Melissa Hart

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute and in support of the original bill, H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Supporters of the substitute claim it would restrict late-term abortions, meaning after a child is viable unless a physician determines that the abortion is necessary to avert a serious health consequence to the woman; but it leaves so many doors open to the exceptions that it will have no practical effect whatsoever. It would do nothing to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure which is what we are trying to accomplish today. As a sponsor of the substitute has stated, health consequences can mean almost anything, a level of mental health problem or a psychological trauma. The substitute also does nothing to ban a gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion which is shamefully legal in this country. It simply refers to late-term abortions. Seventy percent of the American people understand that this procedure is horrific, and they want it banned. The substitute ignores their pleas. If this substitute becomes law, partial-birth abortions would continue to be performed, which is especially troubling at a time when this procedure has become even more common. Since 1994, the Alan Gutt Marker Institute noted that the number of partial-birth abortions has tripled. In fact, the substitute places no restrictions on these abortions in the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy when the vast majority of these abortions are performed. The main health reason for performing these is mental health, but it is undefined in the law. Under Kansas law, abortion providers must report the reason for this type of abortions. Of the 182 performed last year, none of these were performed because of a problem with health of the mother or the child. It was simply and generically ``mental health.'' What does this mean? According to testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. James McMann, who developed the procedure, said the most common reason for performing this procedure was depression. Finally, as the findings in the bill note, partial-birth abortions are a health risk to the mother. We have had endless testimony in the last several sessions stating this. Our bill will ban it; the substitute will not. In a country where we allow such things, we should be ashamed. We should take the opportunity now to support the bill and say no to the substitute.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc., a leading manufacturer of equipment to major North American electric utilities and independent power producers, as they dedicate their new headquarters building in Warrendale, Pennsylvania. Mitsubishi Electric Power Products (MEPPI) has been a positive force for economic development in the Fourth district and has contributed over $20 million in direct foreign investment since establishing their Warrendale campus in 1989. As MEPPI has expanded their operations, they have included western Pennsylvania residents in their success. As the largest Japanese affiliated corporation in Allegheny County, MEPPI has grown from an organization with just a handful of employees to a company with a workforce of over 200 today. 97% of MEPPI's main product line, large power circuit breakers, is now manufactured in Warrendale. Made in Warrendale products are exported to several foreign markets including Canada, Mexico, Australia, the United Kingdom, and South America. MEPPI technologies include Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS). FACTS technologies significantly improve the capacity and reliability of the existing electrical transmission grid. Low environmental impact technologies such as FACTS do not necessitate the construction of new power transmission lines--a contentious process that often results in the takings of public and private lands. MEPPI has also been an active participant in our community as demonstrated by their financial and organizational support for several very worthy western Pennsylvania philanthropic groups. Please join me in congratulating Mitsubishi Electric Power Products as they expand their Warrendale campus and continue to involve Pennsylvanians in their company's success.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. This bill, which passed by voice vote out of the full committee, would authorize a national nanotechnology research initiative that coordinates research across agencies and emphasizes interdisciplinary research between academic institutions and national laboratories or other partners, which may include States and industry. The bill also authorizes $2.36 billion over 3 years for nanotechnology research and development programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Western Pennsylvania is blessed with two major universities, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, which are doing great work in the field of nanotechnology. The University of Pittsburgh has established the Institute of NanoScience and Engineering, which is a multidisciplinary organization that brings coherence to the University's research efforts and resources in the fields of nanoscale science and engineering. At the institute work is ongoing in the areas of: nanotube and nanorod self-assembly; hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes; semiconductor nanostructures; and many other interesting areas. Carnegie Mellon University also has a nanotechnology center, the Center for Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Research. This center was established because various types of research were ongoing throughout the university, and could be a focal point and gateway for the distribution of nantechnology information. Their efforts include: nanowires; magnetic nanocrystals and noncomposites; and nonporous materials. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide Federal dollars to continue this necessary research and development into this expanding area of science, and provide the necessary coordination to ensure that this information is brought to the market.