Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant support of H. Con. Res. 95 because I believe that the cuts contained in the budget resolution, particularly as they relate to healthcare and veterans issues, will have dire consequences for a substantial portion of our nation. However, I will support the budget resolution today to ensure that this process moves forward. I know that last year Congress was unable to pass a budget resolution, and it greatly harmed our ability to move forward and to the work of the American people. It's critical that the House move the budget process forward, with the hope that the Senate will do its share and also pass a budget, which will trigger a conference. It is my hope that after today we will be one step closer to creating a fairer budget that maintains fiscal discipline while still meeting the needs of our constituents.

As a four-year veterans, I have always worked hard to be a vocal advocate for veterans throughout my congressional career. I strongly oppose the provisions in H. Con. Res. 95 that call for approximately $15 billion in mandatory spending programs for veterans. These programs include compensation for service-connected disabilities, survivor benefits and veterans' education benefits. I do not believe that forced budgetary reductions in these important mandatory spending programs are in the best interest of disabled veterans and their families.

While I will vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 95 in order to get the bill into conference with the Senate, I want to make it perfectly clear that I will not support the conference report on the budget resolution or any deeming resolution if it contains these or similar reductions in veterans' mandatory spending and does not provide sufficient funding for veterans' health care programs. Nor will I support the conference report if it contains significant reductions in Medicare funding. Moreover, if the conference report contains these types of reduction, I will do everything in my power to overturn them.

What kind of message are we sending to the men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces, especially those in Iraq, when we cut funding for programs that benefit our nation's current veterans? I want to remind my colleagues of a quote by our first Commander-in-Chief George Washington: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' We must support the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much to keep our nation free.

The Medicaid cuts contained in this budget can not be sustained. The cuts will seriously damage a program depended upon by our most vulnerable citizens. Waste, fraud, and abuse, particularly abuse, do exist but we must have time to excise these problems, without being forced into mandatory programmatic reductions. Also, we must realize that each of our States will be particularly hit hard by these cuts.

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that we can strike a balance that will provide tax relief to American families, fund our national priorities, while still achieving a balanced budget. I refuse, however, to do so on the backs of some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens; and I declare that I will consider myself bound by this resolution should the House and Senate fail to pass a joint budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 5. I believe that the sensible reforms contained in this bill will go a long way toward alleviating the medical liability insurance crisis many States are facing and will also help prevent future crises from occurring.

On Tuesday of last week, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, which I chair, approved H.R. 5, which was subsequently approved by the full committee on Thursday. In both cases, approval was by voice vote. The severity of the current crisis has necessitated that we act now. I would note that our committee has held numerous hearings over the past year to explore this issue and consider potential solutions.

That is why I continue to be disappointed with the rhetoric surrounding this debate. As chairman, I had wanted to focus a good deal of our last subcommittee hearing on how the insurance industry sets medical liability insurance premiums. In fact, the majority invited both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Physician Insurers Association of America to come testify at our hearing. Unfortunately, in spite of all the rhetoric on insurance, unfortunately the minority did not invite any insurance witnesses. Instead, they once again played politics, including inviting a witness to discuss something called Proposition 103, which he claimed is the real reason why California has been largely insulated from the current crisis. That struck me as somewhat odd, considering that the organizations working to defeat H.R. 5 never mentioned this ballot initiative during our debate on H.R. 4600 in the last Congress, even though this initiative passed in 1988.

What this tells me is that many people would rather play politics than work towards a real solution. I respect that some Members may feel that it is never appropriate to place any limit on subjective, unquantifiable, noneconomic damages regardless of the cost to the health care system. However, I do not respect those who will do or say anything to derail this process. I am voting for this bill because by doing so I am moving us one step closer to a solution. The medical community and the patients they serve demand it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 399, the Organ Donation Improvement Act of 2003. This bipartisan bill was unanimously approved by the Committee on Energy and Commerce in February, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the great need for donated organs and tissue. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, there are 80,791 people currently waiting for a transplant. Sadly, only 18,693 individuals had received a transplant as of September 2002, and more than 4,500 Americans died, died while on the waiting list.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is hope. Living donors represent a growing segment of the total organ donation pool. In fact, living donors represented over half of all donors in the first 9 months of 2002. That is why H.R. 399 authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants for the purpose of covering travel and subsistence expenses incurred by living organ donors. While the decision to become a living organ donor is an intensely personal one, I feel that it is our responsibility to remove any financial barriers that might prevent someone from making the gift of life.

