Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act

Mr. Speaker, the subject of my Special Order today is the birthday of one of America's greatest citizens, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King's birthday will be celebrated next week with the national holiday on Monday, one of the only men or women to have a holiday named for them in this country. At one time, of course, we celebrated the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and now we celebrate Presidents Day. But we celebrate Dr. King's Day, a great American and an individual who changed this country for the better and whose life is a testament to fortitude and courage, faith, and a desire to make America better.

On April 4, 1968, 40 years ago this year, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in my hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. That was a defining moment in the history of America, indeed, in the history of the world. While Dr. King's death should not and will not ever be forgotten, I think that today on what would have been his 79th

birthday, we should remember his life because it was his life, his actions and his eloquent words, that truly challenged us as a Nation to consider where we were and where we could go.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15, 1929, the son of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. and Alberta King. As we all know, Dr. King followed in his father's footsteps and became a minister at the age of 24 in Montgomery, Alabama, where just 2 years later Rosa Parks refused to comply with the Jim Crow laws, which required her to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. The subsequent Montgomery Bus Boycott, led by Rev. King, changed America. The boycott lasted over a year but resulted in the Supreme Court decision outlawing racial discrimination on public transportation. Only in his mid-20s, Martin Luther King's passion and commitment were already affecting the laws of our Nation.

During his life, Dr. King's house was bombed and his government wiretapped his conversations. But Dr. King never wavered from his commitment to nonviolent change. Dr. King turned a mirror on America, and the reflection was not good. It was ugly. America was not the land of the free but it was a land built by the enslaved. The very Capitol Building in which I speak and in which we make our laws was built by slaves. Dr. King pulled back the quasi-fiction that has so often been touted as patriotism as if to say, ``but what about these Americans?'' And those are his words: ``But what about these Americans?'' Jim Crow laws, which had created two Americas, which had denied access and opportunity for so long were held up for examination, and they failed the examination, as they should have.

We are not there, ladies and gentlemen. I wish we were. I wish we had achieved the dream where the content of one's character is what each person is judged by, not by the color of one's skin. We are not there, but the good news, the positive message that Dr. King has etched into our national conscience is that one man can make a difference. One young man can step forward and live his life with purpose and dignity, can become the voice of all those whose voices have been stilled, whose hope has been lost. No assassin's bullet could stop what Martin Luther King had begun. Today, as we celebrate a birth which has changed us and which continues to challenge us, let us remember his dream.

Dr. King's words are what he's best remembered for. And in his hometown of Memphis, Tennessee, his words will be played constantly over the weekend and through Monday as we remember how he challenged us, how he inspired us in the 1950s and in the 1960s. Radio station WLOK will be, I know, having a tribute to him in Memphis, and other places all over the country will do the same. And in Memphis there will be a basketball game, a national basketball game, that will celebrate civil rights victories of this country. Particularly Bob Lanier will be there and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. And we look at the steps which we have taken in this country to make the country better through sports and basketball, and I commend David Stern and the NBA for having that game in Memphis on Dr. King's birthday.

At this time I would like to read some quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as will be read and as will be heard throughout this country in the coming week and the coming weekend. Many of them resonate with the issues of today.

``A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.'' And we need more leaders like that today who mold consensus.

``A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.'' Remember, Mr. Speaker, Dr. King was speaking during the time of the Vietnam War. We have another Vietnam, I think, today in Iraq, and we are spending more money not on military defense but on military offense and leaving programs of social importance behind. And I question the spirituality of where this country presently is, spending so much in Iraq and so little in America.

``A right delayed is a right denied.'' And there are so many rights which have not been granted to people and not just on the basis of race and religion and national origin but also of sexual orientation. ``A right delayed,'' Dr. King said, ``is a right denied.''

Dr. King said, ``Almost always the creative, dedicated minority has made the world better.'' And indeed they have. We are a country of minorities making for a great majority, and when we don't respect the rights of the minorities, we endanger ourselves.