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. In fact, I would be surprised if any of my colleagues could in their right mind oppose it. LIHEAP is a well-established program by the Federal Government, and it is one that anyone who lives in the North is familiar with. Low- income households spend more than 14 percent of their income, some as high as a third, on heating in the winter. Nonlow-income households, your average person, probably spends 5, or as low as 3, percent on heating. It is important for us as Members of Congress to find ways to make sure that people are warm and comfortable in their homes in the winter. We have all heard of the scary and sad stories of a person who did not have heat and did not have the money to pay for it who froze during a very cold winner. The LIHEAP program has helped to try to prevent that, but almost two-thirds of those who qualify have not been able to access the program for one reason or another. Part of the reason is money. We are here today, I with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), to support additional funds being authorized for the LIHEAP program. It is very simple. We are going to help more people stay warm through these cold winters. The Federal Government gives States and other jurisdictions these annual grants to help low- and fixed-income people pay heating bills. It has worked well in Pennsylvania. We worked to increase the program while I was a State senator. The most current Department of Health and Human Services report shows that nearly 4 million households across the Nation received winter assistance; 300,000 of them are in Pennsylvania. My colleagues and I have supported this program. We have sent a letter to the President supporting this program. In January the White House announced additional funds for the program. What we are doing today is making sure those funds will be available. Reports shows that energy prices this past year compared to the year before were 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane, and 11 percent higher for electricity. It is clear that we need to find new sources to embellish the LIHEAP program and help families stay warm for the winter. This amendment authorizes more money to go into the LIHEAP program and keep more people warm. I urge Members to support it, and we will make sure that the money is there for next year's cold winter.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman claims that the bill has too narrow an opportunity for a legitimate lawsuit to be heard. We have already heard from a court in his home State suggesting that the current situation is too wide open. The language in the amendment makes it probably about equal to what it is today. My question would be, What then do we do? It is well settled that negligence per se is an accepted theory as well as negligent entrustment. It is clear that if a gun dealer sells a gun to someone who is a known criminal, that gun dealer would be liable under the bill. This amendment is, therefore, not necessary. All of the frivolous lawsuits filed, however, have been under some type of general negligence theory. Many activists claim that manufacturers are negligent for not requiring extraordinarily burdensome and counterproductive schemes in addition to existing legal requirements. These activists may claim that any gun designed to suit the needs of gun buyers or the rules enacted by legislatures in our democracy, rather than their own policy preferences, is a sign of negligence. Some activists even claim that when the industry is successful in selling firearms in a specific region they are guilty of negligent oversupply and should reduce sales. This bill is narrowly tailored to block these junk lawsuits while allowing legitimate causes of action, such as the gentleman described, to move forward. The Meehan amendment would unravel the logic of the bill and, therefore, take us back to square one where frivolous suits are out of hand.

Ms. HART. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. HART. If there is a theory under which the pawnshop is reasonably liable, yes. But just because there is injury does not mean that the seller of the firearm is liable. That is the theory that a lot of these frivolous suits are based on. There is no question that many people who file suits have legitimate injury. The question is, who is liable. In most of these cases, it is not the gun dealer that is liable.

Ms. HART. I would tell the gentleman, yes. In this country today, it is required that there be background checks. It is required that those who purchase firearms use them properly. They are liable themselves if they do not use them properly, they are liable themselves if they sell them illegally, and the seller is liable if they sell them illegally. Therefore, in the gentleman's case, there is no problem if they sell them legally. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not helpful to the cause that the gentleman appears to be seeking to address. The amendment actually removes the cause of action for negligent entrustment, which means that someone who should have known has entrusted a firearm to someone who is going to do damage with it. This bill protects the right to sue for that reason. This bill protects the right to sue for negligence, per se. This bill is simply addressing an issue that is very widespread in this Nation, that is, suits that are intended to bankrupt gun dealers, gun manufacturers; and therefore, put out of business small business people and out of work many people across the Nation who depend upon a very strong firearms industry and recreational use of firearms, safe and legal. Mr. Chairman, there is a better way to deal with the issue of illegal use of firearms, which is what the gentleman has cited in his examples. There is a better way to control gun crimes. These lawsuits do not help. These lawsuits, in fact, will bankrupt the companies that need to pay legitimate lawsuits. We need to enforce the many gun laws that are currently on the books. I am proud to support Project Safe Neighborhoods, a proven and common- sense way to combat gun violence. Project Safe Neighborhoods is operating in 94 locations across the country. It is a network of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials working together to fight gun crime. The program works. Increases in prosecution, over 20 percent, occurred last year. We must combat gun crimes by enforcing our gun laws, that is what works, not with ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 1036, as it is, precludes frivolous lawsuits; it protects the rights of America's law- abiding manufacturers, dealers, and owners of firearms. It makes sure those who use them illegally, who sell them illegally, who offer them to someone else illegally are taken care of through the courts. What we do here, Mr. Chairman, is create a bill that will allow legitimate suits, curb frivolous suits, and allow recovery by those who really need it.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve the right to close.

