Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), I want to thank him for taking time out in the schedule of the Congress of the United States to allow the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to take the floor to talk about our concerns and to describe our feelings about the preemptive strike that we are poised to carry out as we stand here tonight.

I thank the Chairman because he knows and I know that we are going to be criticized. We are going to be criticized, and there will be those who even call us unpatriotic. We will be criticized. We will be called unpatriotic, and there will be an attempt to intimidate us and say to us that at this point in time we should not raise these questions, we should not talk about our deep feelings and our concerns, we should only support whatever the President is doing.

But I would like to remind those who would criticize us that we are indeed patriotic Americans. As a matter of fact, if we take a look at the history of African Americans in this country, one can only conclude that we are indeed patriotic. We believe in America. We believe in America despite the history of America as it relates to African Americans, despite slavery, despite discrimination, without racism. We stand by America. We have decided that it is our job and our responsibility to make America the kind of place that America can be and it should be, and so we take this floor this evening to try to raise the question how did we get to the point where the President of the United States is issuing an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in Iraq to be out of that country within 48 hours, he and his sons, or face the consequences of a preemptive strike? How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where all diplomatic efforts have been abandoned? How did we get to the point where we have some 250,000 to 300,000 young men and women in Kuwait, in Qatar and on the sea awaiting the order to strike? Where did it all break down? How did we lose our allies? What made France and Russia and Germany and even China decide that they could not stand with the President of the United States in a second resolution? What made France say no matter what, they were poised to veto any resolution being described in the way the President of the United States was describing the second resolution?

When we ask the question of how, when, and where did the diplomatic efforts fail, we cannot help but understand that the diplomatic efforts could not work because the case has not been made for preemptive strike. The case has not been made, and there is no documentation as of this date that even Saddam Hussein is harboring weapons of mass destruction.

As we have sent our inspectors there, they have found some things; but we have also discovered that some things that were supposedly in place in Iraq were not in place. We listened very carefully as our Secretary of State described sheds and operations where weapons were being developed only to discover that they were old and dilapidated, full of dust with no electricity. As there was an attempt to document why we had to have this preemptive strike, we found each day that the representations were less than factual. As a matter of fact, our own intelligence community headed by the CIA said that they could not find in Iraq that which was being described by our own Secretary of State, the President of the United States.

Some would say the President moved on this preemptive strike after 9- 11, the President was so concerned about terrorism and 9-11 that he decided that he must take some action.

The President of the United States of America had the support of this Congress to take action to find the terrorists, to bring them to the bar of justice. We said yes, Mr. President, 9-11 is a terrible thing. It was a terrible thing. We should not be the victims of terrorism, and we should find those who are responsible. We were told that Osama bin Laden and others were responsible. And we said, we support you, Mr. President. Let us go after Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and any of the rest of those leaders leading al Qaeda that were responsible for terrorism.

We are still looking for Osama bin Laden. Where is he, Mr. President? We still do not have Mullah Omar, supposedly one of the high operatives responsible for terrorism. Mr. President, not only do we support finding the terrorists, you have taken a lot of steps above and beyond what some of us even thought should be taken when you moved to change the Constitution of the United States to try to locate folks that supposedly were responsible. You have locked up people. Some of them we still do not know where they are. You have brought folks who still have not been identified with terrorism but are being held, but we have not had a breakthrough. We have not had a breakthrough, and we are worried that the war on terrorism has taken a back seat to a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein.

Mr. President, you cannot substitute a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein for finding the terrorists. We want the terrorists to be found. We give you all the support that you need to do that. And, Mr. President, we want the homeland secured. We have given you all the support that you need for homeland security, but we find as of today the terrorists have not been located. Some of our airports are still exposed. We have nuclear power plants that are exposed. We have ports where we have containers that are still coming in that are not inspected; and as of this day, not all of the baggage that goes into the belly of the airplanes that are traveling throughout this country is inspected.

Mr. President, we want to find the terrorists. We want to secure the homeland. We are worried that you have been diverted, that you are about to do this preemptive strike without the documentation.

Yes, we know that Saddam Hussein has done some terrible things. We have been successful in containing him. I do not think that he presents us nearly as much of a problem as North Korea. If we take a look at Kim Jong Il in North Korea, we find that not only has he developed nuclear capability, he has opted out of the nuclear proliferation treaty. He has decided to test missiles.

