Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill has one huge flaw that even its proponents concede: that the benefits, if any, flow directly to the insurance companies, not to the doctors. Therefore, I tried to perfect this bill. During the Committee on Energy and Commerce markup, I offered an amendment to ensure that the savings from the bill's caps on damages for patients' pain and suffering would be passed along to the doctors in the form of reductions in their liability insurance premiums. Every Republican voted no. They each voted with the insurance industry.

This bill deserves to be defeated, as long as there is no effective guarantee that savings from the bill's caps on damage will go not to doctors, but to the insurance industry.

This bill claims to be a cure for the high cost of insurance premiums paid by doctors, but it is really just insurance for insurance companies. It is a public policy placebo that only offers the illusion of relief from sky-high insurance premiums, while pumping cash into the bottom line of insurance companies.

Capping damages may save insurance companies money when their policyholders are sued, but the bill does not require insurers to pass along one cent of savings to the doctors so that they can stay practicing in local communities across this country.

We can all agree that health care liability insurance is a critical issue that has significant impact on patients, on doctors, on insurance; but

this bill leaves out one critical link: the doctors who will not receive the benefits of the lower premiums that have been promised.

Vote ``no'' on this gag bill that does not allow for a full debate on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for all of the gentleman's excellent work on this legislation.

This is the kind of thing that kind of mystifies the American public sometimes, they do not understand that 80 percent of everything that we do, we agree. Most of the time they only focus on the 20 percent where we disagree. For the vast majority of issues, there is a consensus in terms of what our country should be doing and where we agree. Today I am proud, with these other great Members, to offer this resolution to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Association Week in honor of the army of health care heroes, who every day comfort, care for and assist our loved ones.

I appreciate the support and the dedication of the Visiting Nurse Associations. Every Member of Congress does, as does every American. Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled and the elderly benefit most from health care when it is offered in their own homes.

They are nonprofit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services.

Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing health care into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year.

In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, visiting nurse associations have continued to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years.

When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the keep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession, the visiting nurse. He wrote of her as he could have written of every other visiting nurse. ``Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, whe'ever is spoken a noble thought, our hearts, in glad surprise, to higher levels rise.

``The tidal wave of deeper souls into our inmost being rolls, and lifts us unawares out of all meaner cares.''

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to say my own thank you to our Visiting Nurse Associations. Through their work and their philosophy of nursing, they teach us every day about human kindness, the strength of human character, and the true definition of what it means to care. I thank them for their sharp minds, their watchful eyes, their nerves of steel; and, of course, their hearts of gold.

In recognition of their hard work and dedication that visiting nurses bring to the nursing profession, and the comfort and quality care that they provide to patients, I ask Congress to please support this resolution to set aside one week each year to recognize and honor visiting nurses across the country. Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, each of us owes them an enduring debt.

Mr. Speaker, today Representative John Peterson and I are introducing a bill to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Association Week during the second week of May in honor of the army of health care heroes who, every day, comfort, care for, and assist our loved ones. Modern society takes for granted the need for nursing as an indispensable component of our public health system, but this was not always the case. The very concept of a visiting nurse can be traced to the pioneering work of Florence Nightingale. She reformed British military hospitals in the Crimean War through an expose in the British press, she professionalized nursing and made it an acceptable profession for educated women, devoted the rest of her life to building on her experiences, setting standards and writing books, until the mission of nursing had gained the respect of the world.

When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the deep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession. He wrote:

Whene'er a noble deed is wrought,

Whene'er is spoken a noble thought,

Our hearts, in glad surprise,

To higher levels rise.

The tidal wave of deeper souls

Into our inmost being rolls,

And lifts us unawares

Out of all meaner cares.

The Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled, and the elderly benefit most from healthcare when it is offered in their own homes. They are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing healthcare into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year. In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, visiting nurse associations have continue to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years.

It is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide their patients. Moreover, visiting nurses also are an indispensable lifeline for families. The comfort and quality care that visiting nurses provide can help family members cope with the difficulties of a loved one's illness.

I am proud to be introducing this important legislation with my colleague Representative Peterson and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting National Visiting Nurse Association Week.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to introduce legislation that would permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge from development. The Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act of 2003 honors an extraordinary environmentalist by protecting, in his name, this extraordinary piece of America's wilderness. And we are proud of the fact that begin this battle in the 108th Congress with more original cosponsors than in any other previous Congress--133 upon introduction-- a testament to the growing national demand to keep the developers out of this precious wilderness and to preserve it in its current pristine, roadless condition for future generations of Americans.