Ms. HART. I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Having lost the fight in Congress and in the States to deny the rights of law-abiding firearm owners and to prevent firearm ownership in general, the gun control lobby has pursued a novel path. They have begun to abuse the courts by filing frivolous lawsuits, which wastes time and money in attempts to ruin law-abiding manufacturers and dealers of lawful firearms. In fact, the city of Boston has already voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the firearms industry, stating that during the litigation the city has learned that members of the firearm industry have a long-standing commitment to reducing firearm accidents and to reducing criminal misuse of firearms; and also stating that the city and the industry have now concluded that their common goals can be best achieved through mutual cooperation and communication rather than through litigation, which has been expensive to both industry and taxpayers, time consuming, and distracting in this time of national crisis. That is last year in Boston. This bill would prevent such frivolous lawsuits while allowing suits for negligent entrustment and negligence per se, which are well defined in the bill. This amendment strikes at the specific negligence language and replaces it allowing any suit for general negligence, which is undefined in the amendment. This amendment guts the bill, Mr. Chairman. It would leave it up to any judge across the Nation to make a decision whether or not to single-handedly conjure up any random, brand-new theory of negligence, a theory that could bankrupt our Nation's firearm industry, seriously harming our fundamental right to bear arms, and also creating thousands of new unemployed who formerly worked in the firearms industry. It is a flawed amendment, Mr. Chairman; and it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 116 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) as sponsor of the amendment. A little over a year ago, a 13-year-old girl was abducted from her home near Pittsburgh. She was found tied to a bed in a Herndon, Virginia, townhome. The adult male abductor had met this girl on the Internet and had bragged to other would-be child molesters that he had finally found a young girl to make his sex slave. The man had a history of viewing and exchanging child pornography over the Internet. Currently, law enforcement has little power to stop this. The bill today, which includes the AMBER Alert, which helps to locate abducted children, it also includes, most importantly, laws to strengthen the ability to ensure children are not abducted in the first place. The amendment further strengthens the bill by making it illegal to possess, distribute or create computer or computer-related images depicting child pornography. Child pornography feeds the sick desires of pedophiles. It entices its viewers to take advantage of real young children. This amendment provides another tool to get perpetrators of child abuse and child pornography off the streets and out of Internet chat rooms before more children are targeted. With the Smith amendment, this bill will close the door left open by the Supreme Court decision last April that overturned similar provisions of a 1996 law. I encourage my colleagues to think first of the children and the families who have been so unnecessarily harmed by child abductors and child molesters in our Nation. This law, with this amendment attached, will go a long way to preventing those horrible stories that we so hate to hear on the news.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time and for his work on the legislation. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, this is the second term I have been here and the second term we have worked to pass bankruptcy reform. Unfortunately it has been attempted for quite a while. Let us not forget why we have a bankruptcy law in the first place. It is there to help people who need it, people who have no assets or ability to pay their debts. It has been all too often abused, however, by those who do not need it, those who can pay their debts, slick con artists who game the system, irresponsible spenders who ignore the consequences of their actions. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that the consumers are not continuing to be harmed by our bankruptcy laws and to make sure that those who really need our bankruptcy laws have them there to access. As bankruptcy filings rise, our economy suffers. Filings increased by 150 percent in 2002. That amounts to $110 million per day of losses. The average American family pays more than $500 a year in increased prices as a result of unpaid debt. It is unfair to force responsible Americans to pay that premium. Small business owners will close their doors because debtors avoid payment for goods and services through filing bankruptcy. Americans lose jobs. I support H.R. 975 because it protects consumers. It helps women and children who will be hurt by the filing of a bankruptcy by the person who is supposed to be paying support, making those debts a priority. The collection and payment of spousal support and child support are a priority under this legislation. It expands also other debts that are owed to the spouse and children and puts them in a priority position. It gives them the highest payment priority under bankruptcy laws. Therefore, children and women are protected. It allows child custody