He has challenged us. He has interfered with our airplanes in the sky. What are you going to do about Kim Jong Il? And on top of that, we now discover that Iran has plutonium that could be developed into nuclear capability for weapons of war.

Mr. President, something is wrong with this picture. What is wrong with this picture is this: we are sophisticated enough to know that some of our allies, Pakistan, have nuclear capability and so does India and they could go at each other any day of the week. We also know that Israel has nuclear capability. We also understand that Russia still has nuclear capability. There is too much nuclear capability in the world to talk about focusing our sights on Iraq that still does not have nuclear capability, and we still have not found the weapons of mass destruction.

I know that Saddam Hussein is clever and of course he has been cooperating. The more we push him against the wall, the more he cooperates. Yes, we can now send our planes and we can do the surveillance. Yes, he is now dismantling the Samoud missiles. Yes, he continues to cooperate as we push him against the wall, and the more he cooperates, the more our allies and others say let us continue to do the inspections, let us see if there are weapons of mass destruction. We should not stop in the middle of these inspections.

But there are those who say all of this talk is too late, that you have decided, Mr. President, that it is just a matter of time after issuing the ultimatum that we will move. I am naive enough to believe, I have enough hope, that even at this late date, you have identified that we will move at a time of our choice, that that time will not come. I still hope despite the billions of dollars that we have spent deploying these soldiers that we will bring them home.

We love our soldiers. We support them and we embrace them. Our hearts are torn apart as we see these families torn apart, mothers and fathers leaving the babies. We watched this in the Gulf war only to find that our soldiers came home, many of them had no apartments. They had no homes. They had no furniture. We do not want to replay this. Yes, every country should be able to defend itself, but we are in no danger from Iraq. As a matter of fact, that is probably one of the weakest points on the globe for us to attack. We are not threatened by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. President, I hope that you do not think that with this preemptive strike that somehow this will translate into we have a war on terrorism. It does not. We know the difference, Mr. President. Striking Saddam, striking Iraq is not fighting terrorism. What about our friends in Saudi Arabia who pay for the madrasas and the schools where right- wing fundamentalism is taught? Those madrasas are the breeding grounds for the al Qaeda operation, but, no, they are our friends. We are tied to them because of oil. They are not a democracy. The House of Faud is but a very rich family that has been able to manipulate its way into a friendship and a relationship despite the fact the support and the money comes from Saudi Arabia. The terrorists, all of which have been identified with 9-11, all were born, bred in Saudi Arabia. Our friends that we have aligned ourselves within Pakistan as we have moved into Afghanistan turn out to be those who are supplying North Korea with some of the plutonium and the nuclear capability that they are developing. It does not add up, Mr. President.

What we see and we are witnessing is the mismanagement of America. Someone today criticized Senator Daschle because he talked about the diplomatic disaster. Mr. President, it is a diplomatic disaster. We are watching before our very eyes the mismanagement of our beloved country. Our schools are falling apart. You said you wished to leave no child behind, but, Mr. President, you have not funded assistance to education that will have our children in the best possible situations where they can learn. Our health care system has fallen apart. In my city, in my county we are closing healthcare clinics. We are closing hospitals. And the stock market has not performed since before 9-11. What are you doing to stimulate this economy? Mr. President, I do not think the average person will believe that by eliminating the taxes on dividends that somehow it is going to stimulate this economy.

Mr. President, you are not able to tell us what this war is going to cost and what the cleanup, what the revitalization, the reconstruction of Iraq is going to cost. The American people need to know where our dollars are going. The American people need to understand the cost of this war and why.

Mr. President, the worst thing that could happen to us is that you have this preemptive strike, you go into Iraq, occupy it, and we spend billions of dollars after this so-called regime change where we are going to institute democracy, and the terrorists are still operating. When are you going to break up the al Qaeda cells right here in America? When are we going to get with our allies and put together a strong approach to rooting out the terrorists all over the world?

Mr. President, we must raise these questions. We must raise these questions because we are patriots. We are folks who love this country. We are folks who have stood by this country no matter what, and we will continue to stand by this country. We will continue to stand by our soldiers. But, Mr. President, you are going to have to account for the leadership that you are giving, and I say to you and all those who are advising you, be it Wolfowitz, be it Secretary of State Colin Powell, be it Condoleezza Rice, be it Carl Rove, or any of those in the inner circle, you are going to be held responsible for what takes place in this world, what takes place with this preemptive strike, what takes place with our soldiers and our families.

