Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as we all heard from the President's speech last night, we are regrettably closer to engaging in military action to oust a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein. At this time, we should focus our thoughts and prayers on the men and women standing in harm's way to liberate a country that has so often in history been a center of culture, innovation, and education.

Our troops are young volunteers serving a country they love, and a foundation of freedom in which they deeply believe. They have many worries, as would any human being in this situation, but they know their jobs and the risks that accompany military service. As an American and a veteran, I have strong, heart-felt feelings and a sense of pride for these young soldiers and airmen willing to fight for a people they do not know and a cause that requires constant vigilance.

It is these feelings I have for troops that led me and a number of my colleagues to openly question recent media interviews that subject these young troops to questions, which in my mind, have no business being posed days before possible military action.

The initial coverage that brought me to the floor today aired on Peter Jennings ``World News Tonight,'' on Monday, March 10. The segment contained interviews with American troops on the Kuwaiti/Iraq border. Specifically, some of the questions focused on hypothetical situations regarding combat, enemy responses, and casualties.

This morning, a USA Today article ran with the headline ``As War Looms, Young Soldiers Confront Fear . . . `Black Hawk Down' scenario among worries'' (Many of us remember ``Black Hawk Down'' was based on the operation to capture Somali warlord Adid.

These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. We have heard countless times, as have our troops, what threats may be encountered if we engage Iraq, and, what the risks entail. As such, our young troops do not need to be reminded of those possibilities by individuals who only seek to generate a story. Nor should the family and friends of loved ones serving in the Middle East be subjected to these stories that further exacerbate worries they may already have.

Our men and women serving in these areas are professionals and they know the job they have to do, though it is obviously a job they would prefer to accomplish by other means than force (I would like to add that we in Congress and the President share that desire). Nonetheless, our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the tasks assigned and the mission objectives that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities, who have no comprehensible idea of what it is like to be in the very situation our troops are facing, continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage.

Such coverage does not serve the home front well either. In Florida, we have activated more Guard and Reserve forces than any other state in the union. In my district, I have watched unit after unit depart for destinations unknown in support of Enduring Freedom. These are incredible individuals--as are their families. My thoughts and prayers go to them as well, for they too are sacrificing.

Let me emphatically state for those that may disagree with my remarks that I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate common sense. I believe the media lacks a solid understanding of our military and its mission. Providing media access to our troops is necessary to assist in providing accurate information for the American public and to counter false propaganda from other resources seeking to undermine our objectives. Such access can provide a better understanding and appreciation for what our young people do every single day in service to our country.

However, we must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for ratings purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access--much more so than during Desert Storm in 1991. With that access comes responsibility . . . responsibility to the troops, their families and the public. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand, let them do their job and return safely home. Refrain from undermining that focus and the necessary morale . . . just because it might make a good story.

Mr. Speaker, we face challenging times ahead. Our troops need our support, our thoughts, and our prayers. May God bless them and their families and return them home safe.

Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews, both print and television, have subjected our young troops to questions which in my mind have no business being posed days before possible military action. These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the task assigned and the mission objective that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage. We must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for rating purposes.

Today's media has a tremendous amount of access, much more so than they did in Desert Storm. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand and let them do their job and return home safely.

Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews both print and television have subjected our young troops to questions, which in my mind, have no business being posed days before possible military action.

These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons, ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life.

Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the tasks assigned and the mission objectives that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage.

Let me state that I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate common sense. Providing media access to our troops is necessary to assist in providing accurate information for the American public and to counter false propaganda from other sources seeking to undermine our objectives.

However, we must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for ratings purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access--much more so than during Desert Storm in 1991. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. With that access comes responsibility . . . responsibility to the troops, their families and the public. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand, let them do their job and return safely home.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to give a clear example from my home congressional district, a Dr. Joseph Hildner, a board-certified family-practice specialist in Belleview, Florida. He had a patient that was overweight and smoked too much. He never followed the doctor's advice, missed many appointments all the time, and failed to take blood pressure prescriptions. Suddenly the patient gets a heart attack, right? Then he sues because he was not cared for. The trial attorney simply identified anything that could have been done, declaring that no standard care was done for this patient by Dr. Hildner.

Obviously, Dr. Hildner tried to settle this thing because the doctor felt that he would go through long litigation. As it turns out, the lawyer was suing well above the amount of money that the insurance company had for his patient. This is just an example. So what happens to Dr. Hildner? His premiums go from $30,000 to $70,000. How does he pay? How do the doctors in this country pay? They start to hustle through more patients and more patients. They practice what is called defensive medicine; they have all these tests, just simply to protect themselves. He admits he is hustling through all these patients like cattle. He cannot give them the attention they need. So now he is giving unnecessary tests.

In the end, we need this bill. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 5.

I rise as an original cosponsor of, and in support of H.R. 5. This bill would help curb some of explosive noneconomic damage awards in medical liability cases, and resultant soaring malpractice insurance rates that lawsuits have been spurring.

