Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I submit this extension of remarks on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague Representative Quigley.

Madam Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to and remember the life of Lawrence J. Suffredin, Sr. He died on November 23, 2009.

Lawrence J. Suffredin, Sr was born on June 1, 1921 at Garfield Park Hospital to Frank and Isola Suffredin. He was the second of their three children, Mary and the late Vincent. He attended Presentation Grade School, Crain High School, and DePaul University.

A true American hero, Larry, Sr. entered the Army in 1942 and served until 1945, with combat service in Africa and Europe. He was awarded a Bronze Star for valor in the face of the enemy, a Purple Heart, and other combat and campaign medals.

After the war, Larry, Sr. was a Chicago policeman, and then he became the ``Printer to South Water Market.'' As the owner of Chicago Produce Publishing Company, he published numerous reports on the Chicago fruit and vegetable market, and published a newspaper, ``The Chicago Fruit and Vegetable Reporter'', 5 days a week from 1955 to 1986. He lived in Westchester, where he and his wife raised their family from 1948 until 2000. He was a founder and former president of Westchester Baseball, a former officer of the Holy Name Society of Divine Infant Parish, former co-president of the Parents' Association of Loyola University, and a former 25 year bingo worker for IHM High School. He married the late Patricia Mulrainey Suffredin on July 6, 1946.

A dedicated family man, Larry, Sr. leaves behind eight children: Lawrence, Jr., Genna, Paul, Susanne, Patricia, John, Peter and Michelle and thirteen grandchildren: Tom, Liz, Courtney, Nicholas, Stephen, Kevin and Morgan Suffredin, Andrea and Daniel Erikson, Erin and Bob Brown and Ethan and Henry Moskal. His wife, Patricia, died in December of 1990.

Wherever Larry went, he brought joy and laughter. His joy will be missed by all.

On behalf of our families, and those lives in our districts that Larry, Sr. touched over the years, we send our deepest condolences to his family and friends. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician ``Payment Reform Act. We recently made history when we passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act and now we must pass H.R. 3961 to guarantee access to physician-provided benefits in Medicare.

As we work to overhaul our flawed system to improve health security for all Americans, we must fix policies that consistently threaten to reduce access to care for seniors and people with disabilities. H.R. 3962 makes substantive improvements to the Medicare program. We lower Medicare drug costs, eliminate cost sharing for preventive services, and strengthen federal oversight on deceptive marketing practices in the Medicare Advantage program. Unfortunately, unless we act, Medicare physicians will face a 21 percent rate cut in less than 2 months. So, too, will physicians serving military members, retiree and families in TRICARE, where rates are linked to Medicare payments.

We need to fix that problem and create a new payment system that will fairly and adequately reimburse doctors. Time and again we have shied away from permanently fixing the Medicare payment system. This is a time for big ideas and bold health care changes. The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3961.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reform that will allow millions of American women to get the health care they need.

This is a great moment in history because today we act to guarantee affordable health care for this and future generations. It is a great day for women. Our bill stops gender rating, preventing insurance companies from charging women 48 percent more than men for the same coverage.

We eliminate preexisting conditions. Being a breast cancer survivor or domestic violence victim will no longer prevent access to care. We require coverage of maternity and well-baby care. We ensure that older women not yet eligible for Medicare can buy affordable coverage.

We improve Medicare. Senior women will be able to afford preventive services like cancer screenings because we eliminate cost-sharing. We close the doughnut hole, so they can afford their medications.

Women need health care reform. They need H.R. 3962.

No matter how many times it is said, our health reform bill does not allow one Federal dollar for abortions.

This Stupak-Pitts amendment goes way beyond current law. It says a

woman cannot purchase, using her own dollars, coverage that includes abortion services. Even middle class women who are using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage, and this is in every single public or private insurance plan in the new health care exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers an abortion, a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman plans an unplanned pregnancy.

This amendment is a radical departure from current law, and it will result in millions of women losing the coverage they already have. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families. It is not about further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care.

This amendment is a disservice and an insult to millions of women throughout the country. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding to me and for her great leadership on behalf of members of our Armed Forces and, in particular, the women.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 868, a resolution to honor women serving in our military and women veterans.

As co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I am happy to be saluting the 350,000 hardworking, brave and dedicated women serving in our Armed Forces. I particularly want to say a special ``thank you'' to the 54,000 women veterans, living in my State of Illinois, for their commitment to our freedom.

