Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some of us on our side of the aisle have been a little bit too critical of President Bush. After all he has in his budget a universal health care plan for 23 million people. He has in his budget money for school construction, 25,000 new schools, renovated schools, repaired schools.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, that is the President's budget for Iraq. Universal health coverage for 23 million Iraqis, school construction of 25,000 and renovation of 25,000 schools, but not a penny in the President's budget for school construction in this country, in spite of the fact that our school buildings, many of them are in awful shape, and not a penny for universal coverage of 40 million Americans without health insurance.

The reason? The tax cuts the President has asked for of $500 billion in tax cuts. Half of those tax cuts go to the richest one percent of the people in the country. The people whose incomes average $968,000. Money for school construction and health care in Iraq. No money for school construction and health care in the United States and tax cuts for the most privileged. It is the wrong priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership.

The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria represents the best tool we have to provide relief on a scale that matters. Some of my colleagues want to eliminate the U.S. commitment to the Global Fund. They will say it is effective when it only began disbursing funds in the past year. They will say it is a blow to bureaucracy, when, in fact, it is a model of efficiency in coordination. They will say that evidence shows that it does not work, and then fail to produce any evidence.

The Global Fund stresses accountability. Each proposal is reviewed by 22 physicians and health experts from a variety of nations. Forty percent only of the applications are accepted. Only the best are approved. Each proposal is for 5 years. After 2 years a major audit of the program is done. If it is not effective funding is cut off.

Both the House and the Senate supported its creation unanimously. It is transparent. The Global Funds Web site contains downloads of every single country's proposal that is approved.

Fifty million people in the last 25 years have died of malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS, 50 million people. The Global Fund will help history's worst epidemic.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin-Brown amendment. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his good faith and bipartisan work in drafting this amendment, especially his staff, Patrick Ronan, for his hard work and others on his staff.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over agencies that play a pivotal role in successful efforts to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria in our country and worldwide. Some of the world's most promising research and best treatment on these diseases are carried out by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. CDC provides technical and scientific support for international agencies like USAID as well as national infectious disease programs in developing countries, in addition to the work that NIH and other agencies do.

Secretary Thompson is the newly appointed chairman of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, the best tool this world has to fight three diseases that kill 6 million people every year. The success of this bipartisan Global AIDS Initiative depends on collaboration of the world's most important and best resources. One of the reasons why the Global Fund is such a critical component of the U.S. Global AIDS Initiative and a crucial part of the bill we are considering today, is it recognizes the need to fight tuberculosis, a lesser known infectious disease that has been around longer and kills 2 million people a year, including 1,100 people every day in the country of India.

TB infects one-third of the world's population. Two million people carry the TB bacteria, and it is the leading killer of young women and people with HIV worldwide.

HIV and TB form a lethal combination, each speeding the other's progress. HIV promotes rapid progression of primary TB infection to active disease. It is the most powerful known risk factor for reactivation of latent TB infection to active disease. Most HIV patients, in fact, will actually die of TB before they succumb to AIDS. The intersection of AIDS and TB is like the perfect storm.

The Global Fund is a public-private partnership which draws contributions from governments, from private corporations, from faith- based organizations and foundations. The Global Fund has shown signs that it works. Government entities, in coordination with nongovernment organizations, submit 5-year plans. Each plan is unique to each country, not a one-size-fits-all that comes from Washington or Geneva or any other country. The Global Fund recognizes cultural differences. What works in Christian Uruguay may not work the same in Muslim Bangladesh.

No overriding, international political agenda is attached to the Global Fund's assistance. No litmus test, only a judgment by the Global Fund, in collaboration with local citizens and health workers of what works best for each country. The Global Fund demands results, quantifiable results. The money supports activities, including access to health care services, purchasing of drugs, training of personnel, and training of community workers. If a country fails or an NGO fails to show results within 2 years, the money is cut off.

About 60 percent of the Global Fund's money goes to HIV/AIDS, about 20 to TB, about 20 to malaria. Fighting these diseases together, which the Global Fund does, is a cost-effective approach. For example, the infrastructure created in the treatment of TB, having health workers in place who sit with patients every day for about 6 months, has been proven, that infrastructure, to help in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, of malaria and other public health issues.

If we can fully commit to the Global Fund, and fully commit means at least $1 billion every year, 2 million patients will be treated for TB, a half million AIDS orphans will receive support, and 16 million new malaria nets will be distributed over the next few years.

Access to these lifesaving treatments means children will not be pulled out of school to work or to care for a sick parent. It means an HIV-positive father in the developing world has a few more years of life to provide for his family. It means children with TB, otherwise facing a virtual death sentence, will live.

What AIDS and TB experts know, but policymakers consistently underestimate, is that preventing and treating HIV/AIDS without preventing and treating TB is a virtual death sentence for the developing world. If HIV does not kill you, TB might or malaria might. The Global Fund is the best tool in the world to address all three of these infectious diseases together.