Dr. King said, ``An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.'' And I would ask each of my colleagues to hold that thought in their minds when they vote and to realize it's not just the nature of their districts and their individual concerns which are important but the broader concerns of this country, as Dr. King said, ``the broader concerns of all humanity.''

Dr. King said, ``An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.''

Dr. King and many civil rights workers violated the law, the law of the country, mostly in the South, Jim Crow laws, that said people were separate and inherently unequal. He did that with Rosa Parks when they challenged the laws that said African Americans were to ride on the back of the bus. And he challenged, along with President Johnson and this Nation in the 1960s, the law that said there could be separate establishments and would be by law for people based on race for entertainment, different public facilities, eating establishments, hotels and motels, colleges and schools. Those were wrong laws. They needed to be challenged, and they were challenged by Dr. King and many civil rights leaders, and the world changed in the 1960s.

Dr. King said, ``At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love.'' He also said, ``Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies or else? The chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars, must be broken or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.'' And, Mr. Speaker, I reflect on this when I think about what we are doing in the Middle East. Hate begets hate. Wars produce more wars. And we are in an abyss.

Dr. King said, ``He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.'' One must actively oppose evil. And oftentimes in the debates in Congress, you have to remember Dante, and Dr. King has a quote similar to Dante, that the warmest spots in hell are reserved for people who in times of controversy stand on the sidelines. Certainly something Dr. King did not do.

In Dr. King's great speech just outside the Capitol on the mall, which I recall watching on television and which I am thrilled to be a Member of this House of Representatives so near to the mall where Dr. King gave his ``I have a dream'' speech, he said, ``I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

``I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

``I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.''

As I said earlier, Dr. King's dream has not totally been achieved, but we are getting closer to it. We are engaged in a Presidential debate where his words and actions are subject of much debate. But I have no doubt that Dr. King would be proud of all the candidates in the Democratic column who are running for this office and know that they are children of Dr. King's dream. To see an African American gentleman have a legitimate chance to be President of the United States and to see a woman have that same opportunity is what Dr. King talked about.

And they should be judged not by the color of their skin or by their gender but by the content of their character.

``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,'' Dr. King said. And that's something to be remembered when we see nooses hung in small towns or people being shot, tied behind cars because of aspects of their personage of which they had no choice.

``It may be true,'' Dr. King said, ``that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.'' And that is important. We have a Senate and a House that passed a condemnation of the lynching that took place in this country in the 20th century. And this House, hopefully, will pass another proposition that says that we apologize for having been part of a Nation that allowed for slavery to occur and had laws that permitted it and for Jim Crow laws that saddled this country with unjustice for 100 years thereafter.

Dr. King said, ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is what are you doing for others?'' And that's a question that my friend Irbin Salky has often said to me, that the purpose of why we are here on Earth is to help others. And it's part of the Judeo-Christian religion and creed to care for others, and that's why we are here.

Again, Iraq and Vietnam, they are parallels, and Dr. King's words ring true today. He said, ``One of the greatest casualties of the war in Vietnam is the Great Society shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam.''

Indeed, many of the hopes of people in our inner cities, people that are left behind by what has been considered a great economic opportunity for many Americans, mostly the richest, have been left behind because of the moneys we have spent in Iraq rather than spending them on the people in this country.

There are many parallels, and I think I know where Dr. King would be on the issue of war and peace, on the issue of choosing Iraq rather than choosing America, the cities that have been neglected, the inner cities, Appalachia, Katrina victims, and others. Dr. King said: ``The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.'' He always felt that the arc was bending in the right direction, although slowly. And justice and change do move slowly but they do move. We have change. Change is not revolutionary; it's evolutionary. It happens, but it happens in increments. But Dr. King and people like him made it move at a stronger pace, and it's necessary to have agents of change. Agents of change have moved the society forward.

One of the most prophetic quotes that I think I saw, and there are so many to review in thinking about Dr. King, he said: ``The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt.'' I know from my sponsorship of an apology for slavery and Jim Crow and some of the comments I have read, there's a lot of guilt in this country and it's making it difficult for people to engage in a dialog and understand and honestly see what slavery did for many people's lives. Not only did it cause the African Americans and have them be enslaved, but it caused a lot of people to make a lot of money and have a lot of great economic fortune at the expense of the enslaved, and then of the Jim Crow citizen that served their needs for 100 years.

