programs on fitness or to fight obesity; we should do that here in Congress. This bill sets aside $100,000 to design a 4,000-square foot facility with male and female showers, lockers and a weight room. It will be ready for the staff in 8 months. We also are looking to expanding shower facilities for runners in Longworth and Cannon. We will have a more complete and permanent facility by July 2004.

This means that men and women who work here in the people's House will be fitter, will handle stress better, and will serve the long hours under low-pay conditions for longer working for our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), but especially to Liz Dawson and Reed Bundy of our staffs who made this new facility a reality.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Robert Warren currently serves as the Pastor of Adults and Compassion Ministries at the Arlington Heights Evangelical Free Church in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The church has 2,200 Members.

Pastor Warren is remarkable for his service to his fellow man, his congregation and our community. Bob has been in the ministry for 30 years, helping to lead four churches, as well as teaching college.

At the Arlington Heights Evangelical Free Church, he has led the enhancement of the church's participation in suburban and international churches for the needy. In addition, he leads a team that mentors unemployed men and women and led the development of the church's lay care ministry.

Pastor Warren is deeply committed to his family, his wife, Nancy, and their two children, Noel and Rob. Next week they will celebrate their 32nd anniversary.

Arlington Heights is the largest town in my district, a place where common sense Midwestern values of family and faith and freedom reign supreme. Pastor Warren embodies those values and is one of our most cherished leaders, and we are honored that he took the time to lead the House in prayer today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois, my neighboring colleague from Chicago, because I know not only is he leading on this issue, but he is leading on creating a proposal that fits within our budget. And there is a very important point here, that we are going to make a promise to America's seniors and they are going to count on that promise. So that promise has to be sustainable and affordable. By crafting a proposal which fits within the budget resolution, my colleague from the other side of the aisle is crafting a serious proposal and is joining in the debate in a particularly productive way, and I want to compliment him on that.

Mr. Speaker, across our country, the state of our economy is the number one issue on people's minds. America's economy is reeling from a 3-year-old recession and the shock of September 11 and war jitters from Iraq. This Congress has acted to restore our homeland and national security. We have passed corporate reforms to stop the dot-com abuses that sparked our recession. Our Armed Forces have won a great battle in Iraq. But now, the latest news from our markets is somewhat encouraging. We bottomed out in the Dow Jones industrials at under 7,500, and we are now back over 9,000. But still, the economy is sluggish. Why? Are there other issues weighing against new savings and investments?

There are. There is one key issue that is casting a very dark cloud on America's economy, on our employment and, especially, our retirement savings. What is that issue? Lawsuits. Lawsuits. But not just any lawsuit. These are asbestos lawsuits.

Tonight, over 900 stocks that form the heart of our retirement IRAs are depressed because of asbestos litigation. We have already bankrupted manufacturers of asbestos long ago. People poisoned by these companies collect only 5 cents on the dollar from the empty shelf of what once were large employers.

In 1983, only 300 companies faced asbestos lawsuits from about 20,000 plaintiffs. Despite asbestos largely leaving our economy, we now see 750,000 plaintiffs suing over 8,000 employers. Sixty major employers have already closed their doors, and a third of those employers gave pink slips to their workers in just the last 2 years. With 8,000 plaintiffs crowding into our courts, no one gets justice. People who are truly sick die waiting for their day in court and the health care that they need. Others who file a case wait in line, hoping to win the asbestos lottery for them and their personal injury lawyers.

Our system of bankrupting employers and depressing the IRA savings of America could make some sense if those who are sick are compensated, but the data shows different. From 1980 to 2002, employers and insurers paid $70 billion in claims. Plaintiffs received only $28 billion out of the $70 billion paid. So where did the other $42 billion go? As the chart next to me shows, it went to personal injury lawyers and court costs. Not a penny of those funds went for hospital costs or to pay surviving relatives. Sixty percent of funds under the current system go to lawyers and court costs.

Clearly, American justice can do better. We say, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' But justice is delayed here. We say, ``We built a system to make the injured whole,'' but the injured are not made whole here. Supreme Court Justices have decried our wayward system of asbestos justice. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg called on Congress to act. Justice David Souter said the system was an ``elephantine mass'' which defies customary judicial administration, and calls for national legislation.