Physicians in my home state of Florida, among other states, are already in a state of crisis, as evidenced by the ``walk-out'' earlier this year.

Dr. W. Herman Sessions of the Family Practice Associates in Orange Park, FL, wrote to me recently that his practice is considering exiting. He wrote,

I am telling my female patients to get their mammograms

this year because I feel that we are not going to be having

mammograms read in the state of Florida next year. A

radiology friend told me that it was at the last minute that

they were able to obtain insurance to read mammograms. He

told me that he is not certain that when their policy expires

in one year that they will be reading mammograms without some

sort of resolution to the liability crisis.

We have had difficulty recruiting physicians to our

hospital because nobody wants to practice in the state of

Florida with our liability problem. These physicians are

surgeons and surgical subspecialists. Our local neurosurgeon

obtained liability insurance on the very last day of the year

and he is able to practice for the calendar year of 2003. I

asked him what his plans are for 2004. He told me that he

will either retire, do strictly office consultation and no

surgery, or move to another state.

And my constituent Johnny Beach from Bell, Florida, a young, married University of Florida senior worries about his wife's access to OB/ GYNs.

Importantly, this legislation rightly does not cap economic damages, so that the tort system can continue to protect patients from malpractice as intended. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, and urge its passage.

Joseph Hildner, M.D., a board-certified Family Practice specialist in Belleview, FL, writes: ``We had a patient who is an obese smoker. Never followed our advice, missed many appointments, failed to fill blood pressure prescriptions. Patients suffered a heart attack, then sued for failure to arrange a stress test.'' The trial attorney simply identified anything that might have been done, declared that to be the ``standard of care'', threatened to sue for higher than the doctor's coverage limits, then settled for less. Even with a 90 percent chance of winning, a physician can't take the chance of going to trial and losing: the ``excess verdict'' would allow for seizure of his own personal assets. So the doctor settles. Actual negligence need not occur; an attorney only has to do is allege negligence.

But citizens of Belleview lose. Dr. Hildner is known for excellent clinical outcomes at controlled costs. He says,

I've always enjoyed the art of medicine in which I get to

practice clinical judgment. As a primary care physician, I am

a shepherd, getting those who need it expensive high tech

care, and protecting those who don't from unnecessary

interventions. I'm also known for taking time to listen and

explain. I don't have my hand on the doorknob while a patient

is trying to talk.

Last year his insurance premium increased from $30,000 to $70,000. How does he pay? Now has to see more patients, and spend less time. ``I'm now having to talk patients into ``defensive medicine'' tests they don't need, just so I can protect myself. I am beginning to hustle my patients through like cattle, to see enough to pay the bills. So this friendly country doctor known for using clinical judgment, and providing efficient, cost-contained, appropriate care, and known for taking time, is now talking patients into unnecessary tests (which is running up costs), and hustling them through.''

Pass H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, America needs tax relief. The economy lost 308,000 jobs in February, one of the sharpest drops in recent memory. The unemployment rate now stands at 5.8 percent. While this is relatively low by historical standards, the unemployment rate was only 4 percent as recently as 2000.

Now, the President's economic growth package, I believe, is urgently needed to increase the number of jobs created in the United States. Private sector economists have drawn the same conclusion. The jobs growth package could create millions of new jobs. For example, the Macroeconomic Advisers estimate that the package would lead to the creation of nearly 2 million jobs by the end of 2004. The Business Roundtable puts the figure at more than 3 million.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should pass the Bush tax relief plan now.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Cover the Uninsured Week where lawmakers, the media, and our constituents will consider how we can help provide health care coverage for some 35 million Americans. No doubt some will pronounce that the answer lies in a single payer, universal health care coverage program. I say there are better ways. Why? Let us look at countries that do have national health care in place and see its problems.

Let me share with Members a story I read in a February 13 article in the New York Times about the growing lag on the Canadian health care system. According to this article, a Canadian government study shows that 4.3 million Canadians, 18 percent of those who saw a doctor in 2001, had a problem getting tests or surgery done in a timely fashion. Three million could not find a family physician. Canada spends $86 billion on the health care. Only the United States, Germany and Switzerland spend more as a proportion of economic output, but budget cuts since the early 1990s have impeded efforts to keep health care up to date.

Waiting lines have also increased because an aging population is placing more demands on the system. A study by the Fraser Institute recently concluded that patients across Canada experience waiting times of 16.5 weeks between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and undergoing treatment in 2001-2002, a rate 77 percent longer than in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, can Members imagine an insured American putting up with a wait for 4 months? As Members can imagine, those with the means to seek other options do not, due to what the Canadians call ``line jumping'' by the affluent and well-connected.

While the goal of many who recommended socialized health care is egalitarian, equal health services for all, that is exactly what they get, an equally long wait for all. But if a Canadian has money, they just fly south to a private physician in the United States. My State of Florida is notoriously a haven for Canadian snowbirds to winter in and seek medical care.