The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important. I think about Martin Luther King, who died at the age of 39; I think of John Kennedy, who served in this House and lived to the age of 46; I think of his brother, Robert Kennedy, who died at age 42, but affected so many of us. All of these three men affected me in a great way. Their assassinations in 1963 and 1968 affected this world, but it affected me in a great way. It was the quality, not the longevity, of their lives that was important. And they didn't wait for tomorrow. They had the fierce urgency of now that Dr. King talked about to make a change, to make a change and a difference while they were on this Earth and to affect their fellow man and fellow woman.

``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' Once again, Dr. King implores us to have moral character and fiber and to stand up for what is important for America. And he said: ``We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.''

Dr. Martin Luther King was a special man. He took his talents and he used them for his fellow man. He inspired us all. This country and this world is much the greater for his life. It is indeed a testament to him that this Congress under the unyielding leadership of Representative John Conyers passed a bill to make his birthday a national holiday. It's a national holiday that should be held in high esteem by all men and women in this country, because Dr. King was special and unique and stood up for all people and stood for the height of American ideals.

I hope that everybody will take a moment over the weekend and on Monday on the celebration of his birthday to think about some of the things that Dr. King stood for: challenging the system to make it better; for peace; for people who have been left behind in our society; doing for the least of these and trying to make the world a better place.

My city bears great scars for his death having taken place there. There was nothing unique to my city. It was something wrong with this country that somebody out there put a reward up for Dr. King's death and that somebody wanted to claim that reward and didn't have a regard for the humanity of Dr. King. In Memphis now there's a National Civil Rights Museum dedicated to the civil rights movement and to Dr. King's life and ideals, and I invite and encourage everyone to come to Memphis to visit the civil rights museum, which is at the spot where Dr. King was killed at the Lorraine Motel, which has been preserved, and to celebrate his life and to celebrate his values, not only on his birthday but on every day, for Dr. King was a great American. I am just lucky, as we all are, that he came my way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I know that you, like me, will reflect on Dr. King's works and will keep him in our hearts as we try to do what's right for America in this 110th Congress.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal and Congressman Inslee for expediting consideration of this specific piece of legislation.

As I have pointed out earlier on the House floor after notification of Congressman Norwood's passing, he wrote me a letter the last day he was in Washington before he flew home to Georgia, and this particular piece of legislation was the primary issue in that letter. It is very, very heartwarming, and I am very grateful that the majority would move this piece of legislation as quickly as they have done. I want to thank them sincerely for doing that.

As has been pointed out, this piece of legislation will be called the Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, and it is in honor of Congressman Norwood, the late Congressman from the Tenth District of Georgia.

There are over 78,000 Americans who need kidney transplants. The average wait is over 4 years. Paired donation can create greater access to kidney transplants. A paired donation consists of a transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor who are matched with another similar pair so as to enable two transplants that would otherwise not occur.

The legislation before us today clarifies the ability to perform paired transplantations through the National Organ Transplant Act, or NOTA. This legislation clarifies that paired donations are not considered a valuable consideration.

This legislation has received the strong support of all the major transplant organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplantation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, the Cedars Sinai Health Systems, Johns Hopkins, and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

As a consequence of the legislation that Congressman Norwood and Congressman Inslee have crafted, we assume that at least an additional 2,000 organ transplants a year will occur. That is truly a gift of living that will keep on giving for many, many years to come.

This legislation, unfortunately, will be the last of many great pieces of legislation that Congressman Norwood helped to pass when he was a colleague of ours in this body. He was a true statesman and sincerely a warm, personal friend of mine. I will miss him greatly.

Before I yield back, I want to tell a story about Charlie and then read something into the Record.

Congressman Norwood always considered himself to be very prepared. He was always ready for almost any contingency.