We would like to see this situation resolved in a way that will not cause the body bags to come home. We would like to see this situation resolved in a way that our young people would not be put in harm's way.

It is not too late, Mr. President. We will all stand up and applaud you if you do the courageous thing of saying, yes, we deployed; yes, we spent billions of dollars to do it; but we do not have the allies, we cannot afford the costs, and we cannot afford the loss of lives. I am going to bring our soldiers home.

We will stand with you and praise you and applaud you and say you are a great man. Unless you can do it that way, Mr. President, you are going to have to accept the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to debate a bill, H.R. 5, written for us by the insurance industry. Supporters of restricting jury awards and malpractice lawyers' fees say excessive billion-dollar damage awards in medical liability suits is the reason medical malpractice insurance premiums have risen so sharply and that nearly half the States are experiencing an insurance crisis. However, others say, and I agree, that rising malpractice rates are part of the cyclical nature of the insurance business, and insurers are raising premiums now to recoup recent stock market losses. In addition, I believe any crisis that exists is specific to certain medical specialties and regions of the country.

Let us, Mr. Speaker, say it like it is: the insurance industry wants this bill because it will increase their profits. Well, forgive me if I do not support the insurance industry over injured patients. I do not represent insurance industry profiteers. I represent the people in my district, the people who will be severely disadvantaged if this bill passes in its current form.

We have gone back and forth on this issue for a long time now. The medical malpractice insurers tell us again there is a crisis, there is a shortage, there is a stoppage, or whatever else they think will bully Congress into doing their bidding. It is truly terrible that good doctors are paying the price for the insurance industry's bad business decisions. It is truly terrible that the insurance industry has fooled doctors into believing that injured patients are to blame for high premiums, and it is truly terrible that the insurance industry has this control over the health care system.

I would say to my colleagues, it is time for us to put an end to the misrepresentations of the insurance industry. It is time for us to stand up for our constituents and for people who have been injured, who have been maimed, and even killed, who deserve to be protected.

I say vote ``no'' on this bad bill. Our citizens deserve to be compensated for medical malpractice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 659; and I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and our chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for expediting this legislation, because it is certainly needed.

I stand in strong support because FHA insures hospitals certainly under the section 242 loan program. The funding year 2004 administration budget is requesting the authority to insure $700 million of such hospital loans in funding year 2004. Decade-old statutory language authorizing FHA-hospital loans requires as a condition of a loan a State certification that there is a need for the hospital, or if no State procedure exists for such a certification, the State must commission an independent study of market need and feasibility.

H.R. 659 addresses that concern that this Certificate of Need requirement makes it difficult, if not impossible, for hospitals in many States, including California, as was mentioned, to be eligible for FHA loans.

This bill replaces existing statutory requirements with one that simply requires the HUD Secretary to establish a means for determining need and feasibility for any hospitals applying for a loan, with a proviso that a hospital located in any State with an official procedure for determining need, that a Certificate of Need must follow that procedure.

So I think that it has been well stated that the need is there. There are so many States that are waiting on us to provide them the opportunity to have access to this insurance, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, AIDS activists and interesting, caring legislators and others have been working on this AIDS issue for the past 20 years. President Bush did not get active on this issue over the past 2 years, but he has come to the table now to talk about emergency plan for AIDS relief in Africa. And according to the administration, this proposal will provide $15 billion for global HIV/AIDS programs over the next 5 years, including $10 billion in brand new money.

Now, we have to take a very close look at this here proposal. A closer look at the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 indicates that it may not be a pure $15 billion that will be spent over the next 5 years.

One would think that $15 billion over 5 years would amount to $3 billion per year. However, the administration's budget for global AIDS programs for fiscal year 2004 is only $2 billion. An increase of just half a billion over the fiscal year 2003 level. Administration officials have indicated that they plan to phase in the proposed funding over the next 5 years. Phasing in funds is particularly troublesome in the case of the AIDS epidemic. Every year, another 3 million people die of AIDS, another 5 million become infected with HIV. How many people will we have to have die before we have an emergency plan, a real emergency plan that is triggered immediately?