H.R. 399 also provides the Secretary with $10 million in new grant authority to assist State governments and public and nonprofit private entities in developing innovative initiatives designed to increase organ donation rates, including living donation. I am hopeful we will learn some valuable lessons from these demonstration projects that we will be able to apply on a national scale.

H.R. 399 is widely supported, Mr. Speaker, by the transplant community. Organizations supporting my bill include the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the United Network for Organ Sharing, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the National Kidney Foundation, the American Liver Foundation, the North American Transplant Coordinators Organization, the Patient Access to Transplantation Coalition, and the Eye Bank Association of America.

Mr. Speaker, while I would never suggest that this bill encompasses every meritorious idea to increase organ and tissue donation, it is a very good bill and takes a positive step forward in our effort to ensure that every American has access to a donated organ or tissue when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 663) to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely affect patient safety, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 663, the legislation under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first commend the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), minority leaders on that committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, in helping us bring forward this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill. This is a critically important bill which we refer to as the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and I look forward to its favorable consideration by the House today.

I know most Members are well acquainted with the disturbing frequency and devastating impact of medical errors. Unfortunately, recent events have once again attached a human face to the horrible reality that, sometimes, even the best health care professionals make mistakes.

The work of the Institute of Medicine in this area helped increase the public's focus on this problem, as well as potential solutions. One of the many recommendations that the IOM made in its 1999 report, which they called ``To Err Is Human,'' was that Congress should enact laws to protect the confidentiality of information collected as part of a voluntary medical error reporting system. That IOM recommendation represents the foundation of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act.

Specifically, H.R. 663 defines a new voluntary medical error reporting system whereby the Secretary of Health and Human Services will certify a number of private and public organizations to act as patient safety organizations, PSOs. These patient safety organizations will analyze data on medical errors, determine their causes, and develop and disseminate evidence-based information to providers to help them implement changes that will improve patient safety. H.R. 663 provides peer review protections to the documents and communications providers will submit to patient safety organizations, which we hope will encourage the exchange of this important information.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill will help us move from a ``culture of blame'' to a ``culture of safety'' and ultimately increase patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act is the product of excellent, bipartisan work. I urge Members to join me in supporting it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the full committee, who is more responsible for this piece of legislation than any of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is with a profound sense of disappointment that I rise today to speak about the breakdown of the United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks at the Hague this week.

Responsibility for this unfortunate setback in the peace process rests largely with one man, Mr. Rauf Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader who rejected U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's plan to end the 29-year division of Cyprus. A large share of the blame also rests with the Turkish military and hard-line nationalists in Ankara, who have maintained the illegal Turkish military occupation of Cyprus since Turkish troops invaded the island in 1974. If the government of Turkey were sincere about settling the Cyprus problem, they could have put the necessary pressure on Mr. Denktash to say yes to the U.N. plan.

In sharp contrast to Mr. Denktash, the newly-elected President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, said yes to a public referendum on the Secretary General's plan. His response is consistent with years of efforts by the government of Cyprus to try to negotiate in good faith to reunify the country, efforts that have been consistently rebuffed by the separatist Turkish Cypriot regime.

The U.N. peace process, which is strongly supported by the United States and the international community has sought to reunite Cyprus as a single sovereign bicommunal federation. With Cyprus poised to join the European Union in May 2004, Secretary General Annan chose to get personally involved in bringing the two sides together, asking the two leaders to put the U.N. plan before their people in a referendum. President Papadopoulos said he was prepared to do so. But, unfortunately, Mr. Denktash was not prepared to agree to put the plan to a referendum. It is a shame that the Secretary General's personal diplomacy was met by this kind of flat-out rejection.

In fact, it is the Turkish-Cypriot community which has held unprecedented public demonstrations in favor of the U.N. plan who will be the major victims of Mr. Denktash's intransigence, cut off from benefits of the EU membership that the rest of the island will enjoy.