Last month I had members of various Canadian provincial governments visit me asking how they could work out an arrangement and fee schedule with physicians in Florida to provide services to them.

And to point out another example of the erosion of egalitarian goal that national health care is supposed to provide, there is an ad for an up-scale maternity service in London's Portland Hospital. It points out women do not have to be famous to give birth there, they just need to have money. Deluxe private suites, champagne, and a beauty salon are just among some of the amenities. I thought all English women could receive quality, timely obstetrical care in their assigned hospital. But why then would the Duchess of York and supermodel Jerry Hall choose to have their babies outside the socialized system, because those who can afford to pay want choice, and we should provide nothing less for all Americans.

To seek a legacy in his final years of office, Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien has agreed to spend $9 billion more over the next 3 years. Fortunately for Canadians, the system's shortfalls have opened the way for tentative but growing movements toward privately managed medical services.

Let us resolve today to promote choice and opportunity for the uninsured to obtain the health care plan that works best for them. One of the major ways is to institute a tax parity into health insurance. The 90 percent of us who receive our health insurance through our employers are receiving a substantial tax benefit. We should extend this to those in the individual market also.

When this Congress convened on January 7, I introduced my bill, H.R. 198, that would allow any tax filer to deduct 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance as well as nonreimbursed prescription drugs. Currently, only the self-employed can deduct 100 percent, but what about the unemployed or the retired? H.R. 198 would help them also. Likewise, many of my colleagues have introduced legislation to provide tax credits for Americans to use for purchasing health care. These are all ways we can help cover the uninsured and enable them to purchase the health insurance of their choice.

Long Lines Mar Canada's Low-Cost Health Care

(By Clifford Krauss)

TORONTO. Feb. 11--During a routine self-examination last

May, Shirley Magee found

a lump on her breast. Within weeks she had it and some lymph

modes removed. So far so good, until it came to the follow-up

therapy.

Mrs. Magee, a 55-year-old public school secretary,

researched her condition on the Internet, and read that

optimally, radiation treatment should begin two weeks after

surgery. But the local provincial government clearinghouse

that manages the waiting time for radiation therapy told her

she had to wait until the end of September--nearly three

months after her surgery--to begin treatment.

``I was supposed to feel lucky I got in so quickly,'' said

Mrs. Magee, still viscerally annoyed though she has since

successfully completed her radiation regime. ``It's a

horrible feeling that something in your body is ticking that

you have no control over. If I were a politician's wife I

wouldn't have had to wait.''

Long heralded for giving all Canadians free health

insurance and paying for almost all medical expenses, the

health care system founded in the 1960's has long been the

third rail all of Canadian politics; not to be touched by

private hands, nor altered by Parliament.

But growing complaints about long lines for diagnosis and

surgery, as well as widespread line-jumping by the affluent,

and connected, are eroding public confidence in Canada's

national health care system and producing a leading issue for

next year's national elections.

A recent government study indicated that 4.3 million

Canadian adults--or 18 percent of those who saw a doctor in

2001--reported they had difficulty seeing a doctor or getting

a test or surgery done in a timely fashion. Three million

Canadians are unable to find a family physician, according to

several private studies, producing a situation all the more

serious since it is the family doctor who refers patients to

specialists and medical testing.

``The sky isn't falling, but things are not rosy,'' said

Dr. Dana W. Hanson, president of the Canadian Medical

Association. ``Nevertheless if things are not fixed, the sky

may fall.''

Canada spends $86 billion a year on health care--only the

United States, Germany and Switzerland spend more as a

proportion of total economic output--but budget cutbacks

since the early 1990's have impeded efforts to keep health

care up to date. A recent report by the Senate's Standing

Committee on Social Affairs. Science and Technology indicates

that well over 30 percent of the country's medical imaging

devices are obsolete.

Overworked technology is one reason for the long lines;

others include a shortage of nurses and inefficient

management of hospital and other health care facilities,

according to several studies.

Waiting times have also increased because an aging

population has put more demands on the system, while the

current generation of doctors is working fewer hours than the

last.

Waiting can occur at every step of treatment. A study by

the conservative Fraser Institute concluded that patients

across Canada experienced average waiting times of 16.5 weeks

between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and

undergoing treatment in 2001-2002, a rate 77 percent longer

than in 1993. The recent Senate report noted that waiting

times for M.R.I., CT. and ultrasound scans grew by 40 percent

since 1994.

``Waiting lists are the hornets' nests that are

jeopardizing the system,'' said Dr. Tirone E. David,

professor of surgery at the University of Toronto. He noted

that Ontario residents needed to wait an average of two

months to see a cardiologist unless it was an emergency,

queries for angiograms took four to six weeks, and waiting

times between initial examination and micro-valve repairs

could take as long as six months.

``It wasn't that way 15 years ago,'' Dr. David added. ``It

does not alter the ultimate outcome, but there's an anguish

and uncertainty when a person feels their life is in a

holding pattern for up to a year.''