The President promised that his proposed emergency plan for AIDS relief would provide $10 billion in new money for global AIDS programs. When we look at this and upon close attention, it becomes very clear that the administration is transferring money from other development assistance accounts in order to fund this new proposal. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004 severely underfunds one of the Federal government's most important development assistance accounts, the Child Survival and Health Account.

Funding for this account was cut by $470 million, relative to the fiscal year 2003 level. Indeed, when you combine the President's proposed increase of half a billion dollars for global AIDS programs with his proposed cuts of almost half a billion dollars in the Child Survival and Health Account, the total funding for the two programs is virtually identical to fiscal year 2000 funding. Cutting funds for Child Survival and Health in order to fund AIDS relief is no way to improve global health.

Another problem with the proposal in this plan for AIDS relief is that it virtually eliminates funding for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The global fund encourages developing countries to combine the efforts of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and civil society into a comprehensive strategy to fight epidemics in a manner appropriate for local needs and conditions. The global fund also allows donors to pool their resources so that developing countries do not have to deal with as many funding agencies.

Now, the President's proposal of $15 billion over 5 years for global AIDS program includes only $1 billion for the Global Fund. The President's budget provides only $200 million for the global fund in fiscal year 2004 and presumably $200 million per year over the next 5 years.

This will drastically reduce the Global Fund's activities which received $400 million from the United States this year alone. The President is apparently determined to ensure that his $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief will be implemented almost exclusively by the United States government agencies, Jeffrey Sacks, the Chairman of the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health evaluated the President's proposal and concluded, ``The U.S., as it is wont these days, has decided to go it alone.''

AIDS is a global epidemic. It deserves a global response, not a unilateral one.

The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) just mentioned the global gag rule and the President is complicating AIDS treatments and prevention even further by attempting to apply the Mexico City policy to global AIDS programs. The Mexico City policy known as the Global Gag Rule prohibits U.S. funding of international organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion referrals or counseling with their own money.

In the past the Mexico City policy has been used to restrict the use of family planning funds. It has never ever been applied to HIV funds and it is unwise for the President to politicize this. Under the administration's new proposed policy, only organizations that do not offer abortion-related services or those that offer abortion-related services, separate from HIV/AIDS services, would be eligible for AIDS funds.

This would be an inefficient and unrealistic expectation for most clinics, organizations operating in developing countries.

I will quickly say it is time for our President to really understand all of the work that all of us have put into this issue and get with the strategy and the plan that is developed by activists and people worldwide and do some real work in helping to deal with this pandemic.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our Democratic alternative. Unfortunately, the bill that has been offered by the other side of the aisle is a bill that is not really designed to get rid of poverty, and that is what we are trying to do. Our bill would move welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty; but more than that, we would allow for State flexibility to tailor services to help welfare recipients move into employment.

I am very concerned about having State flexibility because we are in a time of high unemployment and it does not seem to be getting any better. Those people who have been on for 5 years and they have to come off, we are dumping them out into an economy where we do not have jobs for them; but if the States have the flexibility to tailor the programs based on meeting the needs of the recipients, then I think it is fair. It is fair that not only do we have that flexibility, but we continue to have child care, child care support, and we continue to have fairness for our immigrant families.

Unfortunately, the Republican bill does not do that. I would ask for an aye on the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt sympathy to the families of the seven astronauts who lost their lives Saturday morning. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the crew and the communities that loved and supported them. This was a terrible tragedy that no family should ever have to endure.

Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Commander Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon gave their lives in the pursuit of knowledge. The seven brave men and women, who composed this crew rose to the top of their fields through hard work and determination. The international crew of the space shuttle Columbia was a group of men and women of extraordinary intelligence, brave hearts and dedication to one of the greatest endeavors that mankind has ever known.

The crew was as diverse as America itself. The six Americans were joined by Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli to go into space. Together, regardless of race, religion or national origin, they worked to ensure the integrity of the mission and to conduct scientific experiments that someday might improve the lives of thousands. They accomplished the mission's goals in outstanding fashion.''

I thank these remarkable individuals for their dedication. As a Member of Congress I will not rest until we know why this tragedy happened and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen again. In the wake of this horrific accident, as we search for the cause, we must not abandon our space program. It has brought so many wonderful innovations in technology and medicine. What we must do is find the root of the problem and provide the means to ensure that the Columbia and Challenger tragedies are never repeated.

I call on the President and Congress to honor the memories of these heroes by ensuring that NASA has all the necessary resources to protect future astronauts from tragedy.