We have a bipartisan legacy to protect, and we take it very seriously. It is a legacy of Republican President Eisenhower, who set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It is a legacy of Democratic President Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It is the legacy of Republican Senator Bill Roth and Democratic Representative Bruce Vento and especially Morris Udall, who fought so hard to achieve what we propose today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness proposal through the House. Now is the time to finish the job they began now is the time to say ``Yes'' to setting aside the Coastal Plain as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness Preservation System.

The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge ecosystem and critical to the survival of caribou, polar bears and over 160 species of birds. When you drill in the heart, every other part of the biological system suffers.

This Valentine's Day, the oil industry is in a state of lobbying frenzy to give Cupid a bad name. It wants to pierce the heart of the Arctic Refuge with oil wells and drill bits, all the while calling this an act of environmental friendliness. The industry loves the Refuge so much that it wants to brand it with scars for a lifetime.

Turning the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial footprint would not only be bad environmental policy, it is totally unnecessary. According to EPA scientists, if cars, mini-vans, and SUV's improved their average fuel economy just 3 miles per gallon, we would save more oil within ten years than would ever be produced from the Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once! In 1987, the fleetwide average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon, but in the last 13 years, we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we first reached in 1981! Simply using existing technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more--five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the Refuge.

Our dependence on foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by drilling for oil in the United States. We consume 25 percent of the world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves. 76 percent of those reserves are in OPEC, so we will continue to look to foreign suppliers as long as we continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and as long as we continue to fuel them with gasoline.

The public senses that a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a loser. Why sacrifice something that can never be re-created this one- of-a-kind wilderness simply to avoid something relatively painless-- sensible fuel economy?

Is it any wonder its credibility with the American public has sunk to new lows? According to poll after poll after poll, preserving this public environmental treasure far outweighs the value of developing it. The latest poll, done by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican pollster Christine Matthews, shows a margin of 62-30 percent opposed to drilling for oil in the refuge. The public is making clear to Congress that other options should be pursued, not just because the Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where continuing to put a polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a recipe for failure.

That's the kind of thinking that leads not just to this refuge, but to every other pristine wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet another drop of oil. And it perpetuates a head-in-the-haze attitude towards polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and continuing our reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable future.

If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, we will have failed twice--we will remain just as dependent on oil for our energy future, and we will have hastened the demise of an irreplaceable wildlife habitat.

We have many choices to make regarding our energy future, but we have very few choices when it comes to industrial pressures on incomparable natural wonders. Let us be clear with the American people that there are places that are so special for their environmental, wilderness or recreational value that we simply will not drill there as long as alternatives exist. The Arctic Refuge is federal land that was set aside for all the people of the United States. It does not belong to the oil companies, it does not belong to one state. It is a public wilderness treasure, we are the trustees.

We do not dam Yosemite Valley for hydropower.

We do not strip mine Yellowstone for coal.

And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge.

We should preserve it, instead, as the magnificent wilderness it has always been, and must always be.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative Waxman in co-sponsoring the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003''.

The smallpox vaccine helps the body develop immunity to smallpox. The vaccine is made from a virus called vaccinia which is a ``pox''-type virus related to smallpox. The smallpox vaccine contains the ``live'' vaceinia virus--not dead virus like many other vaccines. For that reason, the vaccination site must be cared for carefully to prevent the virus from spreading. Also, the vaccine can have side effects such as fever and body aches to much more serious and life-threatening side effects. People most likely to have serious side effects are: people who have or had skin conditions (especially eczema or atopic dermatitis) and people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have received a transplant, are HIV positive, are receiving treatment for cancer, or are currently taking medications, such as steroids, that suppress the immune system. In addition, pregnant women should not get the vaccine because of the risk it poses to the fetus. Women who are breastfeeding should not get the vaccine. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions to the vaccine. It is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result. Careful screening of potential vaccine recipients is essential to ensure that those at increased risk do not receive the vaccine.

The Administration's smallpox vaccination program began on January 24, 2003 with a much lower participation than expected and lower than is needed to adequately protect our nation against a bioterrorist threat. The low participation rate is due to the Bush Administration's failure to create a compensation program for the health care workers who will be injured by the smallpox vaccine. The Institute of Medicine reported that the lack of a compensation program could seriously impact the program's goal of increasing terrorism preparedness in the United States. The Administration has included protection for the vaccine manufactures and hospitals but seems to have forgotten the people who could suffer the most--the volunteers who are performing their patriotic duty by volunteering to participate in the vaccination program.