Our investment in the Global Fund, rather than a unilateral or bilateral U.S.-waged effort, will help leverage support from other countries. Funneling U.S. dollars through U.S. programs alone will do nothing to promote a united global front against these killers. If we put in money to the Global Fund, so will other nations and so will major philanthropists.

In a short time, the Global Fund has shown it is capable of tremendous progress. In just two rounds of grants, the fund has approved 160 proposals in 94 low- income countries. With significant U.S. funding the fund will continue to support countries committed to addressing the epidemic killing their people. Without U.S. leadership, it will be a fund in name only. AIDS, TB, and malaria would remain a virtual death sentence in the developing world.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his comments, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and appreciate his offer. And I think the work we are doing with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) today is outstanding, especially because with the Global Fund and with all of these efforts we can address all of these diseases, encourage philanthropists and other governments to contribute and make a difference in people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 158, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members all know that when our local news stations report that a pipeline has burst or refinery has caught fire, we need to get ready for angry constituent phone calls and letters about gas prices. It has become almost an article of faith in most of America that practically any problem with the gasoline distribution system will cause the retail price of gas to spike, often dramatically. We all know that price spikes follow supply disruptions, just as summer follows spring.

This first sequence of events is followed almost certainly by a second equally predictable series of events: We fire off letters to the EPA, the Department of Energy, the FTC, the American Petroleum Institute, anybody we can think of who might be able to help. And even their responses are fairly predictable. The Department of Energy assures us they are monitoring the situation closely. The EPA assures us environmental regulations do not account for the price spikes. The FTC assures us that a market without overt collusion must be working perfectly, and the API says everything would be okay if only Congress would repeal the Clean Air Act and let them drill for oil about anywhere, even under the Lincoln Memorial.

Any Members who have had this experience know how frustrating it is. Constituents face a real problem, the industry tells us it is our fault, the government agencies tell us either there is nothing wrong or there is nothing they can do about it.

My amendment gives us a chance to change all that. My amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to establish 3 to 5 gasoline availability stabilization reserves modeled after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Midwest, Northeast and California would get a reserve, and the Secretary would be authorized to site two more reserves anywhere in the country.

The reserve size would be 20 million barrels total, about 2 percent of the SPR. That is only enough gasoline to keep the whole country running for a day or two, but it should be enough to help any one region blunt the price effects of a refinery fire or a pipeline outage.

And that is what this reserve is intended for, emergency price stabilization, not general price control. Before authorizing an emergency sale from the reserve, my amendment requires the Secretary receive a request from the Governor based on a disruption to the physical system supplying gasoline to that State. Even then it is not a rubber stamp.

The amendment requires the Secretary to evaluate the Governor's request and consider the potential effects of the reserve sale on the area's retail gasoline markets. Only then can the Secretary conduct an emergency sale from the reserve. Even when a sale is authorized, the amendment requires the Secretary to conduct the sale so as to stabilize, not suppress, gasoline prices.

My amendment requires that the reserve program not create the very price instability the reserve is intended to prevent. In conducting routine purchases and sales, the Secretary must minimize the effects of these maintenance sales on the gas market. The amendment is not about assigning blame. It does not say that gas price spikes are the fault of greedy corporate robber-barons or environmental zealots. The amendment is about helping to minimize the effects of the supply system glitches on American consumers.

The logic is not complicated. Tom Greene, the senior assistant attorney general in California has said, ``Inventories have declined dramatically. One implication is that if there is a refinery fire or an outage, there simply is not a cushion to cover the outage, and so you see price spikes.''

My amendment provides that cushion. It is not a new, radical idea. Congress has done it before. The Energy Conservation and Policy Act amendments of 1990 authorized the creation of regional reserves of refined petroleum products, including gasoline. Congress is not the only body that has seen the virtues of the gas reserve. The State of California is considering a state-run reserve. A report requested by the energy commission there suggested such a reserve might save California consumers a billion dollars in the wake of a supply problem. The Consumer Federation of America has recommended this idea for the Midwest.

I urge Members to vote in support of this consumer-friendly, economic growth protection amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

I would like to close.

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

I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I am intrigued that the two speakers who are against this amendment, one says there is too much gas that we are putting aside and reserving and the other says there is not enough gas we are reserving.

On the second argument, one said there are too few places and then the other says there are too many places where we are putting reserves. I do not quite get which it is.

But I ask each of my colleagues to think about when they go home this weekend to go to their grocery store, go to their son's or daughter's school, go to a local gas station, stop any one of their constituents, ask her or ask him what energy issue affects them the most on a day-to- day basis. I doubt that they will talk about electric power transmission lines. I doubt that they will talk about reprocessing nuclear fuel. I doubt that they will talk about building oil rigs, where they locate them, where they drill.

I will bet their constituents, almost every one that they ask, would say that the single energy issue affecting their daily lives most is the volatility of retail gasoline prices. People invariably, inevitably, almost every week will call them on the phone and talk to them in the grocery store or whatever and say, why did gas prices spike so much? Why did they go up so quickly? What happened this weekend to cause these to go up?

