Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that calls on the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the Department undertakes with the Department of Defense. I understand this amendment has been cleared with the majority and minority.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in 1985 and 1986, Abbott Laboratories and others invented the AIDS test. It was our first look at the kind of less expensive ways to find the proteins that identified the HIV virus. In an unprecedented donation by private industry, Abbott and others donated the test to the World Health Organization that looked at whether the popular wisdom at the time was correct: Was this a Haitian- New York-San Francisco epidemic, or was this something else? I received a phone call as a staffer for John Porter in this House giving me the first results of what the test showed. The indications from the Central Hospital in Kinshasa, Zaire, showed a 10 percent serial positive rate, which indicated that this was not a Haitian-San Francisco-New York epidemic. It was an African epidemic and had been going on for quite some time to get serial positive rates at that level. We reached out across the aisle to Congressman Bob Mrazek of Long Island, and John Porter and Bob Mrazek came together to say we should earmark a disease fund, the first ever in the foreign operations bill, to fight AIDS. Initially the leaders of the committee at the time fought us and said it would be over their dead body that we would start this program. So we arranged that. And to their credit, the leaders of the committee changed their minds. The Global AIDS Program was born in 1987 with an appropriation of $30 million. It is one of the proudest things I ever did as a congressional staffer working for John Porter. Since that time, the program grew considerably. I ran several hearings for this House on the Committee on International Relations, sometimes begging Members to actually come to hear the progress of our fight against AIDS, to hear Dr. Jonathan Mann, the legendary first director of the Global Program on AIDS. He had run the Harvard School of Public Health, and he and his wife had really set the whole parameters for this battle in 1988 and 1989. We mourn the loss of Dr. Mann. He was killed when the Swiss Air explosion happened. And Dr. Peter Piot picked up where he left off to continue this battle. Well, it is, as they say, long work in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, long years until we suddenly became an overnight sensation. And now the appropriations for this program have exploded. I could not be happier to see hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this program, which started out with such small appropriations at the beginning. Now look at what our United States Congress has done with bipartisan leadership. We can see, starting from 1999 at under $200 million, a steady step up in appropriations, in this appropriations bill now totaling, with a 31 percent increase this year, at over $1.2 billion. It is very important that these appropriations increase; and it is very important that we provide more resources because, remember, under the enabling law that now governs this program, half of the resources go to treatment. But remember what that commitment is. We are making a commitment to treat people with HIV, and that means that they will depend on us, long term, for their survival. Once we make that commitment to their treatment, we cannot back out, because their lives are at stake. If my colleagues are as experienced as I in watching government- appropriated programs, my colleagues know that we face a danger. If we spend money too quickly, too fast, we open ourselves to what I would call the fleecing-of-America danger, a GAO audit which undermines the political support for this program. And if the support for this program is undermined because some contractor in some country has irresponsibly spent money, lives could be lost. It is very important here that we honor the commitment in a steady, well-run way to take care of these patients, and we ramp up the program in a very responsible way so that each patient the United States takes responsibility for is one that we will maintain and honor that responsibility for. Think of what happens if we pull the plug on that patient. They die. And so in ramping up the appropriations in a responsible way, we honor that commitment, and for those that we make the commitment to care for, we will care for. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the committee bill and for this responsible spending profile.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York for one thing in particular. They have created a work atmosphere between the two parties on this bill that is the envy of the Committee on Ways and Means. I really take my hat off to both of them. I also wanted to take one moment to talk about the bill we just passed, the Commerce-State-Justice bill, which every Member of this Congress has helped fund the rewards program. The State Department rewards program is the key program that led to the incident with Uday and Qusay Hussein and their untimely demise. It is this program which sometimes gets down to one basic fact: Who helping the United States wants to be a millionaire? We will pay this $15 million set of rewards, and it is this program that I think gives us the best chance to capture Saddam Hussein. But turning now to the foreign operations bill, this bill represents a bipartisan decision