What happens if we do nothing? What happens if we leave well enough alone? According to the National Economic Research Associates and the Rand Institute, asbestos litigation costs 60,000 Americans their livelihoods. Without reform, Rand estimates 423,000 Americans will lose their jobs because of the expanding cloud of asbestos litigation. Never in the history of our economy have so many lost their incomes to so few who received so little for the benefit.

Asbestos litigation reform may be the most important remaining economic reform legislation for this Congress to pass. Reform means saving half a million American jobs. Reform means lifting the value of millions of IRAs. Reform means paying victims and their families with the lion's share of awards, not personal injury lawyers. And reform is needed now. Congress has several proposals before it.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1114, the Asbestos Compensation Act of 2003, with 40 cosponsors, the largest number of asbestos reform cosponsors for any legislation in this Congress. My colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), introduced H.R. 1285, the Asbestos Compensation Fair Act. Our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), introduced H.R. 1737. And in the Senate, Senator Nickles introduced S. 413. All eyes in Washington on this issue have now focused on Senator Hatch's bill, S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, or FAIR Act. It is scheduled for a markup in the Senate in 48 hours.

This is the most important economic legislation for this Congress. And what do all of these bills do? They are based around core principles of American justice. One: that we seek to compensate the injured; two, that we bring about a rapid resolution of disputes; three, that decisions become final; and, four, that we administer justice uniformly. Our current system fails to meet any of these time- honored values.

The legislation Congress is considering would remove the myriad of cases from various courts in States to a new Federal court or office that would develop an expertise and uniform administration of 8,000 lawsuits. Why do this? Let me give some examples.

Robert York received an asbestos award from his State court. He was asymptomatic with lung scarring, and he got $1,200. He had to pay $600 of it to his lawyer. Bill Sullivan was exposed to asbestos, with no symptoms, still got $350,000. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed to asbestos and he got just $2,500, but, of course, had to pay $1,200 to his lawyer. Mrs. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed, but she got just $750 and, of course, had to pay $375 to her lawyer. Ron Huber got asbestos-related illness and received an award of $14,000, but it is still pending appeal, and Ronald has not been paid. Meanwhile, James Curry, with asbestosis, won an award of $25 million; but once again, under appeal, he has not been paid.

This is not justice. Victims are left to die, and plaintiffs with no symptoms are litigants in a system that only the lawyers win.

We stand for a different principle. The major themes of reforms are to form a new Federal office or court to swiftly and surely compensate victims. But who pays?

Under our reforms, current defendants, employers, and insurers pay, with some leeway for other defendants to be added. Without reform, Rand estimates, plaintiffs, uninsured and insured alike, will be awarded $200 billion, bankrupting dozens of employers and throwing 400,000 Americans out of work.

But remember, most award money goes to lawyers and court costs, not to plaintiffs. That means without reforms, $200 billion will be awarded, but only $80 billion will go to victims and uninsured plaintiffs.

We argue for a better system. Rather than have only $80 billion paid to victims, we, for example, under Senator Hatch's reforms, would pay over $100 billion, 20 percent more, to the victims. Who loses? Under our reforms, only the lawyers would lose, but the victims would win; and so would the American economy.

So would the American economy.

Without so many asbestos lawsuits filed by thousands on the chance of victory, we would remove a cloud of litigation from our economy's future. We would also follow another key principle, those injured should be the ones compensated best and first.

Under the current system, plaintiffs with the fastest lawyer, suing the richest defendant, wins. The sickest plaintiff, suing a poor or bankrupt defendant, loses. That is wrong. Our reforms care for the sickest most, regardless of financial capacity of the defendant.

Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune identified these issues clearly in a masthead editorial printed yesterday. They correctly pointed out that the proposed privately funded $100 billion trust fund will be more than adequate to meet the needs of victims who currently only look like they will get $80 billion under the current misguided system.

Mr. Speaker, if one's 401(k) looks like mine, it is really probably just a 201(k). This issue depresses the market and, therefore, the retirement savings for millions of Americans. I ask everyone to contact their representative or Senator and urge them, for the sake of their retirement savings, to pass asbestos liability reform. If we are to return to $10,000 on the Dow or even better, this reform must pass.

In the next 48 hours, the Senate is scheduled to act and the House must soon follow. There is no economic issue more important, and therefore, this must move to the top of the to-do list for the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 276, due to mechanical problems on United Flight 618, I missed rollcall No. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''