and domestic violence proceedings to continue, once again protecting them from a debtor's bankruptcy filing. It also supports and protects education savings accounts and certain retirement accounts, so it protects families. Mr. Chairman, finally, this bill closes a huge loophole called the homestead loophole. This bill includes this extremely important provision for fairness. By closing this loophole, Congress continues the work we began last year on corporate responsibility. Under current bankruptcy law, debtors can claim all of the equity of their home and exempt it from the bankruptcy. Some debtors move to certain States that allow this just before filing bankruptcy so that they can buy million- dollar estates and protect those millions of dollars from their bankruptcy filing. H.R. 975 closes this loophole, requires debtors to reside in a State for at least 2 years before claiming that kind of a homestead exemption, and, more importantly, it limits that exemption in many cases to $125,000 so that those millions that they are trying to hide can be used to pay their debts. Mr. Chairman, this is a just bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. The practice of medicine in the United States is in real crisis. According to the American Medical Association, Pennsylvania's OB-GYN medical malpractice insurance rates increased from $25,000 to $64,000 over the last few years. That is an increase of over 125 percent. That is, if the doctor can get insurance. Excessive lawsuits have gotten so out of control that many doctors are closing their practices, leaving many patients with long waits to see physicians who are farther and farther away from them. Just this past Monday, I met with a dozen physicians in my district. Of the dozen, nearly all of them raised their hands when I asked them if they have children. Of those, all but a few said that they would advise their children not even to consider studying medicine; and one doctor said his wife forbade their kids to even entertain such notions, all because of the unreasonable burden of out-of-hand insurance costs and the consistent fear of lawsuits. The Pennsylvania Medical Association reports that 80 percent of physicians have difficulties in recruiting new doctors and 89 percent of doctors practice defensive medicine, which increases health costs and drives doctors away from the highly specialized fields. This bill sets time-tested limits on liability so that we can end this crisis. The proposal provides commonsense reforms. It limits the number of years to file a health care liability action so claims are brought while evidence and witnesses are available. It allocates damage in proportion to a party's degree of fault. It allows patients to recover full economic damages, such as future medical expenses and loss of future earnings while establishing a cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000. It places reasonable limits on punitive damages as well. The criteria in this bill assure patients who are injured by a doctor that they will recover. But it also ensures that more of the money goes to the injured patient, not the attorney. Essentially, the lawyer is limited to 40 percent of the first $50,000 of the award, one-third of the second $50,000 and 15 percent of amounts over $600,000. The bill will protect victims of real malpractice, but it will also help reduce lawsuits. Our Nation has the best health care system in the world, but it is in peril. H.R. 5 will put us back on track.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues in thanks for the life of Fred Rogers, for the heart of Fred Rogers, and for the wonderful efforts of Fred Rogers throughout his lifetime, especially for the children of the world. I have the neighborhood trolly from his program with me, and I think it symbolized a large part of who Fred Rogers really was. He was a uniter in a world of dividers. He was a believer in a world of skeptics. He was kind in a world of cynics. Fred Rogers set the example that every parent probably wishes they could set for their children, one that says, I like you for who you are, no matter your differences, no matter your failings. As he used to say, ``It's you that I like.'' He invited everybody to the neighborhood, Mr. McFreely, others, the king, the queen, all the funny little characters that children grew to love over the years, and interestingly enough, I am of the generation who enjoyed Fred Rogers as children and now our children are enjoying Fred Rogers, and hopefully through television generations to come will be able to enjoy and come to love Fred Rogers as we all did. His loss is a great loss. His mission was a great mission. Where so many seek riches in this world, Fred Rogers sought to teach people to love and he succeeded. He leaves a legacy of love, of goodness, of kindness again in a world that lacks that all too often. I am fortunate to have lived in Pittsburgh and to have met Fred Rogers several times. Unfortunately, I did not get to know him terribly well. He was the kind of man one did not have to know terribly well to understand, to take a little bit of him with one as they went about their day. I have three nieces and a nephew who now benefit from Fred Rogers and from his message and his love. I hope that we will all carry that with us through our trials and our difficulties throughout our lives and remember when we meet somebody, to think ``there is something about you that I like.''