The night that we voted the Medicare Modernization Act part D prescription drug benefit on this floor will be a time that will long be remembered because it was such a close vote and it took so long to get it passed. Charlie and myself and three other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side had been a part of a group to craft an alternative program for the part D prescription drug benefit. Some of our alternative program was in the final legislation, but not all of it. As a consequence, Charlie was listed as a ``lean no.'' He was in reality a ``hard no,'' but he listed himself as a ``lean no.''

As we all know, when the climactic vote occurred, there weren't enough yeses on the board to pass it. So I went to one of the senior leaders of the majority party, I am not going to say which one, but I went to one of the senior leaders and I said, ``I think we can get Charlie Norwood to vote for this bill.'' They said, ``No, you're not going to get Charlie to vote for the bill.'' I said, ``I think we can, if you'll talk to him.''

So I went to Charlie and I said, ``Would you talk?'' Charlie said, ``I don't want to talk to anybody. I'm going to vote against the bill.''

I went back and forth. I finally arranged a meeting back in the Republican cloakroom where Charlie would discuss this particular piece of legislation.

Now, he had been a no, no, no, no, no for the last 2 weeks. So when I finally got the two parties together, Norwood immediately pulled out a list from his pocket. Now, he is deceased, so whatever the statute of limitations is has expired. And this Congressman, who had been a lean no, lean no, lean no, had a list of 10 things, 10, that if the senior leadership on the Republican side would consider, he would consider voting for the bill. Ten.

Obviously, that discussion didn't go too far, so he ended up voting no. But he was prepared, and he had a list of things.

Now, in that same sense of being prepared, Mr. Inslee has already put into the Record Congressman Norwood's statement on this bill. Isn't that amazing? I am going to read it into the Record. This is the floor statement in support of this bill by the late Congressman Charlie Norwood of the 10th District of Georgia.

``Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also offer a sincere thank you to Ranking Member Barton, Chairman Dingell and Mr. Inslee for all of their help moving this bill. Committee staff, including Katherine Martin, John Ford and Peter Goodloe should be acknowledged for their aid as well. A special thank you to Nick Shipley with Mr. Inslee's office who worked with J.P. from my staff from day one as a tireless advocate to get this bill into law.

``It has been said that common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are and doing things as they ought to be done. Well, let me tell you how things were being done. For years, people missed or were delayed in an opportunity to have a life-saving kidney transplant simply because a member of the executive branch couldn't grasp the

true intent of the National Organ Transplant Act's valuable consideration clause. The valuable consideration clause was meant to outlaw the buying and selling of organs, which everyone agrees is proper.

``Now, there are two types of transplant donors, living and cadaveric, or deceased. As a lung transplant recipient, I benefited from the latter, but in the case of the first, a friend or a relative wanting to spare their loved ones from death or dialysis graciously offers to give up one of their kidneys. Regardless of the method, both patient and donor must be biologically compatible.

``In recent years doctors discovered that by using the simple database methods that we use in our everyday lives and business, a paired donation could take place with these living donors.

``In the process of a kidney paired donor transplant, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and an incompatible living donor is matched with another such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur.

``Now, I'm just an old country dentist, but isn't this just common sense? I want to give to someone, but I'm not compatible, but I can give to another patient. Their willing, yet also incompatible, friend can give to my loved one. As a result, two people live; two more slots are opened on the list for even more transplants to take place. Common sense, Mr. Speaker.

``However, instead of every single transplant center undertaking this commonsense approach, some folks were denied the chance to be cross- matched and, instead, their loved one suffered and even died while awaiting a transplant.

``73,652. That is roughly the number, Mr. Speaker, of people waiting for a kidney transplant. I can't imagine looking at any of those people and telling them `I am sorry, some bureaucrat 10 years ago inspired fear around the simple process to save you today, so you will have to languish on the list and hope for the best.'

``I will tell you what: That is hogwash. Times have changed. Paired donation is saving lives today and will save even more once we get this bill done. H.R. 710 has the support of every major transplant organization, from the United Network for Organ Sharing, who will manage the national list, to the surgeons who will perform the transplants, to the patient advocates to the hospitals.