by the American people since World War II that foreign policy matters, a subcommittee created by the Marshall Plan that is designed to reduce or prevent war and to lower the number of casualties or deployments by the U.S. military around the world. This bill visibly helps us respond to new challenges, Iraq and North Korea, Iran and Liberia, by substantially reducing the chance that the U.S. military will be deployed in other places in support of our allies. And look particularly at the Middle East where the little democracy of Israel has not faced a direct threat to her existence in the 1980s or 1990s, largely because of support from this legislation. One of the big questions that we face today is funding to support our war against HIV/AIDS. As a staffer in this Congress, I helped start this program in 1987 with a small earmark of $30 million. Since that time, our commitment has grown substantially. If we look in this bill and years prior, what has our commitment to AIDS funding been? In fiscal year 1999, $139 million; in fiscal year 2000, $200 million; in 2001, $415 million; in 2002, $485 million; in 2003, $893 million; and in this bill, $1.27 billion, just in the foreign operations bill, just to fight AIDS, a substantial commitment, one that I am proud having seen in 1987, the start of this program that we have funded. And it underscores one key point when we take on the commitment to treat someone with HIV, we need to fund a program that can sustain that commitment. If we provide money in ways that are not politically sustainable, we could have some sort of scandal in a provider that would undermine political support for this. That would lead to the international community withdrawing support for an HIV patient. By having a responsible uptick in our support for the fight against AIDS, we are understanding a key point. When we make a commitment to a patient with HIV, we are going to do so in a way that sustains that commitment because success right now in this battle is that this patient will survive, and therefore we need to continue funding our battle. If we do it in an unsustainable way or in an irresponsible way that undermines political support, bad GAO investigations, exposes on the fleecing of America, we will undermine political support. People's lives are at stake here, and that is why doing it in a responsible way, when we make a commitment to a patient we can keep that commitment. And to the chairman, I really thank him for his personal commitment on the HIV issue because he has really sustained one of the highest ideals. So when we look at the United States, we have to see what have we done as compared to other countries. The nearest commitment of any other country to the 1.27 billion commitment in this bill is the government of the United Kingdom, which provided $313 million in the fight against AIDS. In fact, the United States gives more money to fight AIDS than all of the European Union and Japan combined. That is a monument to the idealism and foreign policy foresight of the United States. It is underscored in this bill. And to the chairman and to our ranking minority member I really want to take my hats off to them for sustaining this commitment. Hundreds of thousands of people's lives will be sustained by this, and this ramp-up in just several years from under $139 million to now $1.27 billion is a real testament to our idealism. I also want to thank the chairman for his commitment to cross-border programs in Tibet. We understand that there are 140,000 Tibetans outside China, 6 million inside China, and this bill sustains a political effort to enhance the authority and role of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, and I really want to thank them because there is no voice for the Tibetans inside China, and this bill underscores that voice and gives them a real role in their own country where an overwhelming number of Tibetans live, and I want to thank the chairman for that.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the House will vote tomorrow on a free trade agreement, not just with Chile, but also with Singapore. Free trade agreements have transformed other countries now allied to the United States. For example, our agreement with Jordan boosted Jordanian trade from $5 million to $400 million. We have that opportunity with Chile, a country whose economic policy sometimes is more advanced than our own. We proposed this agreement in 1991 when I served in the State Department. It is about time. And Singapore. Singapore has become the de facto Southeast Pacific base for the United States Navy. With trouble from North Korea to Iran, strengthening our ties to Singapore strengthens our national security. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on free trade with Singapore and with Chile.