Despite this failure, Madam Speaker, I praise President Papadopoulos for stressing that the Greek-Cypriot side will continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the EU.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has just been fantastic on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, underlined, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. In particular, I would like to lend my strong support to provisions in the welfare bill that our committee included in the package last year, and I am speaking, of course, of the abstinence-only education funds which are provided through title V of the Social Security Act and a 1-year extension of transitional medical assistance.

Last year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a 5-year reauthorization of the title V abstinence-only education funding, and I am pleased to see that this language is again included in this year's reauthorization of welfare reform. This important program provides $50 million in annual funding to States for abstinence education. These abstinence-only education funds were first included as part of the 1996 welfare reform law; and today, 49, 49 of the 50 States have elected to participate in this very important program.

I am pleased that my own State of Florida has elected to participate also. In fact, during my subcommittee's hearing last year, we heard just how effective these programs can be. Participants in ReCapturing the Vision, a program that operates in an impoverished area of Miami- Dade County, have only a 1.1 percent teen pregnancy rate, a 1.1 percent teen pregnancy rate.

By continuing title V funding for another 5 years, we can encourage the development of more successful programs like ReCapturing the Vision. This is so critically important, because the consequences of ill-advised sexual activity by young people is certainly severe. As we all agree, abstinence is the only sure way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases as well as out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

The bill also reauthorizes the Transitional Medical Assistance program, or TMA. TMA ensures that low-income individuals who are leaving welfare and entering the workforce will continue to have access to health insurance for an additional, let us be clear, for an additional year past, past when they would normally become ineligible for Medicaid. This removes a powerful disincentive to leaving welfare and provides numerous low-income individuals with critical support as they work towards economic self-sufficiency. This provision is even more important today as we see the number of uninsured increasing.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. It has been proven, it has worked, and we have to continue it.

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia and its crew of seven were lost during Columbia's re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Like many Americans, I am deeply saddened by this national tragedy, and my prayers and condolences go out to the families of our fallen astronauts.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been sending crews to space and the moon for over four decades, and space flight has long been accepted as ``routine.'' However, space exploration continues to be dangerous endeavor as there is risk associated with each space flight. The crew of the Columbia bravely accepted these dangers and faced them for the benefit of all.

Since its creation in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space. As a nation, we can be inspired by the scientific advances accomplished through space exploration. Discoveries made through space research benefit both space science and the quality of our lives on Earth. Just a few examples include laser surgery, computer bar codes, smoke detectors, pacemakers, and water purification.

These amazing developments could not have been accomplished without the brave men and women who perform experiments in space. Though this is a terrible tragedy, we must keep looking forward. NASA and space research will continue to better the everyday lives of people, and the dreams of present and future space explorers will lead to benefits for everyone on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for this resolution and salute the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for winning Super Bowl 37.

The Buccaneers have proven themselves through the years. From their humbling 0-26 start in 1976 and winless first season and a half, the Bucs have evolved into a force with which to be reckoned--the Champions of Super Bowl 37.

As a Bucs season ticket-holder and longtime resident of the Tampa Bay area, I am proud to have witnessed the years of change and hard work that culminated in Sunday's triumph over the Oakland Raiders.

Former Coach Tony Dungy deserves much of the credit for this victory. He changed the character of the team by instilling in them a focus on community, character, and leadership. His hard work, and that of many other coaches, players and team staff, created the solid foundation upon which today's Super Bowl Champion Buccaneers stand.

The youngest coach ever to win a Super Bowl, Jon Gruden has built upon that foundation and continued the legacy of hard work and responsibility. I commend him for leading the Bucs to their first-ever Super Bowl appearance and victory. The Buccaneers paid a hefty price for Coach Gruden, but it was a price well worth paying, because football's ultimate treasure, the Lombardi Trophy, is where it belongs--in Tampa Bay.

Certainly, no congratulatory speech would be complete without honoring the players themselves. Coming into the game as the underdogs, the Buccaneers stayed the course and fought hard to secure their championship. An outstanding defensive effort prevented the Raiders from gaining momentum. Tampa's defense returned three of a Super Bowl record five interceptions for touchdowns, dashing any hopes Oakland may have had in winning the title of World Football Champions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent part of the Tampa Bay area and to be here today to offer my congratulations to Coach Gruden and the players. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution honoring the Buccaneers for their hard work and their well-deserved Super Bowl title.