The bill before us today does nothing, absolutely nothing to address that important issue. We are going to pass an energy bill tonight or tomorrow or a couple weeks from now when we come back, and we will have accomplished nothing, done nothing to address the issue of price spikes in gasoline at the pump.

This amendment is about States' rights. It is about local control. It is about empowering governors to protect consumers in their States. It is not about forcing governors or forcing States to do something. It gives a governor, it gives the Secretary of the Department, it gives all of them tools to deal with the issue of price volatility. This amendment is, I would emphasize, the only thing in the bill that provides immediate relief for the most obvious tangible energy issue affecting our constituents.

I invite my colleagues to join me in approving this bill by adopting the reserves amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we can afford to meet the funding needs of the Veterans Administration. We have the money. But the Republicans, in spite of the comments from my colleague from Texas, have other priorities. They are going to award the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans a tax cut. The top 1 percent of Americans are people who make an average of $968,000 a year. Half the tax cut goes to that 1 percent.

The total cost of that tax cut for the top 1 percent, those making on the average $968,000 a year, the total cost of that tax cut is larger than the entire budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Most veterans are not millionaires, but their contributions to this country are immeasurable. If they do not qualify for the President's tax cut, then they must sacrifice. That is the way that people around here are thinking.

We cannot begin to place a value on the sacrifices they have made. But apparently President Bush and House Republicans are putting a value than their contribution, and, under the budget my friend from Texas just mentioned, they think that veterans can stand to lose $28 billion in services. Republicans believe it is more important to focus on millionaires who qualify for tax cuts than on the men and women who served this country and qualified for veterans benefits.

Tax cuts for millionaires; $28 billion in cuts for veterans benefits. It is outrageous. Veterans have been asked already to shoulder the burden of costs that the Bush administration has failed to provide. Last year funding provided under the continuing resolution represented a cut of $659 million from the amount needed simply to keep pace with veterans benefits in the 2002 budget. We all know that 2002 funding was inadequate. Undercutting it is devastating.

Republicans have a new policy when it comes to veterans health care. It is called abandonment. Let me give you some examples.

First, the President and House Republicans are cutting Veterans Administration outreach. The VA already has halted outreach typically done to alert veterans to the services they are eligible for. It is the Republicans' way to save money. If you do not tell veterans about the benefits, then you do not have to provide benefits and services they were promised in gratitude for serving our country.

Second, President Bush proposed raising the prescription drug copay. Last year, veterans paid $2 per month per drug. Living on $1,100 or $1,200 per month for a retired veteran is not an easy thing, so that $2 copay per drug per month was very important. Come January, the President raised that to $7 per drug per month for veterans. Now the President proposes raising it to $15 per drug per prescription per month for every veteran.

Veterans live on fixed incomes and simply cannot afford the 250 percent increase in the cost of their medications, and now the President wants to even more than double it. Ignoring that burden, doubling their copay, is insulting to veterans, especially in a time of war.

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 700,000 more veterans will receive VA care in 2003 than had been projected. They may be eligible for health care services, but $1.5 billion in cuts will undermine the VA's ability to deliver this care.

The Republicans in this body should be ashamed of those budget cuts to veterans. But it is not just this body. In the other body, the leader of the other body earlier this month pledged to support veterans concerned about President Bush's health care proposal, but he also said veterans and others will have to make sacrifices.

Here is what the leader of the other body said. ``It applies to me in terms of domestic priorities and it applies to groups like the veterans today as they lobby.''

In other words, we are going to go to war, but we are saying to veterans, so we can pay for the Bush $726 billion tax cut, half of which goes to people making on the average $968,000, the leader of the other body, the Republican leader of the other body is saying what the Republican leaders in this body are saying, and that is that we need the tax cut more than we need the veterans benefits.

Tax cuts for people making $968,000 a year; $28 billion in cuts in veterans services. What message does that send to our troops fighting in Iraq? Let us hope when it is their time to claim VA services that they have a different Congress, that they have a Congress that keeps its commitments to those who served this country. Let us hope that when it is their time, they are told ``thank you'' by a future Congress; not that it is your turn to sacrifice so we can pay for a tax cut, which is what the leaders in this Congress are telling them.

Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on H.R. 1463, legislation to establish a smallpox vaccination compensation program. Today's vote should not be partisan. This bill is supposed to respond to concerns raised by nurses, firefighters, police officers, EMTs and other first responders; but nurses, firefighters, and other first responders oppose this bill. The bill is supposed to increase the number of first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine.

The bioterrorism experts who helped put together the smallpox vaccine program say H.R. 1463 simply will not work. It will not improve participation rates. So the choice that both Republicans and Democratic Members of Congress face is whether to dismiss the concerns of first responders, ignore the advice of bioterrorism experts and vote for this bill anyway because the Republican leadership wants us to. In other words, do as we are told, don't do what is right.