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. People agree that cloning humans is wrong. The recent scare that we all went through regarding an organization called Clonaid brought revulsion to everyone who heard the story that there may have been a cloned embryo implanted into a woman and there may be a child as a result. People across the globe were upset by this possibility. The only way for us to avoid this possibility is to completely ban cloning. Once that clone is created, how do we control what is done with that embryo? The only effective means to prevent having a cloned human is to ban cloning. As for the claims we have heard today as for the need for this process to cure disease, there is no evidence that therapeutic cloning has produced a single cure. Not only has it failed in animal research, it has failed also in human research. Scientific ethics requires that we draw a line. We draw a line in research every day as far as science goes. The fear that we could tread in territory that would create a cloned human being is enough to prevent us from allowing cloning at all. We need to maintain these ethical principles that guide scientific research and inquiries. Frankly, the costs are too high to our society if we do not do it. We have heard the statistic before that between 95 and 98 percent of cloning in animals fails. This could translate into countless children who would be products of cloning who would be born with serious birth defects, debilitating diseases, and shortened, terrible lives. Mr. Chairman, the only solution is to support this bill as it is and to reject the alternative. H.R. 534 is the only way to prevent such horrible ideas.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment in the nature of a substitute and in support of H.R. 4. Mr. Chairman, quality of life is much more than having food and shelter. The amendment would simply provide food and shelter. It would provide some assistance similar to what we provide in H.R. 4; however, it does not provide the incentive that people need, the incentive to move from welfare to a productive and free life. The American dream, Mr. Chairman, is that dream to be able to provide for one's family, to be able to dream and achieve dreams of success in the future, to raise one's children, to be able to achieve the next step on the economic ladder. H.R. 4 provides this. We have helped so many already. This reauthorization is necessary to continue to help those who have been dependent. They have secured more than the basics of life. They have been educated. They have achieved. Children have now seen a wonderful example to move forward in the United States and achieve a higher standard of living, that sense of accomplishment. They have received education. We provide in H.R. 4 more child care at different kinds of times so that those who are working and who have that grit and want to succeed will be assisted in doing so. It also provides them with health care for that first year where they may not be able to get a job that provides health care. Our goal here, Mr. Chairman, is to raise people from poverty. We have succeeded with 3 million children already. We need to reauthorize welfare reform, as H.R. 4 does, and reject the Kucinich amendment.

Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, and bring to everyone's attention the importance of what we are doing: We are reauthorizing something that has worked, a government program that works. Welfare reform has raised over 3 million children out of poverty. Those that claim that is not true cannot support their claim with evidence. We know what has happened in the years that welfare reform has existed. We know that many people are now working, mothers, fathers, supporting their children and moving up out of poverty. We have listened to the States, we have listened to those who have received welfare benefits in the past, those who are moving off the rolls; and they tell us some things need to change. Those things are adjusted in H.R. 4. One of the most important is that there is more opportunity for men and women who are single parents to get child care for their children while they work, while they go to school, while they reach higher and attain the points they want to: the American dream, a better job, a home, a better example for their children. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 4 because it supports the American dream.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, last night the President of the United States challenged this Congress to tackle many problems facing our country, such as health care reform and economic growth. The President also urged Congress to pass legislation banning partial birth abortions and human cloning. All of these are extremely important goals. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will again pass a bill that will hold criminals responsible for harming unborn children. Last session we did pass such legislation, but under current Federal law an individual could attack a pregnant woman, injuring that woman and killing the child. While the assailant could be tried for the assault against the mother, no legal action is available under Federal law to address the murder of the child. This is not the case in many States in this Nation. In fact, 24 States, including my home State of Pennsylvania, have passed unborn victims' laws. These are effective laws that have been upheld by the courts on a number of occasions when they have been challenged. In fact, all legal challenges to such unborn victims laws have failed. And a number of Federal courts have turned away challenges to State unborn victims laws. An expectant mother who loses a child as a result of an attack by a violent criminal before she gets to hold her child deserves recourse. Well, this recourse would never be a substitute for her terrible loss. I do not think it is too much to ask to have a similar unborn victims laws on the books. Last year we passed this act. I am confident we will pass this bill again.