Women have logged more than 170,000 tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan; 30,000 single mothers have served their country in those two wars. They have sacrificed time with their families, time from their careers here at home, and many have sacrificed their lives. It is only right that we recognize them in this Chamber today.

Year after year, we have seen the numbers of both women veterans and active duty members increase. Women are in leadership roles, and they have ascended to the highest ranks of our Armed Forces through hard work and often in the face of extreme opposition. We will continue to stand with them.

I am proud to stand in support of House Resolution 868. I urge my colleagues to support the thousands of women servicemembers and veterans by passing H. Res. 868.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 824, a resolution I introduced to congratulate the Northwestern University women's lacrosse team for winning its fifth consecutive national championship.

Madam Speaker, the Northwestern University lacrosse team completed the 2009 season with a record-setting 21-7 victory over North Carolina in the NCAA championship game on May 24. It capped a perfect 23-0 season for head coach Kelly Amonte Hiller and her team, joining the 2005 team as the second undefeated team in school history.

The Wildcats faced numerous challenges in seeking their fifth consecutive championship, yet they rose to meet that challenge each and every time. For instance, when trailing Penn 12-11 with time running out in the first overtime period of the NCAA semifinals, Katrina Dowd flipped a miracle shot over her shoulder while falling to the turf, which somehow scored with 0.2 seconds remaining, tying the game at 12. The team went on to win the game in the second overtime period.

As a team, the Wildcats set NCAA single-season records for points (570) and goals (407), while also leading the nation in draw controls (16.9 per game). Individually, Hannah Nielsen became the NCAA's single- game (10), single-season (83) and career assist leader (224). Sixteen of Northwestern's 23 wins came against ranked opponents, and they were a perfect 10-0 at home, extending their home winning streak to 54, an NCAA record.

In addition to the team honors, six Wildcats were awarded All- American honors by the Intercollegiate Women's Lacrosse Coaches Association (IWLCA) and U.S. Lacrosse. Hannah Nielsen and Katrina Dowd were named to the first team, while Hilary Bowen, Meredith Frank and Danielle Spencer all earned second-team honors and goalkeeper Morgan Lathrop was a third-team selection.

In addition to being successes on the athletic field, this team is a success in the classroom as well. Fourteen members of the team were honored this year as being academic all-Big Ten honorees. The lacrosse team had 14 academic all-Big Ten honorees. And Senior Hilary Bowen was named ESPN the Magazine Women's At-Large Academic All-American of the Year.

Lastly, while this team's intelligence, athletic prowess and determination are evident, I would like to share a story that demonstrates the team's heart and commitment to their community. During the 5-year championship run, the Northwestern lacrosse team has made an enduring and lasting friendship with 10-year-old Jaclyn Murphy. The friendship began as the Wildcats did what they could to raise the spirits of a young girl diagnosed with a brain tumor. Today, that friendship between NU and Jaclyn continues to deepen. After seeing the impact the team had on his daughter, Jaclyn's father Denis started the Friends of Jaclyn Foundation, a non-profit organization created to raise public awareness regarding pediatric brain tumors. To date, over three dozen collegiate and high school teams have ``adopted'' children with brain tumors.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, this team represents our nation's ideal of what the student athlete should be. Not only are the members of this team fantastic athletes and steller students, they are also wonderful people. I would like to recognize all the team members: Bea Conley, Danielle Spencer, Shannon Smith, Katrina Dowd, Rachel Fox, Kim Pantages, Erin Fitzgerald, Lizzie Abramson, Taylor Thornton, Alexandra Frank, Lacey Vigmostad, Colleen Magarity, Samantha Suntulli, Ali Cassera, Amanda Macaluso, Brooke Mathews, Gabrielle Flibotte, Maggie Bremer, Kirstyn Atkinson, Maria Tedeschi, Jessica Russo, Alexa Delyra, Brittany Wilbon, Darby St. Clair-Barrie, Brianne LoManto, and Sara Harrington, as well the coaches Kelly Hiller, Lindsey Munday, Ann Elliot, and Scott Hiller. I feel privileged to represent this team in Congress and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3792, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. Our state receives $75 million in federal Ryan White assistance which provides care to an estimated 10,000 people in the state.