There have been no hearings on this legislation and no opportunities for Members on either side to offer amendments intended to improve the legislation. This bill was introduced on Friday and it is on the floor today. Only a handful of Members had a say on this bill. No one else. No firefighters, no police officers, no teachers, no EMTs, no nurses. We are being told to take it or leave it.

The fundamental question is, have Members of Congress become so far removed from the people we represent that we would pass a bill opposed by the very men and women it is supposed to protect? Do we in Congress think we know better than bioterrorism experts when it comes to bioterrorism preparedness?

Protecting first responders and their families in the event of a vaccine injury and increasing vaccine participation rates are important objectives. They are time-sensitive objectives. The national smallpox vaccination program is already underway and participation is lagging far, far behind the goal set by the administration. Twenty-five thousand people have been vaccinated, less than 5 percent of the March 1 benchmark. The experts tell us the bill will not jump-start the smallpox vaccine program, so it will not enhance our bioterrorism preparedness.

Congress should not be wasting valuable time enacting the wrong bill, particularly when our Nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism is at stake. Nor should Members of either side of the aisle support legislation that is unapologetically dismissive of the very people it is intended to protect: the nurses, the firefighters, the police officers, people who voluntarily place themselves at personal risk. Public health experts and first responders tell us this bill falls short in fundamental ways.

Funding for the program is not guaranteed. A linchpin in any compensation program is guaranteed funding. Without it, the program itself is suspect. The incidence, to be sure, of smallpox vaccine injury is rare. However, in the event a serious injury occurs, volunteers may be out of work for an extended period of time or, in some tragic cases, permanently. We are asking first responders to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine on our behalf as citizens. We have a compelling obligation to protect these volunteers and their families in the rare event of a vaccine injury. It is indefensible to shortchange those police officers, nurses and firefighter volunteers, those who have volunteered for the smallpox vaccine.

The compensation is neither flexible nor adequate. H.R. 1463 invokes a one-size-fits-all cap that would provide, at maximum, a few years' worth of wages, even for a permanent disabling injury. For the compensation program to work, covered injuries must be defined. To meet the goals of efficiency, timeliness, fairness, and program integrity, the compensation program must be backed by an injury table. This bill is not.

Finally, responsible administration of any vaccine program requires education, prescreening, as we found out tragically in four cases, and surveillance. H.R. 1463 ignores these costs, jeopardizing the future of the program and, more importantly, jeopardizing the future health of many of these volunteers, these nurses, these firefighters, these EMTs, these police officers.

Bioterrorism preparedness is either a priority or it is not. H.R. 1463 is a token response, and barely that. Our nurses, our firefighters, our police officers, our EMTs and our other first responders deserve better. That is why they oppose this bill. They want Congress to sit down with all the first responders at the table, all of us, discuss this bill and write legislation that will make the smallpox vaccine program work.

Mr. Speaker. This isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan debate. Democrats and Republican members of Congress are in the same boat. The question we have to answer for ourselves is: do we vote ``yes'' to a bad bill, or do we demand something better?

The answer to that question is important. Critical protections for first responders and their families hang in the balance.

H.R. 1463 is supposed to protect members of the police, the nation's nurses, our firefighters, and other first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine, and sustain an injury from that vaccine.

But the Nation's first responders oppose this bill. This bill is supposed to increase the number of first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine.

But the bioterrorism experts who helped put together the smallpox vaccine program say H.R. 1463 won't work. It won't improve participation rates.

So the choice both Republican and Democrat members of Congress face is whether to dismiss the concerns of first responders, ignore the advice of bioterrorism experts, and vote for this bill anyway.

Have members of Congress become so far removed from the people we represent that we would pass a bill opposed by the very men and women it is supposed to protect?

Do we in Congress really think we know better than bioterrorism experts when it comes to bioterrorism preparedness?

Protecting first responders and their families in the event of a vaccine injury and bolstering vaccine participation rates are important objectives.

They are time-sensitive objectives. The National Smallpox Vaccination program is already underway, and participation is lagging far behind goal.

About 25,000 people have been vaccinated, less than 5 percent of the March 1 benchmark. The experts tell us H.R. 1463 won't jumpstart the smallpox vaccine program, so it won't enhance bioterrorism preparedness.

Congress must now waste valuable time enacting the wrong bill, particularly when our nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism is at stake.

Nor should members of either side of the aisle support legislation that is unapologetically dismissive of the very people this bill alleges to protect . . . the nurses, firefighters, police, and others who voluntarily place themselves at risk on our behalf.

Public health experts and first responders tell us that H.R. 1463 falls short in fundamental ways.

To meet the goals of efficiency, timeliness, fairness, and program integrity, the compensation program must be backed by an injury table. H.R. 1463 lacks one.

Responsible administration of any vaccination program requires education, pre-screening and surveillance. H.R. 1463 requires these activities, but doesn't fund them.

