Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to the visit of the President to Chicago today, I missed the following rollcall votes: Numbers 257, 258, 259, 260 and 261. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all of these votes.

Mr. Speaker, in 48 hours Congress will face the single most important pending issue of legislation to help our economy. Does your 401(k) look like mine? If so, it is due to the dot.com bust, the war, recession, and possibly even a little bit of Martha Stewart. But it is also due to another problem, and this problem is depressing the value of 900 stocks that form the bedrock of our retirement savings.

The issue is asbestos liability reform. Really. We bankrupted asbestos makers like Johns Manville and U.S. Gypsum a long time ago, but lawsuits now reach out to many companies, most companies, who have had asbestos anywhere in their ceiling tiles, walls, or in the case of Sears Roebuck, in one washer and one iron sold between 1957 and 1958.

Spending on the lawsuits might make sense if our justice system actually compensated victims suffering from asbestos poisoning. But, as the chart behind me shows, most asbestos awards go to lawyers' fees and court costs, and a minority actually goes to the lawsuit plaintiffs. Of the amount that goes to plaintiffs, only a small fraction goes to people who are actually suffering from asbestos poisoning.

When you look at this situation, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did, you see a system crying out for reform. Amazingly, the American Bar Association has called for this liability reform.

In this House, I introduced the Asbestos Compensation Act with 40 cosponsors, and my colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) introduced similar legislation. But in 2 days, our eyes will be on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will take up this issue with Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch, and I think it is the best chance that we have to move a key piece of legislation forward to help our economy.

We know that two-thirds of asbestos plaintiffs have no symptoms whatsoever and they are flooding the courts to protect their rights in case they get sick sometime in the future. Meanwhile, plaintiffs who are sick are left behind. This has been a key point that the trial bar representing actually injured plaintiffs has raised.

But the financial uncertainty of asbestos liability is probably causing the greatest cost. Already 70 companies have gone into bankruptcy court, and there are approximately 900 publicly traded companies now facing asbestos lawsuits. If Congress does not act this year, we estimate 800 companies will go bankrupt over this issue. This, according to the National Economic Research Association and Rand Institute study, has cost Americans 60,000 jobs so far, and will cost 423,000 jobs in the future.

The system that we are under now has very uncertain results. Robert York has no symptoms and collected $1,200 in his asbestos lawsuit. Half went to his lawyer. William Sullivan had undefined asbestos exposure and collected $350,000, with his lawyer's contingency being undisclosed. Ken Ronnfeldt had exposure to asbestos and collected $2,500, half going to his lawyer; whereas Ron Huber, who had asbestos- related illness, collected only $14,000, and is appealing, rightly, his case.

I think the time is now for asbestos liability reform. I think this is a critical issue, not just to make sure that actual victims truly suffering consequences are compensated, but also that we remove this cloud of liability from America's companies that is depressing the value of the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

The test comes in 2 days before the Senate Judiciary Committee. My hope is that we have a bipartisan agreement to move asbestos liability reform through the Senate, and then it will be time for the House to act.

Mr. Speaker, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We know to a moral certitude of such weapons. How do we know? Saddam Hussein told us. On December 7 of last year, he told the U.N. that he owned 30,000 chemical weapons, but he forgot where he put them. We have not even found the chemical weapons that Saddam admitted to the U.N. he made. There are over 500 WMD sites in Iraq, and we have inspected less than half of them.

Remember Dr. Hussein Kamel? The U.N. inspected Iraq for 4 years between 1991 and 1995 and found no nuclear program. Dr. Kamel then told us that 40,000 Iraqis worked on nuclear weapons, but our intelligence missed it all.

WMD in Iraq, it is inevitable that a final chapter will be written in this story. As Paul Harvey would say, and then we will say, ``and now for the rest of the story.''

Mr. Speaker, today the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and I will introduce the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003. Identical to the Biden-Lugar bill in the Senate, it will assist in fighting the threats of bioterrorism and naturally-occurring infectious diseases.

International trade and travel offer new opportunities for pathogens to cross national borders. Infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur, are a potential threat to all nations. Americans have become all too familiar with the threat from bioterrorism and deadly agents capable of spreading death, anthrax, Ebola, smallpox, and SARS. They are just the most recent examples.