``In fact, a study published in the Journal of Transplantation predicts a 14 percent increase in the live kidney donor transplants performed each year if paired donation were allowed. Moreover, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save $220,000 in dialysis costs.

``In fact, Johns Hopkins just did a five-way paired donation where five people were saved instead of being put on the waiting list. Now imagine the good a national list will do. Thousands will be saved through simple common sense. Paired donation is the way things ought to be done.

``How often can we stand in this well on this floor and know what we are doing will save the government money, improve patient quality of life and save lives? Not too often, Mr. Speaker. I can testify to that.

``What the bureaucracy has failed to correct, this Congress will now step up and take care of, unfortunately for all of those who have not been able to benefit, not a minute too soon.

``I yield back the balance of my time.''

That is the floor statement of the late Congressman Norwood on a bill that, at the time he prepared this, he wasn't sure would get to the floor.

Yet because of his tenacity and preparedness and the willingness of Mr. Dingell and Mr. Inslee and Mr. Pallone and Speaker Pelosi, the bill is on the floor. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I do intend to ask for a rollcall vote and let us leave a living legacy of life for the late Congressman Charlie Norwood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Before I yield to Dr. Gingrey, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his excellent leadership and his willingness to expedite this process. It is because of John Dingell that this bill is on the floor this afternoon. We on the minority are very appreciative of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman John Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Jack Kingston from Savannah.

How much time do I have remaining?

I, unfortunately, can only yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to tell one last Charlie Norwood story.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, since we have painted Charlie Norwood to be such a saint today, I have got to kind of get a little bit truer picture of him.

In the Energy Policy Act debate of 2005, there was a provision in the bill that was not controversial in the overall part of the bill, but it was very controversial in certain areas of the country. One of those areas was in Charlie's area of the southeast.

I had been working with him all through the debate to try to get him to help me forge a compromise on this particular issue, and he agreed that the compromise was the best public policy, but it wasn't the policy that his region supported. So he was in a difficult position of agreeing with me, the chairman, on what the good public policy was, but knowing that that was not a vote that he would be supported in taking for his region.

I went round and round with him about how to convince him to support this particular item in the bill, and he just flat couldn't do it. But I finally got him to agree that, at the critical moment, he would not be there to vote against it. In other words, he would be absent, meeting a constituent or something, and he just couldn't be there. He and I agreed on this, and our staffs had worked it out so that when the time came to vote, Mr. Norwood would not vote ``no,'' which would make me happy, but he wouldn't vote ``yes'' either, which would have made me even happier. He just wouldn't vote.

So, sure enough, the critical moment came, and the vote occurred. True to his word, Charlie Norwood was not around, but as soon as I gaveled the vote, he burst into the room, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, could I be recorded. I said, no, the vote has already expired. He said, what kind of hogwash is this and just raised holy cane, purely for theatrical purposes, but you know, the point had been made.

So his constituency felt justified in his support, and I felt justified in he didn't vote against me, and yet he had upstaged his chairman, but in some cases, that was Charlie Norwood.

We rise in support of this bill. It does save money. It saves $30 million or $40 million the first year and I think $400 million to $500 million over the 10-year scoring period. So we are going to work with the majority to find a way to put these savings to use so, once again, Congressman Norwood not only is doing a good thing, providing a gift to the living, but this piece of legislation, if it becomes law, will also save the taxpayers money.

I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this bipartisan legislation makes technical changes to legislation I previously introduced, S. 487, along with Senators Bond, Dorgan, Graham, Durbin, Mikulski, Pryor, Cardin, Isakson, Coleman, Brown, and Chambliss and which passed the Senate on July 9, 2007. Companion legislation, H.R. 710, was introduced in the House by Representatives Charles Norwood and Jay Inslee,

where the bill was renamed in honor of Representative Norwood, a longtime advocate of organ donation, following his passing on February 13, 2007. This legislation, which applied only to kidneys when first introduced, was subsequently broadened in a Senate substitute amendment I offered and the Senate adopted unanimously on July 9, 2007. The legislation was broadened to include paired donation of other organs as the field of transplantation advances, and in order that those advances not be hindered.