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment, not because of my concerns over what is happening in China but my concerns over what is happening in Mexico. If you believe that we should reduce the population growth of Mexico, then you should be for the United Nations Population Fund which contributes to their program. Is anyone in this Chamber concerned with the population of Haiti? If you are concerned with overly robust immigration from Haiti, especially illegal immigration, we should be concerned about smaller family size in that country. The UNFPA does that. And Nicaragua and Guatemala and El Salvador. But much more directly, the Central Intelligence Agency has identified several countries of long-term concern to the United States, particularly the government of Pakistan which they believe may not survive this century. Are you concerned about population pressures there? Are you concerned about large numbers of Pakistanis entering the job market and not finding a job? Well, I am; and the UNFPA is directly supporting the Pakistani family planning program. More directly, how about the UNFPA efforts to reduce the population size and pressure on Liberia, a government of direct interest to the U.S. national security community at this time? Or what about the mother of all countries in the Middle East undergirding our peace process there, Egypt? The UNFPA is the way that we support the Egyptian family planning program. I would urge the defeat of this amendment for Mexico, for Haiti, for Pakistan, for Liberia, for Egypt.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Today, as her people call for freedom and democracy, the Burmese military junta maintains a policy of repression and government-sponsored violence. In 1990, the National League for Democracy, a party committed to peace and democratic principles in Burma, won the majority of National Assembly seats, offering real hope for change in Burma. Despite the overwhelming public call for democracy, the military regime nullified the election results and imprisoned and murdered several NLD leaders. While this act of government-sponsored aggression took place over a decade ago, the Burmese regime continues to brutally repress the people's opposition movement today. In May, the Burmese regime ordered the ambush of a motorcade carrying several leaders of Burma's democracy movement, including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of her country, who has remained in detention by the regime since that murderous attack. The Burmese regime has been granted countless opportunities to peacefully transfer power to the people while avoiding further bloodshed. In response to the international community's ongoing efforts to bring peace to the region, Burmese leaders have only responded with further acts of repression, aggression, and state-sponsored terror against its own people. Today, over 600,000 citizens within Burma have been displaced from their homes on account of brutal ethnic cleansing techniques employed by the Burmese regime. In response, we must make every effort to bring awareness to the mistreatment of Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy opposition leaders. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act would take comprehensive steps to enhance efforts for democracy in Burma, while strengthening international sanctions against the Burmese junta. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative as part of the international community's response to the junta's ongoing state-sponsored terror against the people of Burma.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I especially want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for what has been included as a key project in this legislation. We are beginning the work of a staff gym in the Congress. I served in the Pentagon, and there we have the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club. It is not a very nice facility, but it keeps the men and women during their headquarters tour in shape before returning to the field or sea. Such facilities are not available to congressional staff. Most large employers with over 5,000 employees in my district have on-site gyms. We employ over 10,000 people in the Congress and have no such facility. As a former staff member, I think it is time we build a staff gym. We have spent taxpayer dollars for promotion programs on fitness or to fight obesity; we should do that here in Congress. This bill sets aside $100,000 to design a 4,000-square foot facility with male and female showers, lockers and a weight room. It will be ready for the staff in 8 months. We also are looking to expanding shower facilities for runners in Longworth and Cannon. We will have a more complete and permanent facility by July 2004. This means that men and women who work here in the people's House will be fitter, will handle stress better, and will serve the long hours under low-pay conditions for longer working for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), but especially to Liz Dawson and Reed Bundy of our staffs who made this new facility a reality.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Robert Warren currently serves as the Pastor of Adults and Compassion Ministries at the Arlington Heights Evangelical Free Church in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The church has 2,200 Members. Pastor Warren is remarkable for his service to his fellow man, his congregation and our community. Bob has been in the ministry for 30 years, helping to lead four churches, as well as teaching college. At the Arlington Heights Evangelical Free Church, he has led the enhancement of the church's participation in suburban and international churches for the needy. In addition, he leads a team that mentors unemployed men and women and led the development of the church's lay care ministry. Pastor Warren is deeply committed to his family, his wife, Nancy, and their two children, Noel and Rob. Next week they will celebrate their 32nd anniversary. Arlington Heights is the largest town in my district, a place where common sense Midwestern values of family and faith and freedom reign supreme. Pastor Warren embodies those values and is one of our most cherished leaders, and we are honored that he took the time to lead the House in prayer today.