A lynchpin in any compensation program is guaranteed funding. Without it, financial protection is a possibility, not a promise. There''s no security in that. And there is no guaranteed funding in H.R. 1463.

The incidence of smallpox vaccine injury is rare. However, in the event a serious injury occurs, volunteers may be out of work for an extended period or permanently. First responder volunteers, and their families, must be assured adequate and continuing financial protection.

H.R. 1463 would cap funding so that wage replacement would run out after about five years. For permanent disability or death. ``Inadequate'' doesn't begin to describe it. ``Insulting'' is closer to the mark.

H.R. 1463 is not a legitimate financial safeguard. It's a placebo. Our nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and other first responders deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, in mid-February the World Health Organization began reporting cases of an atypical pneumonia throughout Asia identified as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Since then, more than 450 cases, with 17 deaths, have been reported in 13 countries.

As members of the World Health Organization, most of these countries have received assistance in confronting this pandemic, but Taiwan, not a member, has not received any assistance from WHO.

The WHO's refusal to assist Taiwan is unfair not only for the people of Taiwan but for the world at large, given the transnational nature of this outbreak. With a population of 23 million people, Taiwan is larger than 75 percent of the countries that belong to WHO and is prepared to contribute meaningfully to the global health efforts discussed at the World Health Assembly, but without membership or observer status, its delegates cannot even enter the room.

Taiwan has eradicated smallpox and cholera and polio and has achieved infant mortality rates on par with western countries.

Earlier this year, this House passed a bill ordering the State Department to endorse observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly, yet the Bush administration continues to say no. The denial of WHO membership to Taiwan is an unjustifiable violation of its people's basic right to good health.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Committee on International Relations recently introduced H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis Act. The bill is a 5-year, $15 billion bill providing $3 billion in relief in each of these 5 years. It provides no minimum for U.S. contributions to the Global Fund and authorizes a maximum of $1 billion for fiscal

year 2004 and such sums as necessary in the ensuing 4 years.

The bill provides the limitation that ``no U.S. contribution to the Global Fund may cause a total amount of U.S. Government contributions to exceed 33 percent of the total amount of funds contributed to the Global Fund from all other sources.''

This encourages other countries to step up to the plate also and other philanthropists around the world.

This bill is a start. It is the fist step in a long and difficult journey we must take in the effort to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Sixty-five million people have been infected with HIV since the epidemic began, 65 million people; and 25 million of them have died. Fourteen million children have been orphaned. The numbers are not only staggering; they are devastating, and they are growing.

I am glad to see this bill authorizes up to $1 billion next year for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; but we need to offer more.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked each of the 25 richest democracies in the world to contribute seven-tenths of 1 percent of their gross domestic product towards world hunger, world poverty, and in combating infectious disease, seven-tenths of 1 percent. Only four countries have committed that figure and have contributed that figure. The United States contributes less than one- tenth of 1 percent of its gross domestic product, ranking as dead last among the 25 wealthy industrial democracies in the world in terms of what we do in foreign aid to combat poverty and infectious disease.

In the upcoming years, we will spend estimates upward of $100 billion to rebuild Iraq. Yet we have been unwilling to spend more than one- fifth of 1 percent of that amount, $200 million so far, to save the lives of millions of people around the world.

A physician with the World Health Organization remarked recently, ``There are certain problems the U.S. simply cannot solve on its own, much as it would like to believe otherwise.''

Bilateral aid programs are important tools and should not be discounted, but they are not enough. Too often they are BandAids placed on a hemorrhaging patient. To successfully turn the tied against HIV/ AIDS, against tuberculosis, against malaria, diseases that kill 6 million people around the world each year, will take the largest multilateral coalition imaginable. Simply put, it will take the entire world to save the world. That level of commitment is not fully on our radar screen, but it needs to be. The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria represents the best tool we have to provide relief on a scale that will really matter.

I started this speech, Mr. Speaker, with numbers, and I will leave my colleagues with some numbers. Thirteen thousand new AIDS infections every day, 2,000 of them in children under age 15; 8,500 AIDS deaths a day; 20 million AIDS orphans are projected in Africa by 2010. Mr. Speaker, 1,100 people in India every day die from tuberculosis.

Take a moment to think about what these numbers really mean. Every day we fail to act, every day we fail to take the necessary action, these numbers increase. Every dollar we fail to provide today will cost us 100 times that tomorrow. U.S. failure to properly commit to the Global Fund is not just unfortunate, it is shameful. In 20 years, we will tell our children that we did all we could to combat the tide of these epidemics, or we will be forced to tell them that we failed the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the courage and strength of legal immigrant workers who immigrated to the United States to make life better. Throughout their struggles, they were filled with the promised optimism and freedom inherent in the American dream.

Today marks the two year anniversary of a unique American struggle. On March 19, 2001, Chinese Daily News workers, mostly immigrants from Taiwan, voted to select The Newspaper Guild of the Communications Workers of America to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining and to help them develop a more cohesive voice at work. I commend the tireless efforts of these workers as they continue to wrestle the overwhelming resources of a foreign employer committed to silencing their voices and thwarting their right to organize under U.S. labor law. This is unacceptable.