Defenders of the Canadian system note that only patients

waiting months for nonemergency care, like treatments for

cataracts and hernias skew the waiting time statistics.

And they argue that within life expectancy of 78 years,

Canadians still enjoy one of the longest life expectancies in

the world, slightly higher than the United States where 41

million people have no health insurance.

Still recent polls show that while Canadians want to keep

their national system they are worried about its future

effectiveness.

``I don't think there's a lot of patience among the public

for a lot more study,'' said Deputy Prime Minister John

Manley in a recent interview noting that his own driver

needed to wait a year for hip replacement surgery. ``There's

not a lot of time to deal with it.''

In response to the growing concerns, Prime Minister Jean

Chretien and the Senate conducted studies of the system, that

concluded in recent months that shortages of doctors nurses

and diagnostic equipment had caused at least some

deterioration of care over the last 10 years.

Seeking a legacy in his final year in office. Mr. Chretien

agreed last week to spend over $9 billion more over the next

three years on programs to improve diagnostic equipment,

primary care, drug coverage and home care. But the provincial

and territorial premiers say that isn't nearly enough to

alleviate shortages of services, particularly in rural areas.

The system's shortfalls have opened the way for tentative

but growing moves toward privately managed medical services

and user fee in return for quicker service. A hospital in

Montreal has begun charging fees for some surgical procedures

and renting operating rooms to patients for several hundred

dollars an hour. A Vancouver hospital has begun selling full-

body C.T. scans for $860.

In an effort to reduce waiting lists, the provinces of

Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario have established about 30

private M.R.I. and C.T. clinics, some of which offer

nonemergency services to be paid for by private insurance.

``With the system cracking at the edges and waiting lists

growing, people will eventually stay ``all right, let me pay,

said Dr. Tom McGowan, president of Canadian Radiation

Oncology Services, Canada's first for profit cancer radiation

treatment center which has treated nearly 2,000 patients

since it opened in Toronto two years ago. (Patients still pay

nothing at the radiation clinic; Dr. McGowan is paid by the

province and receives bonuses if he surpasses productivity

targets.)

The Ontario provincial government allowed Dr. McGowan to

open his night clinic after it was forced to send 1,650

cancer patients to the United States for radiation treatments

during a 25-month period in 2000 and 2001 because of waiting

lists that were up to 16 weeks long.

Dr. McGowan said the emergency, which cost the province $20

million in travel costs, was not rooted in a shortage of

equipment nor staff but inefficient public management.

Whatever the reasons his patients are quick to tell horror

stories about their waits for diagnostic tests and

treatments.

``Your worst fear is it is going to grow while you are

waiting.'' said Pat McMeekin, a 53-year-old hospital clerical

worker, recalling the two months she had to wait between a

mammogram and the first of two biopsies confirming she had

breast cancer last summer. ``When you have something you want

to take care of it and be done with it.''

Mr. Speaker, at few other times has national security been more important. In the 107th Congress, we enacted many pieces of legislation that sought to strengthen the weakness of our homeland security. That weakness was apparent on 9-11. Yet, Mr. Speaker, a lot remains.

I rise today to address the security of our airline pilots and the fact that there seems to be serious differences in the scope of security that exist between different types of pilots, namely the cargo pilots.

Tens of thousands of cargo pilots are not able to enjoy the same level of security that has been put into place for many of the pilots of our Nation's passenger airlines. Little attention has been given to thousands of cargo jets that dot American skies each day. Terrorists are going to look for the path of least resistance, much like water; and it is merely a matter of time before men realize that their chances for success are higher in the cargo wing of an airport, where security is significantly more relaxed.

With the passage of the homeland security bill, passenger pilots were given the right to carry arms, but for some reason this same security measure has not been afforded to our Nation's cargo pilots.

If compromised, some cargo jets could become significantly more dangerous than those of the planes used on September 11. With increased fuel payloads and oftentimes dangerous cargos in their hulls, the impact from one of these jets would be devastating.

In recent months I have received several letters from cargo pilots in my district. These men and women are concerned that they are not getting the same attention as their passenger airline counterparts.

Cargo pilots fly the skies alone without the protection of Federal sky marshals or the possible support of a flight crew or hundreds of passengers. These pilots are in dire need of a last-ditch defense that will protect the cockpit, their cargo, and potentially thousands of lives on the ground.

The pilots of major cargo carriers, like UPS and Federal Express, are concerned and have voiced the fact that they no longer feel safe. Many of these jets weigh upwards of 800,000 pounds and carry over 50,000 gallons of fuel. The impact created by one of these planes would be unimaginable.

I feel that the message has been sent to potential terrorists who realize this and that we need to do something to protect innocent lives.

The FAA desires one level of security for all pilots, and I feel it necessary we should provide it for the cargo pilots. Political maneuvering by the cargo industry has shielded them from the level of security screening mandated for the passenger terminal. The entire burden for the security of the aircraft rests on two or three pilots who are in that cockpit.