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, across our country, the state of our economy is the number one issue on people's minds. America's economy is reeling from a 3-year-old recession and the shock of September 11 and war jitters from Iraq. This Congress has acted to restore our homeland and national security. We have passed corporate reforms to stop the dot-com abuses that sparked our recession. Our Armed Forces have won a great battle in Iraq. But now, the latest news from our markets is somewhat encouraging. We bottomed out in the Dow Jones industrials at under 7,500, and we are now back over 9,000. But still, the economy is sluggish. Why? Are there other issues weighing against new savings and investments? There are. There is one key issue that is casting a very dark cloud on America's economy, on our employment and, especially, our retirement savings. What is that issue? Lawsuits. Lawsuits. But not just any lawsuit. These are asbestos lawsuits. Tonight, over 900 stocks that form the heart of our retirement IRAs are depressed because of asbestos litigation. We have already bankrupted manufacturers of asbestos long ago. People poisoned by these companies collect only 5 cents on the dollar from the empty shelf of what once were large employers. In 1983, only 300 companies faced asbestos lawsuits from about 20,000 plaintiffs. Despite asbestos largely leaving our economy, we now see 750,000 plaintiffs suing over 8,000 employers. Sixty major employers have already closed their doors, and a third of those employers gave pink slips to their workers in just the last 2 years. With 8,000 plaintiffs crowding into our courts, no one gets justice. People who are truly sick die waiting for their day in court and the health care that they need. Others who file a case wait in line, hoping to win the asbestos lottery for them and their personal injury lawyers. Our system of bankrupting employers and depressing the IRA savings of America could make some sense if those who are sick are compensated, but the data shows different. From 1980 to 2002, employers and insurers paid $70 billion in claims. Plaintiffs received only $28 billion out of the $70 billion paid. So where did the other $42 billion go? As the chart next to me shows, it went to personal injury lawyers and court costs. Not a penny of those funds went for hospital costs or to pay surviving relatives. Sixty percent of funds under the current system go to lawyers and court costs. Clearly, American justice can do better. We say, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' But justice is delayed here. We say, ``We built a system to make the injured whole,'' but the injured are not made whole here. Supreme Court Justices have decried our wayward system of asbestos justice. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg called on Congress to act. Justice David Souter said the system was an ``elephantine mass'' which defies customary judicial administration, and calls for national legislation. What happens if we do nothing? What happens if we leave well enough alone? According to the National Economic Research Associates and the Rand Institute, asbestos litigation costs 60,000 Americans their livelihoods. Without reform, Rand estimates 423,000 Americans will lose their jobs because of the expanding cloud of asbestos litigation. Never in the history of our economy have so many lost their incomes to so few who received so little for the benefit. Asbestos litigation reform may be the most important remaining economic reform legislation for this Congress to pass. Reform means saving half a million American jobs. Reform means lifting the value of millions of IRAs. Reform means paying victims and their families with the lion's share of awards, not personal injury lawyers. And reform is needed now. Congress has several proposals before it. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1114, the Asbestos Compensation Act of 2003, with 40 cosponsors, the largest number of asbestos reform cosponsors for any legislation in this Congress. My colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), introduced H.R. 1285, the Asbestos Compensation Fair Act. Our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), introduced H.R. 1737. And in the Senate, Senator Nickles introduced S. 413. All eyes in Washington on this issue have now focused on Senator Hatch's bill, S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, or FAIR Act. It is scheduled for a markup in the Senate in 48 hours. This is the most important economic legislation for this Congress. And what do all of these bills do? They are based around core principles of American justice. One: that we seek to compensate the injured; two, that we bring about a rapid resolution of disputes; three, that decisions become final; and, four, that we administer justice uniformly. Our current system fails to meet any of these time- honored values. The legislation Congress is considering would remove the myriad of cases from various courts in States to a new Federal court or office that would develop an expertise and uniform administration of 8,000 lawsuits. Why do this? Let me give some examples. Robert York received an asbestos award from his State court. He was asymptomatic with lung scarring, and he got $1,200. He had to pay $600 of it to his lawyer. Bill Sullivan was exposed to asbestos, with no symptoms, still got $350,000. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed to asbestos and he got just $2,500, but, of course, had to pay $1,200 to his lawyer. Mrs. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed, but she got just $750 and, of course, had to pay $375 to her lawyer. Ron Huber got asbestos-related illness and received an award of $14,000, but it is still pending appeal, and Ronald has not been paid. Meanwhile, James Curry, with asbestosis, won an award of $25 million; but once again, under appeal, he has not been paid. This is not justice. Victims are left to die, and plaintiffs with no symptoms are litigants in a system that only the lawyers win. We stand for a different principle. The major themes of reforms are to form a new Federal office or court to swiftly and surely compensate victims. But who pays? Under our reforms, current defendants, employers, and insurers pay, with some leeway for other defendants to be added. Without reform, Rand estimates, plaintiffs, uninsured and insured alike, will be awarded $200 billion, bankrupting dozens of employers and throwing 400,000 Americans out of work. But remember, most award money goes to lawyers and court costs, not to plaintiffs. That means without reforms, $200 billion will be awarded, but only $80 billion will go to victims and uninsured plaintiffs. We argue for a better system. Rather than have only $80 billion paid to victims, we, for example, under Senator Hatch's reforms, would pay over $100 billion, 20 percent more, to the victims. Who loses? Under our reforms, only the lawyers would lose, but the victims would win; and so would the American economy. So would the American economy. Without so many asbestos lawsuits filed by thousands on the chance of victory, we would remove a cloud of litigation from our economy's future. We would also follow another key principle, those injured should be the ones compensated best and first. Under the current system, plaintiffs with the fastest lawyer, suing the richest defendant, wins. The sickest plaintiff, suing a poor or bankrupt defendant, loses. That is wrong. Our reforms care for the sickest most, regardless of financial capacity of the defendant. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune identified these issues clearly in a masthead editorial printed yesterday. They correctly pointed out that the proposed privately funded $100 billion trust fund will be more than adequate to meet the needs of victims who currently only look like they will get $80 billion under the current misguided system. Mr. Speaker, if one's 401(k) looks like mine, it is really probably just a 201(k). This issue depresses the market and, therefore, the retirement savings for millions of Americans. I ask everyone to contact their representative or Senator and urge them, for the sake of their retirement savings, to pass asbestos liability reform. If we are to return to $10,000 on the Dow or even better, this reform must pass. In the next 48 hours, the Senate is scheduled to act and the House must soon follow. There is no economic issue more important, and therefore, this must move to the top of the to-do list for the United States Congress.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, in 48 hours Congress will face the single most important pending issue of legislation to help our economy. Does your 401(k) look like mine? If so, it is due to the dot.com bust, the war, recession, and possibly even a little bit of Martha Stewart. But it is also due to another problem, and this problem is depressing the value of 900 stocks that form the bedrock of our retirement savings. The issue is asbestos liability reform. Really. We bankrupted asbestos makers like Johns Manville and U.S. Gypsum a long time ago, but lawsuits now reach out to many companies, most companies, who have had asbestos anywhere in their ceiling tiles, walls, or in the case of Sears Roebuck, in one washer and one iron sold between 1957 and 1958. Spending on the lawsuits might make sense if our justice system actually compensated victims suffering from asbestos poisoning. But, as the chart behind me shows, most asbestos awards go to lawyers' fees and court costs, and a minority actually goes to the lawsuit plaintiffs. Of the amount that goes to plaintiffs, only a small fraction goes to people who are actually suffering from asbestos poisoning. When you look at this situation, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did, you see a system crying out for reform. Amazingly, the American Bar Association has called for this liability reform. In this House, I introduced the Asbestos Compensation Act with 40 cosponsors, and my colleague the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) introduced similar legislation. But in 2 days, our eyes will be on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will take up this issue with Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch, and I think it is the best chance that we have to move a key piece of legislation forward to help our economy. We know that two-thirds of asbestos plaintiffs have no symptoms whatsoever and they are flooding the courts to protect their rights in case they get sick sometime in the future. Meanwhile, plaintiffs who are sick are left behind. This has been a key point that the trial bar representing actually injured plaintiffs has raised. But the financial uncertainty of asbestos liability is probably causing the greatest cost. Already 70 companies have gone into bankruptcy court, and there are approximately 