The Kirk-Tauscher bill authorizes $150 million over 2 years to assist developing countries to train personnel in epidemiological techniques, acquire laboratory equipment, and obtain equipment to communicate inside the country and with the World Health Organization. Our legislation has the strong support of Dr. David Heymann, the highest- ranking American at the World Health Organization. It will contribute to our homeland security while at the same time making other countries safer for Americans traveling abroad. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to know that he is still my hero, and with a gentle heart, I rise in opposition to the position he outlined.

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to end late-term abortions, and therefore, we must pass legislation that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. If we are to save babies, then we must do it effectively. When the underlying bill passes the House today, it will sit for 2 years while lower courts enjoin it, the Supreme Court reviews it and eventually declares it unconstitutional. So what is our goal, to end late-term abortions or to make a political statement?

The Supreme Court of the United States clearly indicated in Stenberg that any law prohibiting late-term abortions ``requires that the statute include a health exception from the majority holding.'' H.R. 760 does not include a health exception and goes far to declare that the procedure is ``never medically necessary.'' We are setting Congress up for a defeat at the hands of our highest Court, rendering the action we take today totally ineffective and the current law permitting late- term abortions unchanged.

I was not elected to Congress as a medical doctor and do not intend to tie the hands of physicians who should have the right to discuss all available options with their patients. Are Congressmen competent to regularly vote now on common medical procedures as never medically necessary? If we set this massive precedent to declare what a physician can and cannot do in their medical judgment, we give an awesome power to future Presidents and Congresses that will not share our gentle philosophy or our calm responsibility. Congressmen cannot suddenly declare they have medical degrees and are board certified to practice medicine. If my wife and I were faced with this dilemma, I would certainly hope that our physician was not hamstrung by distant Congressmen in Washington.

I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood substitute, which effectively bans late-term abortions. To do otherwise only serves the interest of pressure groups and lawyers that will make a killing as the Supreme Court strikes down the underlying bill. The Court in Stenberg gives us a clear direction. While the underlying bill cannot survive in the Supreme Court, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) does.

I oppose late-term abortions and will support effective measures to change the law and make the ban effective. Unlike H.R. 760, the Greenwood substitute bans late-term abortions in a way the Supreme Court will sustain. Passage of the Greenwood substitute would mean a quick end to litigation and a rapid change in U.S. law.

Failure to pass the substitute means continuing litigation and defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to two recent events signaling a step backward for basic human rights. The Nepali Government violated international law by jailing 18 Tibetan refugees instead of turning them over to the United Nations. Nepal then made these refugees prisoners of the Chinese, the very people that they were fleeing.

International refugee law is well settled, that once Tibetans reach Nepal, they are turned over to the U.N. for safe passage. Nepal's action flies in the face of her commitment to international law, and American tourists should not visit Nepal.

Second, in Burma on Friday the military dictatorship detained many members of the National League of Democracy, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and closed all universities. Suu Kyi, the elected leader of her country, was beaten, and her whereabouts are currently unknown.

I want to commend Secretary Powell for speaking out against both governments, and urge Members of Congress to call attention to these two governments, Nepal and Burma, that are turning back the clock on human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the great fighters for human rights and democracy in Asia, Mike Jendrzejczyk.

For 13 years as advocacy director, Mike, at the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, fought for human rights in all corners of Asia, from China to Burma to Vietnam to Indonesia. His knowledge, insight, and information on these regions was invaluable to policymakers around the world and here in Washington.

Mike testified before the House Committee on International Relations and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus countless times, providing us with critical information on issues ranging from North Korean refugees to human rights abuses in Tibet to democracy in Hong Kong.

Mike's energy and enthusiasm were unwavering, and his ceaseless dedication was admired by all. Unfortunately, the human rights community lost this fighter too soon, and we need to continue his fight.

Mike, I will miss you. Mike, millions in Asia are now living in freedom from Taiwan to South Korea to the Philippines who owe you; and millions more depend on us to continue your work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because it makes a needed change. By including the Hefley amendment in the manager's amendment, we make a change narrowing the application of this DOD authorization bill on the environment just to DOD events alone. I think that is what the committee wanted to do originally. It is what the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness support.

For those of us who are very strong supporters of the environment, we wanted this change made at the full committee, but because of jurisdictional reasons it was not made. By the manager's amendment including this, I think a change that the Committee on Armed Services wanted to have happen has happened. Now we are making the necessary modifications to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as narrowly applied, to support the Department of Defense but not with broad application. To make this early in the process in the manager's amendment is the right decision by the Committee on Rules, and I urge adoption of the rule and commend the committee for making that decision.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment and support it. American uniformed women stationed overseas depend on base hospitals for their medical care, often situated in areas where local facilities are inadequate. We have over 100,000 American women in uniform now on active duty with spouses and dependents who depend on those base hospitals.