We need legislation which includes funding to states to provide for education, screening, medical surveillance, and treatment; protection against discrimination in the workplace, and compensation for those harmed by adverse reactions. The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' creates a no-fault compensation program modeled on the existing childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program has been extremely beneficial in providing compensation to the families and children who have been injured or suffered by routine vaccination. Smallpox vaccine compensation will cover the people vaccinated or who are injured by coming into contact with someone who has recently been vaccinated for their unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages.

In addition the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will establish state grants to help with the costs of a safe vaccination program which includes pre-screening, education, follow-up care, and health care for people experiencing side-effects. This legislation would provide medical leave for health care workers and first responders who get sick from the smallpox vaccine and will make it unlawful to discriminate against workers who opt not to participate in the vaccination program.

The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will help to establish a safer vaccination program and provide a safety-net for the inevitable injuries due to vaccination. Ultimately, this should enhance participation in the Smallpox Vaccination Program and help reach the goal of preparedness against a bioterrorist smallpox threat.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and all of the members of the majority and minority for coming together to work out a very important piece of legislation.

This is a bill which I think is long overdue and is going to be very well received in every single home across our country, because the legislation authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, after its recent decision, to create a national telemarketing do-not-call database. This do-not-call database proposal is a winner for millions of consumers who are plagued by unsolicited commercial telemarketing calls at home or on their mobile phones, and it is important that we give the Federal Trade Commission the support it needs to implement this new policy as soon as possible, and that is what we are doing today here on the House floor.

The bill the House considers today permits the Federal Trade Commission to proceed on a timely basis and begin implementation of the database process this year while also ensuring that the Federal Communications Commission finally gets its regulatory task done so that no major corporate telemarketing loopholes remain.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Every Member who has worked on this legislation deserves a lot of credit. After having first proposed a national do-not-call database registry in legislation that the Congress successfully enacted in 1991, I believe its implementation is action that is long overdue. Consumers across the country will finally be able to put an effective ``no soliciting'' sign on their home phone or cell phone and bring to a halt the seemingly nightly ritual of phone calls interrupting dinner or precious family time. Those telephone rings invade the tranquility of the home and the do-not-call database will help consumers restore peace.

Rather than having consumers act as veritable slaves of those rings, forced to get up and to answer insistent and incessant telemarketing calls time after time, the do-not-call database will effectively make consumers the ``Lord of the Rings.'' They can put an end to those calls. They can protect their own domain.

Consumers have waited a long time for the benefits of the same digital and telecommunications technology that has so advanced the ability of telemarketers to efficiently and cost-effectively reach consumers to also be harnessed on behalf of consumers to help them address legitimate privacy concerns.

I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) over there. There are Members on the left and right, Democrat and Republican, that want privacy in their own homes. This has no ideology. Every American believes they have that inherent right.

Finally, I want to commend Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris for his pro-consumer action in promulgating the FTC's recent do- not-call rules, as they will give the consumers who are often plagued by unwanted, intrusive, unsolicited telemarketing a powerful new tool in which to battle such intrusions. Again my congratulations to everyone who worked on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

How many of us when we were young dreamed of being an astronaut, to be one of

those brave humans who left the Earth to explore the mysteries of space? The seven heroic men and women we remember today, Rick Husband, David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, Kalpana Chawla, Ilan Ramon and Willie McCool, lived the dream.

They came from around the world and from every background to work together for the furtherance of mankind's quest of knowledge. These astronauts were on a mission of science, one designed to expand our knowledge of fire, reproduction, construction techniques, prostate cancer, improved crop yields, better drugs, and astronaut health as well as studying the Sun, the Earth, and space by conducting nearly 60 different experiments during their 16-day mission.

While we mourn their sudden loss, we must also prepare to use the knowledge gained both during their mission and from their tragic deaths to help those here on Earth and to prevent such accidents in the future.

Hopefully, last weekend's tragic events will mark not the end of the Space Program, but a new beginning. We will go through a process of investigation, self-examination, and reflection about what happened. But out of that process hopefully will emerge a strengthened U.S. and international space program. We will rededicate our selves and our nation to achieving NASA's mission of advancing the state of human knowledge about outer space, our solar system, and our universe. As the same time, as we continue to explore space, we must determine as best we can the cause of last week's disaster, so that we can make the changes and reforms needed to ensure astronaut and mission safety in the future.

Finally, I would like to extend my sympathies to the families and friends of the seven astronauts. The thoughts and prayers of a grateful nation are with you at this very difficult time. Your loved ones did not die in vain. They died doing something that they loved, but they also died doing something aimed at advancing the frontiers of human knowledge.