Foreign employers should not be given leeway to further erode the organizing rights of U.S. workers. Chinese Daily News employees put their faith in America and in U.S. labor law. At this pivotal juncture in our history, we should recognize the faith and allegiance of those legal immigrants who subscribe to our rule of law. These workers deserve our support. I urge management of the Chinese Daily News to sit down with the affected workers and immediately settle their differences.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want Members on both sides of the aisle to be aware of three unanswered questions about H.R. 5. First, if the authors of this bill are sure that it will reduce and stabilize medical malpractice premiums, why are insurers accountable for producing that result?

During the medical malpractice debate in Ohio, insurers said they do not know whether premiums would come down. During a recent hearing in Pennsylvania, the actuary witness said he could not say whether premiums would come down. Even Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association said, ``We cannot tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.''

We are voting on a bill that overrides State law and undercuts compensation for victims of medical malpractice, yet we do not know whether medical malpractice premiums will come down. California passed tort reform in 1975. Medical malpractice premiums continued to go up. Not until California 13

years later demanded a reduction in premiums with insurance reform did the situation improve. Yet insurers have zero, no obligation under this bill.

We are supposed to take it on faith and trust the insurance companies that they will pass along the savings. Apparently we cannot trust patients, cannot trust juries, cannot trust lawyers, but we can trust the insurance industry.

My second question is: Why is there no single insurance reform in this bill? The authors of H.R. 5 refer again and again to MICRA. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) did, other Members will. MICRA is the California law that sets a quarter-million-dollar liability cap. Members know it was not MICRA that brought down premiums in California, it was insurance reforms 13 years later. Malpractice insurance premiums rose 450 percent after MICRA went into effect, and only when California established a prereview of rate increases and automatic rollback of excessive premiums did the doctors get any relief, yet this bill has no insurance reforms, no premium rollback. Why? The insurance industry does not like it.

The third question is if H.R. 5 is a response to spiking medical malpractice insurance premiums, something we want to do something about and our substitute bill does, why does this bill shield HMOs, shield drug companies, shield medical device manufacturers, and shield insurance companies from liability? It might have something to do with the fact that those industries have given tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidates. The majority bristles at the notion that the curious omissions from this bill have something to do with helping their friends, the drug companies, the insurance industry, the HMOs and the medical device industry.

Mr. Speaker, if the majority wants Democrats and the American public to stop accusing them of catering to their corporate friends, then maybe the majority should stop catering to their corporate friends. Then we could write a bill that will help doctors, then we could write a bill that will help patients. This bill simply is not it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who cares about patients and physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), who has stood up for patients and doctors alike.

Mr. Speaker, understand that physician-owned companies are still companies that practice business the way other businessmen and women do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), a member of the committee and an advocate for patients.

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has pointed out in USA Today that the malpractice premiums are only 3 percent of revenue, actually less than the rent that physicians pay.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Houston (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We have two more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we will have a motion to recommit, since the majority would not allow us any other amendments of the 31 requested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to assert rightly that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but the administration fails to explain how a preemptive war is in the best interest of the American people.

On February 25 I introduced House Joint Resolution 24 with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel.) The resolution requires the President to submit a new report to Congress that answers eight specific questions. It includes a sense of Congress clause that requests the President present the report before a public joint session of Congress.

It is our duty in Congress on behalf of the American people to ensure that if the President authorizes military force against Iraq, that he first give Congress a full accounting of the potential cost and the potential consequences.

The two reports submitted to Congress by the administration under requirements of the October resolution have failed to communicate the President's plans for Iraq. The administration in reports included no indication of the potential financial costs of the war and its aftermath, no indication of how weapons of mass destruction will be secured, and no discussion of blow-backs, the CIA term for terrorist actions against the United States.

The second report clearly acknowledges the magnitude of the task of reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq, calling it a massive undertaking. Unfortunately, the report fails to explain how this challenge will be overcome, what level of financial, what level of political, what level of military commitment that the administration is willing to make in Iraq after the war.

Before the U.S. initiates a preemptive strike, something we have never done before, without the consensus of the U.N. Security Council and in the absence of a clear, imminent threat to the United States of America, the administration must clearly explain to the American people the short- and long-term implications of attacking Iraq. H.R. 24 asks, and the administration should answer to the American public and to Congress:

Have we exhausted every diplomatic means of disarming Iraq?

Will America be safer from terrorism if we attack Iraq?

How will we deal with the humanitarian crisis that inevitably will follow this war?

How will the war with Iraq affect our already weak economy?

What will reconstruction of Iraq and providing humanitarian assistance to that country cost? And how long will it take, how long will American troops and civilians be stationed there and at what cost?

How will attacking Iraq prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, when Korea and Libya and other countries, and Iran, for instance, are much further along with nuclear development, we know, than Iraq is?