Just 3 years ago, I served as a Navy air crewman at the Insurlik Air Base in Adona, Turkey. The thought of sending one of my female colleagues to the Turkish hospital in downtown Adona for her medical care rather than in the American base hospital where they would understand her own language is an anathema to me.

Women who serve in our Armed Forces and wear the uniform should have the same rights as women in our country, and that is a basic principle we stand for. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for bringing this needed legislation to the floor. I also thank the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Leo McKay, and David Chu of the Department of Defense for their leadership on this.

We have several key projects that put together DOD and VA health care: at Kirtland, in Las Vegas, and in my own congressional district of North Chicago. These projects help us realize fundamental facts: 15 million Americans have served our country in uniform, with 25 million of them still alive today and in need of VA care. But in many parts of this country, combining DOD and VA projects can help improve the care both of veterans and active duty personnel alike.

In my district, the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital are combining. During the last administration, there were two attempts to close the North Chicago VA Hospital, but on June 19, 2001, VA released a capital asset realignment enhanced services study. That study pointed the way towards combining these two institutions, offering better health care for the veterans of northern Illinois.

I want to applaud the committee for bringing this legislation forward which codifies the existing agreements between DOD and VA and also enhances their ability to work in other places. Later on in this week, we will have the opportunity to increase the authorized level of spending that the DOD spends on its cooperative programs with the VA. I hope the House not only adopts this legislation overwhelmingly but that amendment as well. Our veterans and our active duty would both benefit from that.

Mr. Speaker, on the departure of the South Korean President, we have to look at the North Korean situation with new eyes. I think it is clear that U.S. pressure on North Korea will not be effective since North Korea is a very poor country under 50 years already of U.S. economic sanctions. There are few, if any, U.S. options to bring effective nonmilitary pressure to bear. It is also clear that the South Korean Government will not issue new effective pressure on North Korea. But Chinese pressure can be effective.

China is the primary donor to North Korea, and despite cool relations, China supports North Korea to prevent a collapse. China so far has rejected pressure because it fears any pressure may hasten the very collapse of North Korea they intend to prevent. Therefore, finding a motivation for China to help generate effective pressure from North Korea is asking the question, what do the Chinese regard as worse than risking a North Korean collapse? And the answer is the potential of Japanese nuclear armament.

Few of us have realized that Japan owns more plutonium than in the United States nuclear arsenal. Japan has a large nuclear power program. It is seeking to reduce its reliance on foreign uranium by recycling nuclear fuel that will make its plutonium stockpile grow even larger.

Today Japan owns 38 tons of plutonium, 5 tons located in the country and 33 tons at its European processors. That is enough for 7,000 nuclear weapons. Japan is also accelerating its production of plutonium. Once the Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant comes online in 2005, Japan will be able to produce 100 tons of plutonium by 2015. North Korea recently complained in public about 206 kilos of missing plutonium from Japan's Tokai-mura facility.

Japan is also rethinking its defense policy. Prime Minister Koizumi is leading efforts to expand Japan's defense role. Japan's self-defense force won Diet approval recently of purchasing long-range strike aircraft, including four 767 tankers; power projection, including the formation of an air brigade; and missile defense, including software, hardware and AEGIS class cruisers.

Japan's perception of the North Korean threat is growing. North Korea shot a No Dong missile over Japanese territory in 1994. They shot a Taepo-dong missile over Japan in 1998. In December Japanese Coast Guard vessels clashed with North Korean spy boats.

There is a nuclear debate beginning in Japan. In April, opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa openly discussed the nuclear option. In May, Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda generally hinted at revising defense doctrine. And last month, Defense Minister Ishiba stated Japan might conventionally strike North Korea first.

Japan is also developing delivery vehicles. Japan's H-2 civilian rocket program is very advanced, and Japan is participating in missile defense focused on software, nose cones, infrared seekers, warheads and rocket motors.

All of these facts should be shared at the highest level with Japanese leaders. We can help China to understand that if North Korea fully develops a nuclear arsenal, Japan may develop a deterrent.

Japan's nuclear arsenal would quickly outpace China's. France's nuclear submarine costs just $13 billion and would be well within Japan's means. And Japan nuclear armament would encourage other Asian nations to also arm, even Taiwan.