Today, the House has returned the bill passed by the Senate on July 9, 2007, with several technical changes and we are all pleased that with its adoption today and fast-track to the President for his signature, the saving of thousands of lives is on the horizon.

Our legislation will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys and other organs available for transplantation through the process called paired organ donation. It addresses this relatively new procedure, which is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNOS, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the National Kidney Foundation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, as well as many other organ donation and transplant organizations. Paired organ donation, which did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, was enacted more than two decades ago, will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney or other organ to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, to still become living kidney donors.

In the process of organ paired donation, a donor who is willing to give an organ to a family member or a friend, but is biologically incompatible, donates to another patient, who also has an incompatible donor. By cross-matching two or more incompatible living donor recipient pairs, more patients can receive organs and more donors can give an organ. Paired organ donation results in donor-recipient matching, that would not otherwise occur.

This legislation is necessary because the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, which contains a prohibition intended by Congress to preclude purchasing organs, is unintentionally impeding the facilitation of matching incompatible pairs, as just described. Our legislation would simply add paired donation to the list of other living-related donation exemptions that Congress originally placed in NOTA. It removes an unintended impediment to paired donations by clarifying ambiguous language in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA. That section has been interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such donations. In section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ purchases,'' says, ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration . . .'' This legislation does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to section 301 which states that paired kidney donations do not violate it.

Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit paired donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. Some transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate section of 301 of NOTA, but they contend that they are doing so under a cloud.

No Federal dollars are needed to implement this change. And, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save roughly $220,000 in the end-stage-renal disease program because of the significantly lower cost of transplantation compared to dialysis cost. It is essential that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement incompatible living kidney donation programs can feel free to do so.

Currently, over 97,000 people are waiting for an organ, including 72,000 who are waiting for a kidney transplant, over 2,600 of whom are in the State of Michigan, as they endure countless hours attached to a life-sustaining dialysis machine hoping that a organ donor will become available before they die. Because of the shortage of available organs, approximately 3,800 people die every year while on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. For them, time is of the essence.

Last but certainly not least, the great success we have achieved here today would not have been possible without the support of my good friend and colleague in the House, Representative John Dingell chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and my distinguished and caring colleague in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. In addition, there are those who energetically led the effort in educating Congress on the need for paired donation and they have long been a progressive force in organ donation and transplantation. I thank Dr. Robert M. Merion, professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Transplant Center and secretary of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, ASTS, as well as Dr. Goran B. Klintmalm from Baylor University Medical Center and president of the ASTS, for their tireless advocacy for this lifesaving legislation. I would also like to thank Dr. Jeff Crippin, director of liver transplants at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, and president of the American Society of Transplantation, AST; Dr. David Briscoe, director of transplant research at Children's Hospital in Boston, Harvard University; Dr. David Cohen, director of kidney transplant, Columbia University; and Bill Lawrence of United Network of Organ Donor Sharing for his steadfast leadership in the cause of organ donor awareness and organ transplantation.

Senate passage and enactment of this legislation is a fitting tribute that honors the memory of six members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team, who died in a tragic plane crash while on an emergency mission to deliver life-saving organs to the University of Michigan Hospital to save the lives of transplant patients.

I would like to share with my colleagues the sentiments expressed by Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan, upon learning of the tragic loss of the six members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team. Her remarks, given on June 5, 2007, are as follows:

Our hearts are broken by the devastating and irreplaceable

loss of six members of the Survival Flight transplant team.

Every day, the doctors, nurses and flight personnel of

Survival Flight do heroic work in saving the lives of others,

and that is how we will remember those who perished in

Monday's tragedy--as selfless heroes.

There is no greater act than that of saving a life, and

through our grief, we take comfort in knowing these six men

died in the service of a fellow human being.