What will preemptive war do to the stability of the Middle East?

Are we ready to commit to a decade of military troops policing Iraq and the billions of dollars needed to rebuild and stabilize that country and make that country, in the words of the President, into a democracy?

These important questions need to be answered to the American public before President Bush decides preemptively, without U.N. support, to attack another country.

The Washington Post reported today: ``The greatest source of concern among senior army leaders is the uncertainty and complexity of the mission in postwar Iraq, which could require U.S. forces,'' and get this, ``to protect Iraq's borders, referee clashes between ethnic and religious groups, ensure civilian security, provide humanitarian relief, secure possible chemical and biological weapon sites, and govern hundreds of towns and villages.'' Simply put, we could be in the middle of a civil war.

How has the administration responded to these concerns? With silence. There are no legitimate plans for reconstruction that anyone has seen. There are no cost estimates for the conflict or the post-conflict occupation. There are no casualty estimates. These are concerns we must address.

Retired Army Major General William Nash commanded the first peacekeeping operation in the Balkans in 1995. After the Gulf War in 1991, he occupied the area around the Iraqi town of Safwan on the Kuwaiti border almost 2 years ago. He told The Post that during this time his troops dealt with recurring murders, attempted murders, ``ample opportunity,'' in his words, ``for civil disorder,'' and refugee flows they could never fully fathom. He went on to say that 200,000 U.S. and allied forces will be necessary to stabilize Iraq. Two hundred thousand.

Note that he uses the term ``allied forces'' in that total. If we continue on the course we are on, there will be few allied forces. Maybe Great Britain, maybe a few Turks, if we pay them enough, maybe a few Spaniards, maybe a few Italians, but overwhelming almost all of those 200,000 will be Americans and we will be footing the bill alone.

The civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense continually refuse to acknowledge the enormity of the challenge in post-conflict Iraq. They respond to inquires with delay tactics and uncertain estimates.

I am certain of one thing, Mr. Speaker. Any action against Iraq will be difficult, costly, and dangerous if we do not go to the U.N. Security Council.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 441, and I would like to thank my colleagues on the International Relations Committee and the Congressional Taiwan Caucus for their support as well.

For the past few years, we have been pushing for Taiwan's observer status at the WHO. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm starting to experience deja-vu on this issue. Congress has addressed this several times, and I will continue to raise it until we have a resolution.

The World Health Organization makes a major contribution to the international community each and every day. The WHO has programs to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, to support the development of basic health care services throughout the developing world, and to provide humanitarian aid to those in need.

In this growing struggle, the WHO and its member countries should be looking for help wherever they can get it. Unfortunately, Taiwan's efforts to obtain observer status to the annual World Health Assembly meetings in Geneva have been blocked.

While the Administration has indicated support for Taiwan's bid for WHO observer status, it is unwilling to match the rhetoric with action. The State Department argues that the majority of WHO members would never support observer status for Taiwan, and therefore the U.S. shouldn't make a concerted effort on Taiwan's behalf. Well I say, let's find out.

The Administration must make a concerted effort to ensure Taiwan's participation in the WHO. The bid may fail, but Taiwan won't be allowed to participate if we do not make the case of its involvement.

Taiwan is a strong, democratic ally. It has developmental and humanitarian resources that would make a substantial contribution to

the WHO's mission. The people of Taiwan are volunteering these resources to fight global epidemics, and we are turning them away at the door. They have demonstrated this time after time--in Haiti; in El Salvador; and more recently by contributing a million dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The world needs all the help it can get. Taiwan is not asking to join the WHO as a state, but rather as an observer. The case for observer status at the WHO is clear, and the Bush Administration should make it happen.

I strongly support H.R. 441, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush, from all appearances, seems poised to attack the country of Iraq sometime in the next 2 or 3 weeks according to news reports, according to reading a bit between the lines of statements coming from the Bush administration. The fundamental question about whether or not the United States should launch a preemptive strike without U.N. support against Iraq, the fundamental question is whether that attack against Iraq makes the United States a safer country and whether it makes American civilians traveling abroad, living abroad more importantly, perhaps, living in the United States, whether it makes all of us safer. The CIA says no.

A CIA analysis said that the chances of what they call a blowback, meaning attacks against civilians from terrorists abroad or terrorists inside the

United States, that attacks against civilians, the chances increase according to the CIA, so-called blowback, the term they used, the chances increase if we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq without U.N. support. Several four-star generals testified in the other body and said that an attack against Iraq without U.N. support, a preemptive attack will, in their words, supercharge al Qaeda recruiting. Common sense simply tells you that the U.S. will not be a safer place, will be a more dangerous place, that civilians in this country will in fact be in more danger if we unilaterally attack Iraq. Common sense says that, Mr. Speaker, because if Saddam Hussein is backed into a corner, Saddam Hussein, who has not attacked anyone in the last 10 years, if he is backed into a corner with whatever weapons he might have, the chances are he is much more likely to attack the United States if in fact that happens.