900 publicly traded companies now facing asbestos lawsuits. If Congress does not act this year, we estimate 800 companies will go bankrupt over this issue. This, according to the National Economic Research Association and Rand Institute study, has cost Americans 60,000 jobs so far, and will cost 423,000 jobs in the future. The system that we are under now has very uncertain results. Robert York has no symptoms and collected $1,200 in his asbestos lawsuit. Half went to his lawyer. William Sullivan had undefined asbestos exposure and collected $350,000, with his lawyer's contingency being undisclosed. Ken Ronnfeldt had exposure to asbestos and collected $2,500, half going to his lawyer; whereas Ron Huber, who had asbestos- related illness, collected only $14,000, and is appealing, rightly, his case. I think the time is now for asbestos liability reform. I think this is a critical issue, not just to make sure that actual victims truly suffering consequences are compensated, but also that we remove this cloud of liability from America's companies that is depressing the value of the retirement savings of millions of Americans. The test comes in 2 days before the Senate Judiciary Committee. My hope is that we have a bipartisan agreement to move asbestos liability reform through the Senate, and then it will be time for the House to act.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We know to a moral certitude of such weapons. How do we know? Saddam Hussein told us. On December 7 of last year, he told the U.N. that he owned 30,000 chemical weapons, but he forgot where he put them. We have not even found the chemical weapons that Saddam admitted to the U.N. he made. There are over 500 WMD sites in Iraq, and we have inspected less than half of them. Remember Dr. Hussein Kamel? The U.N. inspected Iraq for 4 years between 1991 and 1995 and found no nuclear program. Dr. Kamel then told us that 40,000 Iraqis worked on nuclear weapons, but our intelligence missed it all. WMD in Iraq, it is inevitable that a final chapter will be written in this story. As Paul Harvey would say, and then we will say, ``and now for the rest of the story.''

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to know that he is still my hero, and with a gentle heart, I rise in opposition to the position he outlined. Mr. Speaker, our goal is to end late-term abortions, and therefore, we must pass legislation that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. If we are to save babies, then we must do it effectively. When the underlying bill passes the House today, it will sit for 2 years while lower courts enjoin it, the Supreme Court reviews it and eventually declares it unconstitutional. So what is our goal, to end late-term abortions or to make a political statement? The Supreme Court of the United States clearly indicated in Stenberg that any law prohibiting late-term abortions ``requires that the statute include a health exception from the majority holding.'' H.R. 760 does not include a health exception and goes far to declare that the procedure is ``never medically necessary.'' We are setting Congress up for a defeat at the hands of our highest Court, rendering the action we take today totally ineffective and the current law permitting late- term abortions unchanged. I was not elected to Congress as a medical doctor and do not intend to tie the hands of physicians who should have the right to discuss all available options with their patients. Are Congressmen competent to regularly vote now on common medical procedures as never medically necessary? If we set this massive precedent to declare what a physician can and cannot do in their medical judgment, we give an awesome power to future Presidents and Congresses that will not share our gentle philosophy or our calm responsibility. Congressmen cannot suddenly declare they have medical degrees and are board certified to practice medicine. If my wife and I were faced with this dilemma, I would certainly hope that our physician was not hamstrung by distant Congressmen in Washington. I urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood substitute, which effectively bans late-term abortions. To do otherwise only serves the interest of pressure groups and lawyers that will make a killing as the Supreme Court strikes down the underlying bill. The Court in Stenberg gives us a clear direction. While the underlying bill cannot survive in the Supreme Court, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) does. I oppose late-term abortions and will support effective measures to change the law and make the ban effective. Unlike H.R. 760, the Greenwood substitute bans late-term abortions in a way the Supreme Court will sustain. Passage of the Greenwood substitute would mean a quick end to litigation and a rapid change in U.S. law. Failure to pass the substitute means continuing litigation and defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and I will introduce the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003. Identical to the Biden-Lugar bill in the Senate, it will assist in fighting the threats of bioterrorism and naturally-occurring infectious diseases. International trade and travel offer new opportunities for pathogens to cross national borders. Infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur, are a potential threat to all nations. Americans have become all too familiar with the threat from bioterrorism and deadly agents capable of spreading death, anthrax, Ebola, smallpox, and SARS. They are just the most recent examples. The Kirk-Tauscher bill authorizes $150 million over 2 years to assist developing countries to train personnel in epidemiological techniques, acquire laboratory equipment, and obtain equipment to communicate inside the country and with the World Health Organization. Our legislation has the strong support of Dr. David Heymann, the highest- ranking American at the World Health Organization. It will contribute to our homeland security while at the same time making other countries safer for Americans traveling abroad. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for cosponsoring this important bill.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to two recent events signaling a step backward for basic human rights. The Nepali Government violated international law by jailing 18 Tibetan refugees instead of turning them over to the United Nations. Nepal then made these refugees prisoners of the Chinese, the very people that they were fleeing. International refugee law is well settled, that once Tibetans reach Nepal, they are turned over to the U.N. for safe passage. Nepal's action flies in the face of her commitment to international law, and American tourists should not visit Nepal. Second, in Burma on Friday the military dictatorship detained many members of the National League of Democracy, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and closed all universities. Suu Kyi, the elected leader of her country, was beaten, and her whereabouts are currently unknown. I want to commend Secretary Powell for speaking out against both governments, and urge Members of Congress to call attention to these two governments, Nepal and Burma, that are turning back the clock on human rights.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the great fighters for human rights and democracy in Asia, Mike Jendrzejczyk. For 13 years as advocacy director, Mike, at the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, fought for human rights in all corners of Asia, from China to Burma to Vietnam to Indonesia. His knowledge, insight, and information on these regions was invaluable to policymakers around the world and here in Washington. Mike testified before the House Committee on International Relations and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus countless times, providing us with critical information on issues ranging from North Korean refugees to human rights abuses in Tibet to democracy in Hong Kong. Mike's energy and enthusiasm were unwavering, and his ceaseless dedication was admired by all. Unfortunately, the human rights community lost this fighter too soon, and we need to continue his fight. Mike, I will miss you. Mike, millions in Asia are now living in freedom from Taiwan to South Korea to the Philippines who owe you; and millions more depend on us to continue your work.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment and support it. American uniformed women stationed overseas depend on base hospitals for their medical care, often situated in areas where local facilities are inadequate. We have over 100,000 American women in uniform now on active duty with spouses and dependents who depend on those base hospitals. Just 3 years ago, I served as a Navy air crewman at the Insurlik Air Base in Adona, Turkey. The thought of sending one of my female colleagues to the Turkish hospital in downtown Adona for her medical care rather than in the American base hospital where they would understand her own language is an anathema to me. Women who serve in our Armed Forces and wear the uniform should have the same rights as women in our country, and that is a basic principle we stand for. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because it makes a needed change. By including the Hefley amendment in the manager's amendment, we make a change narrowing the application of this DOD authorization bill on the environment just to DOD events alone. I think that is what the committee wanted to do originally. It is what the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness support. For those of us who are very strong supporters of the environment, we wanted this change made at the full committee, but because of jurisdictional reasons it was not made. By the manager's amendment including this, I think a change that the Committee on Armed Services wanted to have happen has happened. Now we are making the necessary modifications to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as narrowly applied, to support the Department of Defense but not with broad application. To make this early in the process in the manager's amendment is the right decision by the Committee on Rules, and I urge adoption of the rule and commend the committee for making that decision.