People in Illinois depend on Ryan White Care programs for help with expensive anti-retroviral drugs, to aid them in getting to and from the medical appointments, to prevent transmission from mother to child, and for continued access to dental services through the University of Illinois at Chicago. Throughout the year, I meet with Illinoisans whose lives have been changed because of these services and whose futures would be jeopardized without them. So I am pleased to see that the bill will result in a 4 year reauthorization that will allow states to continue their current programs without disruption to programs currently in operation. I am also glad that the draft continues the extension period for names-based reporting. Illinois is one of the states still transitioning from collecting surveillance data under a code-based system to a names-based system, and the state is grateful for the extended time.

I would also like to acknowledge the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and the many others in the Illinois HIV/AIDS community for being tireless advocates and unwavering resources for me and the 44,000 people living with HIV/AIDS in the state. We could not have accomplished this bill and other important pieces of legislation, like comprehensive health reform without their activism and community organizing.

We have come a long way since the start of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Twenty years ago, someone was diagnosed as being HIV positive and people assumed it was a death sentence. The public was often misinformed about modes of transmission, and the science behind treatment was far more limited than it is today.

Unfortunately, a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the level of attention paid to HIV/AIDS awareness has declined rapidly. The percentage of the American people who say that they have seen or heard or read a lot about HIV/AIDS in the U.S. has fallen from 34% five years ago to just 14% today. The percentage of African Americans reporting has fallen from 62% to 33%.

The public's sense of urgency is down. And yet we learned earlier this year that 3% of the residents in the District are infected with HIV or AIDS, making D.C.'s rates higher than those in West Africa.

Our need to increase prevention efforts and raise awareness about the disease is no less important or any less urgent today than it was when the first cases were diagnosed in 1981. The Ryan White Care Act enables us to continue moving forward with prevention and treatment. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Thank you so much, Mr. Ellison.

I was watching this wonderful Special Order on television. I wanted to share a couple of stories that I have, both from my district and from testimony we have recently had at a committee hearing.

I wanted to tell you about one of my constituents, Marie, who owns a candy store in Wilmette, Illinois. After she and her husband were denied coverage, they were finally able to find a policy that will cost them $1,700 each month in premium and out-of-pocket costs. So how many small business entrepreneurs can afford that, particularly in today's economy?

Or take Jim Kelly of Glenview, Illinois, who works for a small business that can't afford to provide coverage to its workers. Jim and his wife are forced to take, in his words, ``a risk.''

``We are paying cash for our medication and hoping that nothing major happens until we are eligible for Medicare.''

Americans shouldn't be asked to gamble their lives, and I think it is time for solutions.

Then in committee we heard from a man named, let's see, his name is Bruce Hetrick. This was a panel of small business owners. He said, ``You should know that I am a hearing-impaired, migraine-suffering, diabetic cancer survivor who is also the father of a cancer survivor and the widower of a cancer victim. So I have experienced more than my fair share of the American health care system.''

I would add, to say the least. He wasn't whining, believe me. This was a very brave guy. But he wanted to share some of his frustrations.

He said, ``Health care and health coverage inflation is small business' enemy number one. My company pays 80 percent of employee premiums and 50 percent of dependent premiums. That is higher than typical firms like ours, but it helps us attract and retain good people. It also leaves us with a painful choice: Either the cost of health coverage cuts into our profits, or, if we pass it along to our customers, it renders us more expensive.''

Then he gives us an example of something that happened to him.

``My late wife,'' he says, ``Pamela Klein, who was also my business partner, was covered by our company's health insurance. In the last year of her life, the bill charges for Pam's cancer care totaled $300,000. A few months before her death, our health insurance renewal came up. Lo and behold, the quoted increase for the health insurance portion of our benefits plan, just the increase, was a whopping 28 percent. That would have been devastating to our business and our employees. When Pam died just shy of the actual renewal date, I had our rates requoted. With Pam out of the mix, the increase for the very same health insurance coverage was just 10 percent.''

A 28 percent increase reduced to 10 percent because of one person in need of care. That is the kind of thing that small businesses are facing. The underwriting is based on maybe 5, 10, 15 employees. And I wonder what an employer thinks when somebody perhaps with an obvious disability walks in? They have got to be thinking, can I really afford to hire this person? And that is not right in the United States of America.

I have got another one, but I will yield to either one of you to tell us your story.