Please hold in your hearts David Ashburn, M.D., a fellow

(physician-in-training) in cardiothoracic surgery; Richard

Chenault II, a transplant donation specialist with the U-M

Transplant Program; Dennis Hoyes, a Marlin air pilot; Rick

Lapensee, a transplant donation specialist with the U-M

Transplant Program; Bill Serra, a Marlin air pilot; and

Martinus (Martin) Spoor, M.D., a cardiac surgeon who had been

on the U-M faculty since 2003.

Our thoughts and prayers are with their families, friends

and colleagues.

Finally, I would also like to share an excerpt from a letter I received from Dr. Robert Merion regarding his cherished colleagues and friends who were members of the University of Michigan Transplant Team, as follows:

All of my colleagues who perished in that horrible crash

were committed to organ donation. In fact, the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services awarded one of them,

Richard Chenault II, its Medal of Honor in 2006 for his

successful efforts to increase organ donation at the

University of Michigan. All six of these fine men would have

been extraordinarily proud to know that their names were

being invoked to stimulate final passage of a bill that will

provide the gift of life to so many others.

I commend the Senate on the passage of this much-needed legislation and look forward to the President signing it in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 710) to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney paired donation does not involve the transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 710, a bill originally introduced by Representative Norwood of Georgia, only for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to pass the Charlie W. Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. We do so both to honor Dr. Norwood, who provided such great service to his district and to the country for many years; of course, Dr. Norwood did so as the result of being a recipient of lung transplants himself; but also to honor the thousands of Americans who are today waiting for kidney transplants. This bill, we believe, will be a great step forward to hasten the day when those folks can potentially have kidney transplants.

It is a fitting tribute to Dr. Norwood for his tireless efforts to improve our Nation's health and his great work in fighting as a patient's advocate. I will submit for the record a statement from Dr. Norwood in support of this legislation.

Second, I would like to thank the staff of both of the committees, as well as Dr. Norwood's office and personal staff, for their work to make this bill a reality.

This legislation would allow a procedure commonly known as paired donation to be legal, to make that clear, and to provide hope to patients waiting for kidney transplants. Paired organ donation will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, a family member or a friend but find that they are medically incompatible to still become living kidney donors.

This is very important, because, as of February 23, we had over 70,000 patients who are now on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, and yet we performed only 16,500 kidney transplants in 2005, of which only 6,500 were living kidney donors. H.R. 710 will take a significant step towards reducing the number of patients on the waiting list and giving many more the hope that their wait will not be endless.

Further, this bill is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.

I have sort of a local person who gives me advise about this, Dr. Connie Davis, who is a transplant expert, a physician, and she says that this bill is a huge step forward for the transplant community as clinical efforts in the direction of paired donation have been severely hampered by concerns over the legal status of such activity.

I believe it is imperative that we make it clear that there is no intent by Congress to bar this procedure. It is my hope that the Senate will act quickly on this. Simply put, we want this legislation to save lives immediately.

So, for the 70,000 patients waiting for lifesaving kidney transplants, with time spent on costly and often arduous

dialysis treatment, their time on the waiting list can be significantly shortened with passage and implementation of this bill.

It is an honor to stand here working for the name of Dr. Charlie Norwood. I want to thank all those who have worked on this bill, and I hope very shortly we can have this on the President's desk and help those 70,000 people to a healthy future and great productive years, just like Dr. Norwood had in the U.S. Congress.

Statement of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 710, the Living

Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. This bill will

explicitly state that Americans in need of a kidney will have

a greater chance of receiving one through the process of

paired donation.

Over 70,000 Americans are currently in need of a kidney

transplant. As a result of significant demand and limited

supply, most transplantees wait for over four years before

receiving a kidney. Four years for their lives to be saved or

lost.

During this time, if their kidneys fail, End Stage Renal

Disease can set in. These patients must undergo dialysis.

While dialysis extends patients' lives, their condition often

prevents them from being fully engaged in their community and

career. Dialysis is life-extending, but not life-bettering.

Sadly, in many cases, this is where patients lose their

battle. In 2004 alone, 3,823 transplant candidates died

awaiting a kidney. As our population ages, that figure is

going to increase.