Mr. Speaker, this country for the last five decades has followed a military doctrine of containment and deterrence and diplomacy. Dwight Eisenhower when urged by some advisers and some newspapers similar to the actions of the Washington Post, those kind of jingoist, expansion, let's-get-into-war newspapers that encouraged him, Dwight Eisenhower, to go to war against Stalin and the Soviets, Dwight Eisenhower said, ``That's not what we do in this country. We don't launch preemptive attacks against people. Instead we contain, we deter, we use diplomacy.''

Dwight Eisenhower and others contained and deterred and used diplomacy with Joseph Stalin and the Soviets to contain them. We used the same containment and deterrence and diplomacy with the People's Republic of China and Mao Zedong. John Kennedy used the same kind of deterrence and containment against Fidel Castro and the Cubans to keep them in check, to keep them from expanding. And the United States Government, George Bush, Sr., President Clinton, and the first couple of years of President Bush, we have done the same containment and deterrence to keep Saddam Hussein in check.

Now if we launch a preemptive attack against Iraq, go against a country that has not attacked us, a country that we know has no ties to the terrorists who attacked our country, we know Saudi Arabia has ties. In fact the people who attacked our country, most of them were from Saudi Arabia. We also know that the Saudi royal family happens to be friends of the Bush family. Saudi Arabia is still our friend. We do not attack them even though they have ties to al Qaeda.

We are not attacking North Korea, even though we know they have nuclear weapons. We are not attacking Iran, even though they are a part of the axis of evil. The President has decided that we are about to attack Iraq, a country where we have contained and deterred and kept Saddam Hussein in check.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we decide to change our military doctrine of containment, deterrence and diplomacy, to change our military doctrine that we have followed for the last five or six decades, and preemptively strike a country that has not attacked us, the message around the world, the message to the Russians is going to be, it is okay to chase down Chechen terrorists and go into Georgia and attack them. The message to the Chinese will be, it is okay to clamp down harder on Tibet, it is okay maybe to invade Taiwan because the United States launched a preemptive attack, and maybe it is okay for the world powers to engage in that kind of lawlessness. And most problematically and most dangerously and most frighteningly, Mr. Speaker, it will say to India that maybe it is okay to launch a preemptive strike against Pakistan over Kashmir. It will say to Pakistan, maybe it is okay to launch a preemptive strike against India over Kashmir. Those happen to be, Mr. Speaker, two countries that have nuclear weapons.

So if we go against the U.N. decision, if we go into Iraq without U.N. support preemptively, first of all it clearly makes our country more dangerous because you can count on as we attack Iraq, you can count on Al-Jazeera taping hostilities and taping casualties of Iraqi civilians and the message that that is going to send to the Arab world of destabilization, making the world a more dangerous place to be.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we should pass a welfare reform bill that is realistic about what people need to transition from welfare to good, paying, lasting jobs. It is in no one's best interest to see people transition from welfare to work and back onto welfare. If we underinvest in job training and child care and other support services, we are setting welfare reform up for failure and wasting money.

The Democrat bill invests in permanent change. The Republican bill does not. From a public policy perspective, from a fiscal perspective, the Democratic bill makes sense.

Transitional medical assistance is a program that provides health coverage for families leaving welfare. Individuals moving off welfare wind up in jobs that do not offer health coverage, or if it is offered, it is simply too expensive. Transitional medical assistance allows these families to keep Medicaid coverage so that getting a job does not mean giving up one's health insurance.

The Republican bill only extends the TMA program for 1 year. There is no logic for that. It is temporary assistance, not a temporary program. The Democratic bill is up front about this and makes transitional Medicaid assistance permanent.

Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of Medicaid in order to pay for this extension. It makes no sense to take coverage from some people so that others can keep it. It is illogical.

The second provision extends title V abstinence-only sex education, but locks States into a inflexible curriculum. It is controversial and rightly so. The President and House Republicans' message on welfare for years has been loud and clear, States need greater flexibility. But when it comes to another critically important program, abstinence education, Republicans are unwilling to afford the States the same flexibility. Let me make that clear.

The substitute bill we are offering today supports abstinence education.

No one disputes the benefits of teaching abstinence. Under our substitute, if a State chooses to continue its abstinence-only education program, it can. But our substitute offers States the right, the States' rights, if you will, the right to develop an education program that teaches abstinence and comprehensive contraception.

Our substitute requires any curriculum funded with Federal dollars to be scientifically and medically accurate. On that, again my Republican friends fall far short.

The Democratic substitute requires Federal dollars fund only programs proven to be effective in delaying sex. It requires a report to Congress comparing abstinence-only education to programs that teach about abstinence and contraceptives. We should listen to the needs of parents and children; 80 percent of them support abstinence and contraceptive education for their children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who establishes his health care credentials very well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and I am reminded that Governor Davis has talked about the inflexibility and mandates of the Republican plan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.