These facts should be shown to be clear that the Chinese should act clearly to diffuse the North Korea crisis.

Article 9 of Japan's Constitution commits to no use of war to resolve international disputes. And it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to amend the Constitution. Support for Article 9 in Japan now in the face of the North Korean threat is just 50/50. Japanese Prime Minister Sato formally studied a nuclear weapons program in 1967, and Japan would have to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that it ratified in 1977.

Some have said the Japanese reactor-grade plutonium would not be fully usable, but the U.S. detonated a reactor-grade plutonium device in 1962, and in order to discourage other countries from using plutonium as a fuel, President Carter declassified data on the feasibility of a reactor-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons in 1976.

We need to help China understand that other Asian nations maybe forced to develop a nuclear deterrent. To curb this crisis, China must act, otherwise there will be an historical reversal of power in Asia, something the Chinese should realize and seek to avoid.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the 90th anniversary of Riverwoods, IL based CCH Incorporated. For nearly a century, CCH has set the standard in reporting and explaining the complexities of American tax law. Their flagship product, The Standard Federal Tax Reporter, is essential to the accounting, human resources, banking, securities, insurance, government and health care professionals who must adapt to the dynamics of the federal tax code.

CCH was founded in 1913--the year that the U.S. federal income tax was created. The company has always made its home in the Chicago area. In 90 years, CCH has grown into a multi-national, public company that serves tax and legal professionals around the globe. It is a great asset to my district. The company employs more than 1,500 individuals here in Chicago and more than 2,300 across the U.S.

In spite of its tremendous growth and development, CCH has remained faithful to its original mission: to provide incomparable tax products that are clear, accurate and timely. I am most proud to represent CCH Incorporated. I congratulate them on this, the 90th anniversary of their inception, and I thank them for their innumerable contributions to legal and tax professionals throughout our district and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the Republic of China as it celebrates President Chen Shui-bian's third anniversary in office. President Chen is to be commended for his leadership in guiding Taiwan through various challenges and maintaining prosperity and democracy for its 23 million people on the island.

Despite economic downturns in many parts of the world, Taiwan has maintained a healthy growth. Taiwan's substantive relations with nearly all the free countries have been steadily improving, especially with Taiwan's recent accession to the World Trade Organization. However, much more needs to be done to expand Taiwan's international presence, particularly as Southeast Asia combats the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS.

With the recent outbreak of SARS, I feel even stronger that Taiwan needs to be included in any and all international medical collaborative efforts. With the spread of SARS, the importance of public health information disclosure is paramount. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated that, ``infectious disease knows no borders and requires an effective and coordinated response at local, national and international levels.'' Time has come for Taiwan to be included in all World Health Organization activities. For a start, I believe the United States should strongly support Taiwan's efforts to obtain observer status at the World Health Assembly this May.

We must make every effort to combat the growing threat of SARS. Taiwan is geographically located at the heart of this devastating crisis. To deny WHO membership--or at the very least observer status at the World Health Assembly--is a direct affront on the international medical community's efforts to contain the deadly spread of this virus. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). As a staff member of the committee, I wrote an earlier version of this legislation, and it reflects a growing movement started by Dr. Muhammed Yunnus at the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which has now become the largest financial institution in terms of customers in that country, serving the poorest of the poor.

This movement has spread worldwide, founding institutions such as Banco Sol in Bolivia, also now the largest financial institution in that country. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, we will be working hard to make sure that the appropriation backs up the authorization to ensure that we fund this critical program.

I particularly applaud the chairman for identifying the poorest of the poor. I want to thank the groups behind this legislation such as Results, Sam Daley Harris; FINCA, with Lawrence Janovich; and Accion International, and others like Opportunity International that provide loans to the poorest of the poor overseas.

In recent years, micro has become macro, and this cause has been adopted by Her Majesty, Queen Rania of Jordan, as her key program to spread throughout the world, especially in the former Soviet Union. This movement has also spread to the United States. I want to particularly thank the Duman Foundation in Deerfield, Illinois, that is using the lessons of the Grameen Bank and microenterprise loans to work with the poorest of the poor in my home State, in North Chicago, Illinois.

So I want to commend the chairman, and I urge adoption of this legislation. I urge this House to back up the authorization with appropriations for this critical program.

Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2003, I missed rollcall vote number 149, H. Res. 206, the rule for H.R. 1350 due to my service on active duty as a reserve naval officer. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea''.