Okay, let me tell you about Mick Landauer. He owns a small business, and he has been an owner for over 30 years, and one of the perks he offers, to quote him, ``I offer the company's group insurance for those employees who desire coverage. The cost split is on a 50-50 basis, and those costs keep going up.'' He says, ``The rates for employees have been rising tremendously. In order to keep them down, our deductible has been rising instead. Our monthly premiums are now around $400 for an individual, $800 for a family. The deductible is $8,000 for an individual policy and $16,000 for a family plan.

The muffler shop that he owns ``pays for half the deductible with the plan we have now, which is a lot of money.'' He says, ``Last year we had deductibles of $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for a family. Two years ago the deductible was at $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family.'' Then he says, ``I expect deductibles to double once again, with monthly rates going up by $500 or $1,000.

``How can this be, you may ask,'' at the committee hearing? ``It is because one employee was born with a congenital heart disease. He visits a specialist twice a year. A routine visit may cost from $1,200 to $1,500. Any specialized tests will run $10,000 and up. The employee with the heart condition, that is myself.''

This is a business owner. ``The only way I see to keep our monthly rates and deductibles reasonable is by removing myself from the company policy.''

I will not be able to get health insurance anywhere else, as I turned down our company group plan that's available to me. So I ask you, what options do I have? Pay for my own medical costs, in which case I'd be forced to sell the business; quit going to doctors, including the congenital heart specialist; or maybe move to Canada, which has a national health plan and ultimately being forced to sell my business.

Are these the choices that we should give to anyone in our country? I think maybe I'll move to Canada in order to get covered? Or give up my business? This just isn't right. That's why the legislation with the robust public option is the answer for people like this.

I thought you'd be interested in this. We had testimony again in the committee from a man named Fred Walker who said, I thought it was my duty--he told his own story, but then he says, I thought it was my duty to ask friends, family, and mentors their opinion on this issue, and so he's paraphrased some of their responses, he says. Let's see.

Jack Grayson, owner of Seminole Realty, and my cousin who looks after me like a brother, told an unheard story about the 13-year battle his departed wife, Peggy, had with cancer. And I quote, ``The last few years our copays were $3,000 to $4,000 a month, and we had good insurance. What do the less fortunate do?'' Peggy passed in 2000. Jacks says we have to help those who can't afford the proper care.

Bob Howes, my friend and keyboard player, delivers car paint 2 days a week and plays music for money as much as he can to survive. Bob has an ongoing battle with skin care and has run out of options for treatment. He's conceded death within a few years.

Bill Walker, my cousin who is an RN and sells pacemakers for St. Jude Medical Division. Bill travels a lot and likes the French and the Canadian system. Most of my middle-aged, right-wing buddies who live week to week could never afford health insurance. Their clock is ticking and they don't have a plan.

And then he says, I'd like to note that while polling my friends and family on October 15, I finally found someone who is very happy with their health care. Pete and Pat Lamb are dear family friends and over 70 years old. Their combination of Medicare and coinsurance has provided well for them.

So finally, the people on Medicare are the only people he found that were really happy with their health insurance. But we have a bill now that's before us, a couple of days now, 2009, historic year, we're going to be able to, if we do a bill with a robust public option, make sure that every American can afford health care, and we're going to end these horror health care stories.

It works fine. Although, let's remember, you're continuing to pay premiums, often very high ones every single month, even when you don't need it.

You know, women are really discriminated in health insurance. The average woman, 40 years old, pays about 48 percent more for health insurance. And our committee did some research, in the Energy and Commerce Committee Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, and we found that a 21-year-old woman was paying 143 percent more, healthy woman, than a healthy young man of the same age, 21 years old.

I think the worst story I have heard so far is a young woman--it has to do with reproductive--it has to do with what it is to be a woman, and we're discriminated against. And this woman went in and had a--had to have a cesarean section for her baby. Her insurance company told her that if she wanted to maintain her coverage after the cesarean section, she would need to be sterilized. I kid you not. People I've told that to gasp. We have the woman. We can, you know, present her. She's a real living person to whom that happened.

And then, a couple of men who were testifying before our committee, both of them were recommended to get a divorce from their wives so that the wives could go on Medicaid and, therefore, they would get the health care that their--one, a hemophiliac child, and another who had needed a liver transplant. That was the answer that they were given. Get a divorce, and then your wife may, and child may be eligible for Medicaid.

What is going on in the United States of America when one woman is told to get sterilized and two couples are told to get a divorce? The choices, the options are wrong. We need a public option, a robust public option that gives people a choice of a plan that competes with the insurance industry that has brought us to this time of crisis right now. It has to stop.