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues today supportive, clearly, of extending unemployment benefits. I represent parts of six counties in western Pennsylvania; and we have seen the unemployment rate rise, as others have in this body. But to call what we are doing today a dereliction of duty seems to me to be silly and extreme, and completely inaccurate. A dereliction of duty would be to today avoid passing what the Senate has passed unanimously to extend unemployment benefits to those who are in danger of losing them. If, in fact, we pass this bill today, it will go directly to the President, the President can sign the bill, and that will prevent the interruption of benefits for those who will have those benefits interrupted if we are derelict in our duty. Being derelict in our duty would be to not pass this bill today to fight what the Senate has unanimously approved, the Senators, who were elected as we were, by the people of the 50 States, sent here to do the best we can for them. This House has agreed that we should, without hesitation, pass an unemployment extension for those who are still in need. It only makes sense for us today to unanimously, as a body, support those who right now cannot support their families. It is our duty to do so. My colleagues who have spoken prior to me have explained the generous benefit that is available in this bill. Clearly, the Senators debated it yesterday, with our families here, on the day of swearing in. All I heard yesterday from the folks who came here from my district was, that is a great thing for you to do. Please do it and do it forthwith. Get it done. The people need the help. Mr. Speaker, a unanimous approval by the House today will show the American people that we are here to do business together, Republicans and Democrats, to make sure that we will not be derelict in the duty of making sure the American people get the benefits they need, and then continue working on the economy to make sure that those people will have a job once these benefits expire in several months.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for bankruptcy reform. This Congress and prior Congresses have been very dedicated to making sure that this country benefits from bankruptcy reform and these attempts have been made to draw up a very good bill. Now we finally have the opportunity to finish the job. Congress has a responsibility to pass this legislation now and to stop the bankruptcy system's abusers, those who have actually the ability to repay these debts but use the current bankruptcy system as a financial planning tool. This gaming of the system carries too high a cost to consumers, by raising costs at an extremely critical time for our economy. Our economy needs all the help it can get. Consumer spending and consumer credit are key elements of any plan for economic growth, and bankruptcy abuse is having such a horrific effect on consumers' finances that if current practices continue, approximately one out of seven households will have filed for bankruptcy within the past decade. Bankruptcy legislation has been debated. It has been refined; it has been revised and amended for years. It is now time for action. Unfortunately, much of this debate has been focused on the abortion provisions in this bill. I ask my colleagues to look at the real effects of those provisions. They are not effective. They will not harm lawful protesters. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Ms. HART

Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, over the last weeks I have heard from and spent time with many of my western Pennsylvania constituents. Some are World War II veterans, Korean veterans, some steelworkers, homemakers, business people, teachers. As I stand here tonight on the House floor, though, foremost in my thoughts is a small group of constituents who marched and prayed in support of peace outside of my office in Bridgewater, Pennsylvania. I share these individuals' desire for peace. Following the attacks on September 11, we Members of Congress were asked to do all that we can to prevent anything like that from ever happening again. It is our responsibility to defend this Nation. America stands as a beacon of freedom to the world, one that blazes even more brightly as a result of our response to last September 11. Unfortunately, we continue to be despised by madmen like Saddam Hussein, a madman who has access to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and has been increasing his capacity to use them. Our deliberations on this resolution can follow but one light, the light of experience, and our experience has shown that Saddam Hussein has ignored countless peaceful overtures that would have prevented our current dilemma. He has murdered his own people in barbaric and horrible ways. He has attacked his neighbors and continues to build weapons of mass destruction unchecked. Given this and his stated pathological hatred for America, the devastation he can inflict upon us is a severe risk. Simply allowing this risk to increase is unacceptable. We cannot continue to deceive ourselves. This is a problem that will not disappear and will not take care of itself. As this chart shows, Saddam Hussein has ignored the United Nations and the very resolutions to which he agreed following the Gulf War over and over again. Today, 11 years later, he continues to ignore the United Nations, retains chemical and biological weapons, and amasses more offensive weaponry as each day passes. Our resolution makes it abundantly clear that this must stop. Patrick Henry once said, ``It is natural to indulge in illusions of hope, to shut our eyes to a painful truth.'' We must, however, open our eyes to the looming threat Saddam Hussein poses to the world. As I said, I and the rest of this Congress share my constituents' hope for peace. I believe that passage of this resolution can prompt a peaceful outcome by making it clear to our enemy that it is time for him to comply with disarmament requests. In light of this resolution, the U.N. Security Council's resolve can be buttressed. This resolution can guide the U.N. to pass a new set of resolutions, ones that will be tough and effective and, more importantly, resolutions that will be enforced. This Congress has a responsibility to protect the American people. It is our duty to deal with the threats that face this great Nation and the world. This resolution shows that we are a united America, that we stand firm in our resolve to rid the world of terrorism. It shows the United Nations and the world what leadership means: We prepare for action while pursuing avenues to peace. Yes, our goal is peace, but a lasting peace, and not continued appeasement. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.