There is little cargo pilots can do to defend the aircraft against a terrorist

attack. Stripping these men and women of the ability to carry firearms in the post 9-11 environment is not right.

It is time that we address this obvious loophole in cargo security. In a maneuver that seemingly took place at the eleventh hour, the word ``passenger'' was inserted in the House bill's provision for arming pilots, and a similar change took place in the Senate version shortly thereafter. The effect of this single-word change is that it exempts all cargo carriers from the Federal mandate to arm pilots in a bill intended to enhance the pilot's ability to protect the airplane.

I feel that this back-room deal defies the initial intent of the bill and the will of our Congress. This body voted overwhelmingly to mandate firearms for all airplane pilots, not just those in the passenger service. We displayed our bipartisan support for this mandate with votes of 310 to 113 in the House and 87 to 6 in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to fix this disparity and close the loophole once and for all so that all pilots in this country enjoy the same level of security.

Mr. Chairman, we talk here about abstinence. We have to look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of abstinence in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda took the first step. It found that through community education efforts, they could develop a strategy to prevent more HIV/AIDS patients; and in fact, a study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards, radio programs, and school sex education curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. So we have proof positive from this study that abstinence works.

When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number had dropped dramatically to 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Uganda adults are not having as much risky sex. Of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in the year 2000. The emphasis is on abstinence in Uganda's program. It is unique all through Africa.

In other nations where HIV infections are high, such as Zimbabwe, condoms have been promoted as an answer to ending the AIDS crisis. But we cannot ignore, we just cannot ignore this study from Harvard or ignore the success of the abstinence program in Uganda.

Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform package we consider today goes a long way in achieving our goal of empowering families, promoting independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. One particular aspect that is of great encouragement to me is that this bill includes $50 million to provide for abstinence education. Educators, health workers, government officials, entertainment and news media outlets bombard children with the wrong messages. It is increasingly clear that unbridled sexual activity is hurting our youth: sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), AIDS, abortion, unintended pregnancy, fatherlessness, crime, welfare, violence and poverty are rampant social diseases. According to a survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, most Americans support abstinence for teens as a way of diffusing these damaging messages.

We need look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of abstinence in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda has found miraculous success by using abstinence as its prevention strategy. A study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards, radio programs and school sex education curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000.

The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were

HIV positive last year, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women. We cannot ignore the success of abstinence programs in our country and throughout the world and for this reason we must explore this option.

Sexual disease and the negative results from unwanted pregnancies cross physical borders, and are a recognizable concern for all nations and all people. This problem can only be addressed through the exploration of proven and effective methods of sexual education. It is time we give serious thought to the unique initiative of abstinence- based health education.

Mr. Speaker, Medicaid is a mounting expense and a source of frustration to beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers. Our States need long-term solutions, not short-term cash infusions. But there is good news. There are regulations in Medicaid, section 1115 waivers. These give States more flexibility to design and implement programs that work. One success story has the potential to save money and even more importantly instill choice into the program.

Florida, Arkansas, and New Jersey have a demonstration project called the Cash and Counseling Program. It permits participants, with minimal assistance, to direct their own health care and manage the funds allocated for their needs. In Florida, it is entirely voluntary for frail elders, the developmentally disabled and physically disabled. The eligible are given their own personal cash allowance to spend on established health care purchases. This is resulting in choice, heightened personal responsibility, and potential cost savings. I commend Governor Jeb Bush for his success and only hope that Cash and Counseling is expanded across this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I am going to quote Sam Johnson's wife. I do not think anybody today has done that. Let me tell my colleagues what Shirley says: ``When he makes up his mind he's going to do something, he doesn't make a big deal of it. He just does it.''

These words, of course, stood true in perhaps one of Mr. Johnson's greatest tests, the hellish 82 months he spent as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. Bound by a faith in God and a love of country, Congressman Sam Johnson is a man who has given 29 years to the United States Air Force, 52 years to his wife Shirley, and a lifetime to his country.

Sam, congratulations on the 30-year anniversary of freedom and patriotism for this country. I am proud to serve with him on the Air Force Caucus, which he helped to start.

Resilient, courageous, steadfast, a patriot, and a friend; Sam Johnson is all of these things to me. He is a man of unwavering commitment to the betterment of this country. As both a statesman and an airman, Sam Johnson has fought both for the sovereignty of democracy and our children's future. From the battlefields of Korea and Vietnam to the Halls of Congress, this ``Top Texan'' has never lost sight of his objective, because in his wife Shirley's words, ``When he makes up his mind he's going to do something, he doesn't make a big deal out of it. He just does it.'' These words of course stood true in perhaps one of Mr. Johnson's greatest test, the hellish 82 months he spent as a prisoner of war at the Hanoi Hilton. Under constant physical and mental duress Sam Johnson never forgot his commitment to his family, his men, and his country. One of the 12 remaining combat tested members of Congress, Mr. Johnson represents an elite club of men who have taken up arms in the defense of our way of life. We gather today to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Mr. Johnson's release from imprisonment and the amazing things he has accomplished in those short 30 years. Bound by faith in God and a love of Country, Congressman Sam Johnson is a man who has given 29 years to the Air Force, 52 to his wife, and a lifetime to his country.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has outlined the reason for this bill, and obviously I support it. It is under the jurisdiction of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to collect the needed fees to maintain such a national registry. It is a very important bill, and as such, I seek all of my colleagues' support this afternoon.