It's only going to get worse if we don't pass legislation that gives people a real choice, real competition and start to bring some sanity to our non-system of health care in this country.

Absolutely. I think our legislation is going to create incentives for medical students to go into primary care, not necessarily a specialty, and to make sure that we help them afford their medical education, which is so important. Young people going through medical school can end up with tens of thousands of dollars' worth of debt. We want to make sure that it's affordable for young people to go into health care.

And the reason that primary care is so important is then we have the opportunity to keep our people healthy. We can take care of all of those things before they become sort of a crisis that's going to need some sort of surgery or some sort of dramatic or long-term care. So that is built into the legislation. And, in fact, I am going to be

speaking to some medical students this weekend who are very much supportive of our legislation because they know that it will give them an opportunity to go into primary care and be able to make a living and do what our country needs.

At this point, I just want to thank Mr. Ellison, the gentleman from Minnesota, for coming down to the floor and helping to educate our Members of Congress and whoever may be watching about the dilemma that we face right now and how Congress can fix it, that we can gather all of these stories that we've been telling tonight and then work out a plan that actually addresses them. And if we don't take this opportunity to lift the burden of fear, of distress, and sometimes even death from American families, then shame on us.

It is time to act. We have a plan that can fix this problem. And we have just a few more weeks. We've got to do it before the end of this year.

And I just want to thank the gentlemen from Minnesota and from Colorado for contributing to the solution to these problems.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues a letter I recently received from a constituent in Niles, Illinois. He writes:

``As one of your constituents, I urge you to move forward and pass comprehensive health reform, including a public option. I have been self-employed for 18 years. My continued ability to afford medical insurance and health care has been my biggest concern. Without a public option, those of us who do not have an employer-provided medical insurance are at the mercy the insurance industry. As an example, six years ago when I turned 55, my medical insurance premium increased 33 percent in 7 months. Each year I wonder if I will have to give up my business, because I will no longer be able to afford medical insurance on my own.''

We need to pass comprehensive reform this year to give my constituent and other self-employed individuals peace of mind and health security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States and to honor his legacy of heroism and military service. I want to thank Congressman Dennis Kucinich for introducing and promoting this resolution, and the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time to speak.

Casimir Pulaski's contributions to both his homeland and his adopted country are immeasurable. Born in 1747, Pulaski valiantly fought Russian control and domination of his native Poland. However, instead of being lauded for his heroism and his distinguished service toward freedom and independence on behalf of his people, he was forced to flee and became an exile.

Even after leaving Poland, Pulaski remained a voice for just causes and the unwavering spirit of freedom. He joined in colonial America's struggle against the British and fought alongside General George Washington during the Revolutionary War, and as the first commander of the American Cavalry, he became known as the ``Father of the American Cavalry.'' He paid the ultimate price and was fatally wounded during the Battle of Savannah.

Mr. Speaker, Casimir Pulaski is a true American hero who fought and died for independence and freedom that we as Americans enjoy today. He is honored in Illinois with a State holiday in his name, and Chicago has the largest Polish population outside of Warsaw. He is a true American hero. He served our Nation with honor and courage, and I am proud today to support legislation that will finally, over 200 years after his death, grant him honorary citizenship to the country for which he died.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3631, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and hope that we have good bipartisan support for this sensible legislation.

We know that everyone, and particularly seniors who are on fixed incomes, have been hard hit by the worst recession in 70 years. The Labor Department data shows that, for people over 65, 447,000 filed for unemployment in August, which is a 127 percent increase over December of 2007. Over the past year, the number of unemployed workers 75 and older has increased by 33 percent. Why are they even going to work? Because seniors are hurting. They need the money. Now they learn there will be no cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks.

At a time when health care costs are already claiming a big chunk of their Social Security checks and at a time when out-of-pocket costs are rising and they're forgoing much of their needed care, we can't allow their part B premiums to increase. They need help right now.

I strongly support the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and I urge my colleagues to support the senior citizens and persons with disabilities by passing H.R. 3631.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009.

The unemployment rate in my state of Illinois is 10 percent. Illinois' unemployment rate is higher than the national average of 9.6 percent; and within Illinois, the rate in the Chicago area is higher still, at 10.6 percent.