Mr. Speaker, medical science has enabled us to perform more

successful organ transplants than ever before. These

transplants give patients a new lease on life. Many Members

in this body or their loved ones have been touched by the

lifesaving gift of organ donation, myself included.

Kidney transplants from living donors tend to be highly

successful, but in many cases, those who want to give a

kidney to a loved one feel they cannot help because they are

not biologically compatible with the patient in need.

H.R. 710 is very simple. It clarifies that paired donation

is legal under the National Organ Transplant Act. As a

result, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate

and an incompatible living donor can be matched with another

such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that

otherwise would not occur.

Remember those 3,823 souls and ask yourself--could you

justify not allowing a process of simply cross-matching to

save their lives?

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this

legislation in memory of those who have died waiting for a

kidney as well as the thousands of Americans who are seeking

a transplant or trying to become a living donor to save a

loved ones' life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Barton for reading Dr. Norwood's eloquent statement into the Record.

I want to note that kidney donation is not just for the recipients. It is for their families and the places they work, and even the U.S. Congress. The reason we had the benefit of Dr. Norwood's wisdom for years in the U.S. Congress was because of a lung transplant. I want to note that what we are doing today is not only helping those 70,000 people, but also their families and workplaces and the whole U.S. economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the dean of the House whose leadership helped bring this bill to the floor today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make a point. I think this is a great bipartisan success, to try to improve organ donation prospects for these 70,000 Americans. But we have more work to do. This bill is not the end of our efforts. I worked for 2 years with Mike Bilirakis, a great Republican, to try to have people in hospitals work with families on transplant donation issues. We need to fund that bill, and I hope we can have a bipartisan effort to do that.

We have work to do to fund immunosuppressant drugs. Right now, we are not funding the drugs that donees need to suppress the immunological response to donation.

So I hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to help these 70,000 Americans. We will remember Charlie Norwood's efforts in this regard and on future successes

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 159) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and thank him for arranging for this resolution to be heard at this time today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we lost a true champion in the House of Representatives on yesterday: Charles Norwood from Georgia. Charlie, as he was known by most of us here, was truly a friend across party lines and across State lines. He was a true patriot. He served in the dental services in the U.S. Army in the combat zone of Vietnam.

He returned to a private dental practice in Georgia, and then in the election cycle of 1994 was elected to this House of Representatives. He came with a passion for many things. Health care was at the very top of his list. Education was very shortly thereafter. And he worked on both of those issues with all of his heart.

He inspired many people in this House because he was indeed passionate about everything that he did. If he was your friend, you knew he was your friend. If you were on the opposite side of an issue from him, he let you know that as well, but he was still your friend.

All of us watched as we observed what had been diagnosed in 1998 as an incurable disease. And following that diagnosis, he underwent lung transplant surgery. That was a process that most of us probably would have had great difficulty undergoing. But Charlie did it with courage. He rebounded with the same kind of determination

and willingness to go forward in spite of the inconveniences that that brought to him.

We saw him with his oxygen tank, and we saw him on his little scooter as he rode around the Capitol on his way over here and back and forth to votes. Throughout it all, he maintained his good humor, he maintained his zest for life. Charlie Norwood is someone who will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to our Georgia colleague (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another Georgia colleague (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the minority leader (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I thank the Speaker. And I would ask the gentleman, we have numerous speakers, if there is a possibility of yielding time at some point, we would request it.

I thank the gentleman.

At this point I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one of our colleagues from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I would say to my colleague, Mr. Lewis, I am prepared to close if you would like to.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Lewis, for his graciousness, for his assistance in bringing this resolution to the floor, and to express my appreciation to all of our colleagues who have spoken here today. Their eloquence, I hope, conveys to Gloria and to the family the esteem with which we held Charlie Norwood. Truly the gentleman from Georgia and the blue searsucker suit is going to really be missed here, but his legacy will live on.

It is the responsibility of each of us to make sure that we have the same degree of commitment and passion as Charlie Norwood did. He set a great example we will all endeavor to follow.

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