I commend the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission for taking the initiative on this issue, and its hard work in promulgating the recent amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Specifically, the do-not- call amendments. As a Member that has championed consumer information privacy legislation for the past 2 years in my subcommittee, and we have had six hearings on it, I think a national do-not-call list is important. Although small, it is a step towards further enhancing consumers' privacy.

There is no question that I, along with most of my constituents, welcome any effective measure designed to protect us from unwanted telephone solicitations. A national do-not-call list goes a long way in fulfilling our want for a little peace and quiet at the family dinner table. It is important that the national do-not-call list truly be a one-stop shopping experience for the consumer.

As directed by H.R. 395, the Federal Trade Commission must work to ensure harmonization among the myriad of States and Federal telemarketing rules and do-not-call lists. That is not an easy job. As it now stands, I understand that 28 States have their own do-not-call lists, and the Federal Communications Commission may be considering another.

I strongly encourage the FTC chairman, Chairman Muris, to work very closely with the FCC on its national do-not-call registry proposed rulemaking so that if the FCC was to promulgate its own rule, it is substantially harmonized and in agreement

with the Federal Trade Commission rule.

For American consumers to enjoy one-stop shopping when seeking to protect him- or herself from unwanted telephone solicitation, there ought to be a single national registry governed by one set of Federal rules. I think we need a single national list for all interstate calls so there is only one toll-free number or one Web site address and one government agency we, as consumers, need to remember and go to for assistance. Passage of H.R. 395 is an important step in making that possible.

In closing, I reiterate my strong support for an effective national do-not-call list. I think the Federal Trade Commission's do-not-call amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule creating a national registry is a giant step in the right direction and, as such, deserves our support. I urge Members to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 346) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 3 of that Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material in the bill.

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

In the weeks since September 11, 2001, this Nation has mourned, has been angry, has been anxious, and has been very generous in response to the needs of those who were affected. This American spirit has reached record levels and now stands as symbolic as this Nation's greatness and ability to support a just cause, the relief of the victims and their families.

But we have also seen the darker side of humanity. Reports of people using this tragedy and the generous American spirit for their own gain have appeared. Scam artists and frauds know that in the aftermath, Americans are all too eager to help. They also appear in the wake of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other such similar disasters.

The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the States' attorneys general already have some powers to prosecute those engaged in fraud and deceptive practices, but we must make it clear that we will severely punish those who aim to take advantage of America's charity or an organization's good name during such an emergency.

Congress must also make sure that consumers are not inundated with false and deceptive claims about goods and services that would exploit the circumstances of an emergency or of such a disaster. Whether it is selling Cipro and other drugs under false information or offering fraudulent terrorist insurance, these practices must carry a penalty commensurate with their nature. We cannot let stand the detestable actions of so few that mar the pride and patriotism we all share over the phenomenal generosity and outpouring of support from across the United States and world. And we cannot let the fear and anxiety of our citizens be preyed upon by scam artists peddling their cheats and their swindles.

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the victims of any tragedy, their families and their friends and all Americans are as humbled as I am with the response of this country to disasters. Now we need to ensure that those who would abuse this determined American spirit are equally staggered at our response.

The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act would double the penalties that the Federal Trade Commission would levy during times of presidentially declared emergencies and disasters if the offending action aims to exploit the crisis.

These times, Madam Speaker, sadly occur more often than one might think, and the attempts to profit from them follow just as regularly. All hope of profit and gain must be removed from the equation for these people.

I personally would like to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for taking the initiative on this very important bill authoring H.R. 346, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the mark of any great civilization can be measured by those who are willing to put their lives at risk for the advancement of their people. And with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I rise with a grieving heart to commemorate the seven lives lost on the shuttle Columbia. Not since the Challenger tragedy in '86 has America known this sort of loss. In an age where space flight has become second nature, we forget the untold peril that these men and women face with each mission. Bound by bravery and the faith in their mission, these heroes took on risks for the betterment of mankind. These men and women, America and Israel's elite, sought more than personal success, they braved the skies for the greater good, representing the world's strongest space program. But as we grieve the loss of the Columbia's crew, earth's men and women will continue answering the call, placing the mantel of space exploration over their shoulders. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the crewmembers; in our prayers and in our hearts, the men and women of the Columbia will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to congratulate the University of Florida on its 150th year in operation and of course to wish them continued success. It is a great privilege to represent such a fine university. I am proud to say that the University of Florida ranks fourth in the Nation among public universities and 10th among all universities in the number of freshman National Merit Scholars in attendance.