It is true that there are signs the economy is beginning to recover: fewer jobs were lost in August than in previous months. But we still have a long way to go in terms of job creation, and in the meantime, we need to help those who are looking for work but can't find it.

Three hundred thousand Illinoisans have lost their jobs in the last year. Five million Americans have been out of work longer than six months. The bill before us would extend an additional 13 weeks of unemployment compensation for those individuals in high unemployment states who are exhausting their unemployment benefits. With nearly six people out of work for every available job, this assistance is imperative.

H.R. 3548 would help at least 20,000 Illinoisans who are exhausting their benefits by the end of September and more than 50,000 whose benefits would otherwise expire by the end of the year.

Extending unemployment compensation will help job-hunting Americans pay their bills and prevent more foreclosures, further bolstering the economy. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.63 in new economic demand.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3548.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 738, a resolution honoring the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues I am proud to support landmark legislation that shined a light on the problem of intimate partner violence and provided women with the resources needed to escape violent relationships.

This 15th anniversary, we celebrate the tremendous gains we have made in raising awareness about domestic violence and empowering women to leave unhealthy relationships and rebuilt their lives away from their abusers.

President Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act on September 13, 1994, as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill. And over the last 15 years we have made tremendous progress toward ending the cycle of abuse. States have taken up the charge and have passed close to 700 laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As a result, more victims are reporting their abuse and the number of women killed by an intimate partner decreased by 24 percent. The number of comprehensive service program has grown exponentially since the passage of VAMA.

However, we have more work to do. Despite these gains, the anniversary of VAWA reminds us that there are many women and children still living in terror and in constant fear for their safety.

Today, the cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion annually, $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health services. Nearly 1 in 4 women in the U.S. will be abused by a current or former partner at some time in their lives.

We need to continue looking for a wide range of solutions to this problem. We need to devote more resources to helping women and their children begin living healthy and happy lives free of violence.

I am glad we are honoring the legislation on its 15th anniversary and I look forward to reauthorizing the program next year. I hope that we will continue our efforts to protect women from abuse and encourage the building of healthy families.

I urge all of my colleagues to strongly support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the use of massive amounts of human antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes in industrial food animal production is seriously jeopardizing the health of Americans. This practice is contributing to the emergence and spread of antibiotic- resistant bacteria, often rendering ineffective human life-savings drugs.

I am submitting for the record a letter to the White House, signed by twenty reputable organizations such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Pew Charitable Trusts, which supports the Food and Drug Administration's early steps to phase out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and feed efficiency in food animals, and calls on the Administration to go further.

July 24, 2009.

Ms. Melody Barnes,

Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, The White

House, Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Barnes: As organizations committed to protecting

patients, public health, animal health, and food safety, the

undersigned groups are writing to express our grave concern

about the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture and our strong

support for the Administration's new ``public health approach

to antimicrobial use in animals,'' which was articulated by

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its July 13th

statement before the Rules Committee of the U.S. House of

Representatives. The Obama Administration's leadership in

providing a clear path forward on this highly politically

charged issue is very much welcomed after decades of inertia.

Our combined memberships include the country's foremost

scientific and medical experts and represent more than eleven

million concerned Americans and health professionals. Our

position is based on objective health interests and concerns

that dangerous drug resistant infections are rapidly

increasing in hospitals and community settings adding to the

economic burden of the U.S. healthcare costs.

Specifically, we support the FDA's calls for phasing out

the use of antimicrobial drugs for growth promotion and feed

efficiency, and for requiring that all other uses of these

drugs be carried out under the supervision of a veterinarian

and within the boundaries of a valid veterinarian-client-

patient relationship--which we expect will end over-the-

counter sales of tons of antimicrobial drugs annually. We

also support the agency's expressed intent to clearly define

the limited instances where antimicrobials may be used

judiciously in food animals for purposes of disease

prevention and control and are eager to work with FDA to

ensure that the policy developed is the most protective of

public health. We also urge the agency to make the new

antimicrobial policy mandatory, retroactive to already-

approved drugs, and enforceable, in order to best guarantee a

significant reduction in antimicrobial use. The

Administration's statement clearly demonstrates a commitment

to sound and science-based policies that are backed up by

scores of scientific and medical publications and will

protect the health of every American.