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for bringing this needed legislation to the floor. I also thank the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Leo McKay, and David Chu of the Department of Defense for their leadership on this. We have several key projects that put together DOD and VA health care: at Kirtland, in Las Vegas, and in my own congressional district of North Chicago. These projects help us realize fundamental facts: 15 million Americans have served our country in uniform, with 25 million of them still alive today and in need of VA care. But in many parts of this country, combining DOD and VA projects can help improve the care both of veterans and active duty personnel alike. In my district, the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital are combining. During the last administration, there were two attempts to close the North Chicago VA Hospital, but on June 19, 2001, VA released a capital asset realignment enhanced services study. That study pointed the way towards combining these two institutions, offering better health care for the veterans of northern Illinois. I want to applaud the committee for bringing this legislation forward which codifies the existing agreements between DOD and VA and also enhances their ability to work in other places. Later on in this week, we will have the opportunity to increase the authorized level of spending that the DOD spends on its cooperative programs with the VA. I hope the House not only adopts this legislation overwhelmingly but that amendment as well. Our veterans and our active duty would both benefit from that.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on the departure of the South Korean President, we have to look at the North Korean situation with new eyes. I think it is clear that U.S. pressure on North Korea will not be effective since North Korea is a very poor country under 50 years already of U.S. economic sanctions. There are few, if any, U.S. options to bring effective nonmilitary pressure to bear. It is also clear that the South Korean Government will not issue new effective pressure on North Korea. But Chinese pressure can be effective. China is the primary donor to North Korea, and despite cool relations, China supports North Korea to prevent a collapse. China so far has rejected pressure because it fears any pressure may hasten the very collapse of North Korea they intend to prevent. Therefore, finding a motivation for China to help generate effective pressure from North Korea is asking the question, what do the Chinese regard as worse than risking a North Korean collapse? And the answer is the potential of Japanese nuclear armament. Few of us have realized that Japan owns more plutonium than in the United States nuclear arsenal. Japan has a large nuclear power program. It is seeking to reduce its reliance on foreign uranium by recycling nuclear fuel that will make its plutonium stockpile grow even larger. Today Japan owns 38 tons of plutonium, 5 tons located in the country and 33 tons at its European processors. That is enough for 7,000 nuclear weapons. Japan is also accelerating its production of plutonium. Once the Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant comes online in 2005, Japan will be able to produce 100 tons of plutonium by 2015. North Korea recently complained in public about 206 kilos of missing plutonium from Japan's Tokai-mura facility. Japan is also rethinking its defense policy. Prime Minister Koizumi is leading efforts to expand Japan's defense role. Japan's self-defense force won Diet approval recently of purchasing long-range strike aircraft, including four 767 tankers; power projection, including the formation of an air brigade; and missile defense, including software, hardware and AEGIS class cruisers. Japan's perception of the North Korean threat is growing. North Korea shot a No Dong missile over Japanese territory in 1994. They shot a Taepo-dong missile over Japan in 1998. In December Japanese Coast Guard vessels clashed with North Korean spy boats. There is a nuclear debate beginning in Japan. In April, opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa openly discussed the nuclear option. In May, Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda generally hinted at revising defense doctrine. And last month, Defense Minister Ishiba stated Japan might conventionally strike North Korea first. Japan is also developing delivery vehicles. Japan's H-2 civilian rocket program is very advanced, and Japan is participating in missile defense focused on software, nose cones, infrared seekers, warheads and rocket motors. All of these facts should be shared at the highest level with Japanese leaders. We can help China to understand that if North Korea fully develops a nuclear arsenal, Japan may develop a deterrent. Japan's nuclear arsenal would quickly outpace China's. France's nuclear submarine costs just $13 billion and would be well within Japan's means. And Japan nuclear armament would encourage other Asian nations to also arm, even Taiwan. These facts should be shown to be clear that the Chinese should act clearly to diffuse the North Korea crisis. Article 9 of Japan's Constitution commits to no use of war to resolve international disputes. And it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to amend the Constitution. Support for Article 9 in Japan now in the face of the North Korean threat is just 50/50. Japanese Prime Minister Sato formally studied a nuclear weapons program in 1967, and Japan would have to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that it ratified in 1977. Some have said the Japanese reactor-grade plutonium would not be fully usable, but the U.S. detonated a reactor-grade plutonium device in 1962, and in order to discourage other countries from using plutonium as a fuel, President Carter declassified data on the feasibility of a reactor-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons in 1976. We need to help China understand that other Asian nations maybe forced to develop a nuclear deterrent. To curb this crisis, China must act, otherwise there will be an historical reversal of power in Asia, something the Chinese should realize and seek to avoid.