Not only do I have the privilege of representing the university, but also the city in which the university was formed, which also happens to be very close to my hometown. In 1853, the University of Florida began as East Florida Seminary in Ocala, Florida. It was created in response to a State decision which allowed public funds to be used to support higher education. It later combined with Florida Agriculture College, St. Petersburg Normal and Industrial School, and South Florida Military College to become the University of the State of Florida, one of four State universities.

Having been formed before the Civil War, the University of Florida has been a profound player in both Florida and American history. In fact, in World War I, the university served as a base for 400 soldiers. These student soldiers were displaced to local boarding houses as sentries to guard the gates and dormitories on campus.

In the mid-1920s, the State of Florida and the university suffered financial difficulties, along with the rest of the country. The Mediterranean fruit fly crippled the State's citrus production, and the deadliest hurricane to ever hit Florida destroyed what was left of the State's economy. Then a year later, the Great Depression began for the collapse of the stock market. State funds for expansion were virtually nonexistent for nearly 20 years thereafter.

In the Second World War, more than 10,000 UF alumni served this country. William Corry and Hubert Schucht, former student body presidents, were among those killed.

The University of Florida has a rich State and national history and it thrives today as one of the premier State universities in the United States. University of Florida students are among the most active in this Nation. With a 46,500-plus student enrollment and 2,000-acre campus, the campus is a lively and stimulating environment for all of its students.

Students at the university lead a rich social and academic life, which is evidenced by the fact that in a single year there are more than 600 student organizations operating on campus and more

than 2,000 campus concerts, art exhibits, theatrical productions, guest lectures, sports concerts and other events in a year.

With an athletics program rivaled by few Division I-A schools, the University of Florida fields some of the most competitive teams in the country. UF scholar-athletes have dominated in every sporting arena, and it is evident from their dozens of national titles. I am proud of the University of Florida's athletic program and foresee continued success.

I also want to congratulate the University of Florida football team for an admirable season. Gator fans across the country should be excited for this program and their new coach, Ron Zook. Coach Zook has put together an outstanding staff, and I look forward to seeing them back on top of the SEC.

Academic institutions shoulder a great responsibility in the health and progress of local communities. They not only teach young people skills in order to succeed, but also intangible advantages like broad- mindedness and a sense of the world around them. Education is our best defense against hatred and poverty, which is why we must invest in institutions that have a proven record of success.

As any Member of this body would be, I am proud to represent one such institution. I congratulate the University of Florida and President Charles Young and wish the university long-lasting success. God bless.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the efforts of a great team and a strong organization. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are Super Bowl champions and I could not be more pleased for Buc fans across this nation. In an amazing game that pitted the NFL's number one offense versus the league's number one defense, the Buccaneers proved the age-old football mantra that ``offense wins games, but defense wins championships.'' New coach Jon Gruden fielded arguably one of the greatest defenses of all time. Led by captains Derrick Brooks and John Lynch, the Bucs defense stifled the Oakland Raiders and MVP quarterback Rich Gannon. In what has truly been a lesson in resiliency, Bucs fans have had to suffer through an 0-26 start and 14 consecutive losing seasons; but today they are world champions. Owner Malcolm Glazer and coach Jon Gruden have put together a world-class organization and I expect continued success from them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this first day of the 108th Congress to introduce four pieces of legislation that I have been pursuing over the years, and for which I will continue to advocate these next two years.

First, together with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), I introduced bill H.R. 804, a bill to repeal the 2 percent excise tax on private foundations. The United States is blessed with a deep spirit of philanthropy. Charitable organizations serve the interest of both the individual and the community. Private foundations in particular have made measurable differences in the lives of Americans, from access to public libraries, developing the polio vaccine, and even leading in the creation of the emergency number 911. Each and every American has experienced the benefits of the tireless efforts of these foundations. Under current law, not-for-profit private foundations generally must pay a 2 percent excise tax on their net investment income. This requirement was originally enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 as a way to offset the cost of government audits on these organizations. So some 34 years ago, we instituted a tax on these foundations to cover the audit expense. However, when you look at the number of audits that have been performed, particularly since 1990, the IRS audits on private foundations has decreased from 1,200 to just 191. Yet the excise collection during these 31 years has grown from roughly $200 million in 1990 to $500 million in the year 1999.

In addition, private foundations are bound by a 5 percent distribution rule. Foundations must make annual qualifying distributions for charitable purposes equal to roughly 5 percent of their fair market value of the foundation's net investment assets. The required 2 percent excise tax, which is payable to the IRS, actually counts as a credit to the 5 percent distribution rule.

So in a nutshell, what we have here is a private foundation making a charitable grant to the Federal Government every year, and since 1969 the number of audits have gone down; yet the number of charitable foundations has gone up.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Americans have been more than charitable in giving the government their hard-earned dollars. It is time that we begin the process of returning the money to the people and the foundations to which it is intended.