The development of antimicrobial agents to treat life-

threatening infections has been one of the most notable

medical achievements of the past century. Physicians,

healthcare professionals, and public health and food safety

advocates are greatly concerned about the growing body of

scientific evidence demonstrating that antimicrobial drug use

in livestock and poultry contributes to the spread of drug-

resistant bacteria to people. Drug-resistant organisms are

plaguing Americans, including otherwise healthy individuals,

in healthcare settings and communities across the country. We

are pleased that these concerns finally are being recognized

and addressed by the federal government to forestall

epidemics of untreatable infections.

Fundamental to FDA's new approach--and our support for it--

are the principles that: ``protecting public health requires

the judicious use in animal agriculture of those

antimicrobials of importance in human medicine'' and that

``purposes other than for the advancement of animal and human

health should not be considered judicious use.''--Dr. Joshua

Sharfstein, FDA's Principal Deputy Commissioner, July 13,

2009.

The Administration's vision to eliminate non-judicious uses

of antimicrobial drugs, including for purposes of growth

promotion and feed efficiency and non-judicious disease

prevention which have been practiced in animal agriculture

for several decades, demonstrates a critical public policy

shift that will better protect the public against resistant

infections and preserve the power of existing antibiotics. In

addition, we urge FDA to formalize its position on veterinary

supervision of all antimicrobial uses and ending the over-

the-counter sale of antibiotics for animal agricultural uses,

which are long-overdue. The sale of antimicrobials for use in

human medicine requires a prescription; there is no reason to

permit a lower standard for agricultural purposes where

considerably more antimicrobial drugs are used annually.

The Administration's new policy direction appears intended

to reflect the concerns of a broad consensus of the

scientific, medical, public health and international health

communities. Such consensus is buttressed by the actions of

expert bodies and governments. For example:

Since 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) has called

upon all nations to shift from use of antimicrobials in non-

human medicine.

In 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National

Academies of Science called on the FDA to ban the use of

antimicrobials for growth promotion in animals, if those

drugs were also used in human medicine.

In 2006, the European Union banned non-therapeutic use of

antimicrobials, because such use was found to raise food

safety concerns, and the ban was instituted to protect

against further development of antimicrobial resistance.

We recognize that phasing out of antimicrobials for non-

judicious uses in animals will require changes in the

agricultural industry. But protection of the public's health

must come first, and the phase out can be conducted in a way

that that minimizes costs to the agriculture industry.

Farmers in Europe have adapted to such a policy without undue

disruption of production or increased consumer costs; the

United States can learn from that experience while also

protecting American lives. In addition, the U.S. Department

of Agriculture has recognized that various production methods

used in the United States today are viable alternatives to

non judicious antimicrobial uses and such alternatives are

employed with little negative--or even with somewhat

positive--economic impact to producers.

We urge you to maintain the scientifically sound positions

the Administration already has taken in support of phasing

out growth promotion and feed efficiency uses, and to

finalize a policy that will strictly manage a narrow set of

prophylactic uses while mandating veterinary-patient

relationships and eliminating the over-the-counter sale of

antibiotics for use in animals.

We remain committed to working with the Administration to

implement these new approaches in ways that will best protect

the lives and health of both humans and animals.

Sincerely,

Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics.

American Academy of Pediatrics.

American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

American Medical Association.

American Pharmacists Association.

American Public Health Association.

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

Association for Professionals in Infection Control and

Epidemiology.

Food Animal Concerns Trust.

Humane Society of the United States.

Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Keep Antibiotics Working.

Michigan Antibiotic Resistance Reduction Coalition.

National Association of County and City Health Officials.

Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.

Premier, a healthcare alliance serving 2,100 nonprofit

hospitals and 58,000 healthcare sites.

Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.

Trust for America's Health.

Union of Concerned Scientists.

I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in creating this bipartisan bill that passed unanimously out of our committee and is so important.

This is very personal to me. My dear friend, Nancy Donley, lost her son, Alex, in 1993, her only child, after he ate ground beef contaminated with E. coli. And we heard testimony from people whose children have died and whose family members and loved ones have become sick and died.

Finally, we are able to pass, in a bipartisan way, an overhaul of our food safety system. And so I am pleased to be able to join in this bipartisan agreement to support this legislation. I am also glad that it includes some language directing the FDA to examine antibiotic resistance as it relates to the food supply. I hope we will continue to move forward.

But I urge all of my colleagues to take this great opportunity so never again do we have to look at a victim, a family member of a victim or someone who has died because food that they believed was safe actually killed them. Let's vote for this.