President Bush is working to accomplish that goal with his reduction in tax rates, allowing for the increased use of charitable deductions and credits. My bill goes one step further. It gives those charitable organizations relief from the $500 billion tax that the Federal Government instituted 34 years ago so they can give more of their money back to the people who need it.

I would like to also emphasize that the former President, Mr. Clinton, proposed a reduction in this same excise tax in his fiscal- year 2001 budget. The Treasury Department noted: ``Lowering the excise tax rate for all foundations would make additional funds available for charitable purposes.''

So, Madam Speaker, common sense dictates that the elimination of this tax would increase additional charitable giving. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), for his support on this bill, and for my other colleagues who have graciously recommitted their support. I ask my colleagues to take a look at this piece of legislation.

Next, I am pleased to again sponsor the Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2003. What it does is allow deductions for amounts paid for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. What I am proposing would also provide much-needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction.

As we all know, employers can write off the cost of health care coverage that is purchased for their employees. Why cannot individuals be afforded this same opportunity to write off their premiums and their unreimbursed prescription drug expenses? The current tax code sets a threshold at 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before medical expenses can be taken as a write-off. I do not think this is fair.

Right now, under the current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses the individuals must file an itemized tax return. I believe that all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct these out-of-pocket expenses and costs and that we need to include a place where this deduction could be taken on the short form such as the 1040 EZ, and the 1040A. My bill also applies to the self-employed because although individuals who are self-employed are now eligible for a 100 percent write-off of health insurance premiums, not so with prescription drug expenses.

I believe we must address this issue because so many Americans are uninsured today, and many millions more are underinsured. And, we all end up paying for the uninsured through higher premiums, deductibles and copayments for covered services, higher taxes for uncompensated care, and reduced wages.

Did you know that Americans spends more than $1 trillion on health care? That represents about 13.5 percent of the gross domestic product. By 2008, spending will increase to 16.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Americans spend more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world.

But why are so many people uninsured? Most studies cite cost as a major reason for not having insurance. Many workers decline coverage through their place of employment because they cannot afford to pay their share of the premium. Others, such as temporary workers, cannot afford to purchase their own insurance.

We all know that the cost of health care has risen dramatically over the last 20 years. According to the Health Insurance Association of America, the average major medical premium costs about $ for an individual and about $ for a family. Of that amount, employees pay anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of that premium, typically. Unfortunately, things may get worse in an economic downturn, because many employers cover the cost of the high premiums to keep workers in a tight labor market, and as costs increase employers might pass the cost along to the employees, or in fact discontinue providing health insurance altogether. Further, as unemployment has risen, begins to rise, many individuals have turned to the individual market, and must shoulder the entire cost on their own.

Seniors, in particular, have been impacted because so many HMOs have pulled out of Medicare due in large part to,the high cost of prescription drugs. Allowing a simple write-off of certain costly health care expenses such as health insurance premiums and out-of- pocket expenses for prescription drugs would be a tremendous benefit that may not be available to them under the current system. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues cosponsor my bill. It makes sense to have all taxpayers have this type of deduction available to them.

Turning to our nation's veterans, residing in my home state of Florida, I am sponsoring legislation to establish a national Veterans' Affairs cemetery in Jacksonville, Florida. Florida has our nation's 2nd largest veterans population, and the number one oldest. Nearly 325,000 veterans call home somewhere in the Jacksonville vicinity of three congressional districts. Yet, the closest VA cemetery is at least a three-hour drive from Jacksonville. The next closest in proximity lies in Marietta, Georgia, just north of Atlanta. A new national VA cemetery in Jacksonville would answer this unmet need for north Floridians and southern Georgians. I hope my colleagues will consider cosponsoring this bill, and help provide the dignified, hallowed grounds our veterans deserve.

Finally, I am pleased to reintroduce a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of establishing a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) awareness month. In the 107th Congress, this bill had tremendous support from Members and from the U.S. COPD Coalition, including the patient and provider community. We are so pleased to report that on November 9th, President George W. Bush proclaimed November 2001 COPD Awareness Month. Next, the President sent a gracious letter on October 24, 2002 commending the organizations of the U.S. COPD Coalition for their efforts. COPD is an umbrella term used to describe the airflow obstruction associated mainly with emphysema and chronic bronchitis. This is a debilitating disease, that is currently the nation's fourth leading cause of death. Both conditions decrease the lungs' ability to take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. Long- term smoking--the most common cause of COPD--is responsible for 80-90 percent of all cases, while other risk factors include heredity, second-hand smoke, air pollution, and a history of frequent childhood respiratory infections. Common symptoms of COPD include shortness of breath, chronic coughing, chest tightness, and increased effort to breathe. COPD has no cure, but there are treatment options available to those who have been properly diagnosed.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on all four of these important pieces of business for the nation.