Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, but I also stand to say that the legislation should be expanded to address not only college graduates but also students who are in college now and struggling with the weight of mounting tuition and expenses--or families that are considering college for their high school children.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this month that average tuition and fees at four-year colleges have increased by 38 percent in recent years. ``Tuition inflation'' far exceeds inflation in the general economy, and is pushing the dream of a college education away from too families and students. For too many parents and too many children, college simply isn't an option because it's not affordable.

That's wrong. But while H.R. 5 would aid college graduates, it would do nothing to help today's college students or families that are struggling to pay for their children's college expenses. H.R. 5 does not address the growing barrier that restricts access to higher education and new opportunities.

That's a missed opportunity--not only for this House but also for the families who cannot afford their children's college tuition and fees.

As H.R. 5 is considered in the Senate and later in the legislative process, it is my desire that its scope include not only college graduates but also current and prospective college students--and their families.

It is my further desire that the legislation should not hamper competition and restrict access to student loans for future graduates.

During the last six years, Congress increased spending on federal student aid by 57 percent. Funding for Pell Grants increased by nearly 50 percent. These programs have helped college graduates and current students.

It is my hope that before we vote again on H.R. 5, its scope is expanded to address the urgent needs of prospective and current college students, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today we are hearing a lot from the proponents of H.R. 4. We are hearing a lot of misinformation and lot of rhetoric, and I think some of these things need to be corrected for the record.

The biggest misconception is that the buying power of Medicare patients is currently unused, and that somehow this new plan is the only way to leverage lower prices for prescription drugs. In fact, prescription drug plans under Medicare part D right now are aggressively negotiating discounts; they have been before part D, and they continue to do so very well since the program's inception and they are going to continue to look to negotiate lower prices. They have been negotiating and giving beneficiaries choices and access to the newest breakthrough therapies.

Through Medicare part D, in its current form, beneficiaries have access to over 4,000 prescription medications at a much lower cost than previously estimated when we passed this legislation a few years ago. CMS has indicated that beneficiaries are saving an average of $1,200 annually on their drug costs.

Program costs are an estimated 30 percent less in 2006 and 21 percent less over the next 10 years due in large part to competition and negotiating of lower drug costs.

Currently, Medicare prescription plans have the discretion to use cost-containment tools. They can use formularies, and many of them do. Unlike Medicaid and the VA, Medicare beneficiaries actually have the power to choose which plan they want. If they see a plan with a formulary they like or don't like, they can choose or not choose that based on their own discretion; but if Medicare or the government, as prescribed under this bill, under H.R. 4 and its required mandatory negotiations, it will have to impose a uniform restriction on medicines, patients will lose their choices, and they will be stuck in a one-size-fits-all plan. They will be stuck with a restrictive national formulary and no choices whatsoever.

You have to be hiding under a rock recently if you have missed the numerous experts that are telling us that this brand of negotiation will limit choice and will not save money. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3248, the Lifespan Respite Care Act. This important bipartisan legislation will for the first time establish a national policy to help our Nation's 50 million family caregivers, including 900,000 New Jersey family caregivers who provide daily care for their loved ones with disabilities and chronic conditions or illnesses.

Instead of an institutionalized setting, in-home family caregivers provide minute-by-minute special assistance to a loved one with a disability or a critical illness or a chronic condition. Mr. Speaker, family caregivers are remarkable people. They make extraordinary sacrifices to help those whom they love so dearly. I saw one such example firsthand almost 10 years ago when my mom was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. For 6 years, my dad cared for her as she battled cancer.

She lived longer than any of her doctors thought she would, and since she went to heaven 3\1/2\ years ago, our family has looked back on those extra monuments we had with our mom, and we treasured them, knowing that it was my dad's love and care which helped to make them possible.

There are tens of millions of family caregivers in this country who provide the same loving and compassionate care that we saw my dad provide for my mom near the end of her life. In our family we were fortunate to have a support structure of relatives and friends who were able to provide a break for my dad when he really needed one. That respite was crucial for him. For him to stay healthy himself, it enabled him to provide better care for my mom.

But there are countless caregivers around this country who are not blessed with that built-in support structure, and they are desperately in need of a break from time to time. Because while the benefits of in- home care can be significant for the family, compared with institutionalized care, the cost for the family caregiver, from emotional to financial, can be enormous.

All across the country there are people like Karen Pinter of Hillsborough, New Jersey, providing in-home care. Karen provides round the clock care for her 10-year-old autistic daughter, Jessica. For Mrs. Pinter, respite means receiving $40 once a week from the New Jersey Family Support Center so that she can hire a tutor for her daughter.

With a tutor, Karen Pinter can take a much-needed break so she can do simple things for herself and for her family that many of us take for granted, like writing out that week's grocery list or preparing dinner or paying bills or simply taking a break for herself.

Respite for Eugenia and Roger Gore of Scotch Plains, New Jersey, helps their family to make ends meet. Their family uses respite hours so their 13-year-old autistic son can attend an extended-day program at school so Mrs. Gore can work outside the home to help further support their family.

Now the Gore family uses their respite funds to enable Mrs. Gore to work outside the home. This helps alleviate a financial burden, but it does not allow their family the break that respite oftentimes would. Even as they applied to the State of New Jersey for support for some respite hours on a weekend so they could get that much-needed break for grocery shopping or to attend one of their other son's athletic games, unfortunately they were denied.

For caregivers providing intense and exhausting care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, the occasional short break can literally be a lifesaver. That is what respite care is. It is providing a break for caregivers.

Mrs. Pinter has told me that caring for a special needs child can be very joyful. It can also be very challenging, and she is right. Family caregivers suffer poor health and even higher mortality rates than non- family caregivers, according to some recent studies. For example, mortality rates among older caregivers are 63 percent higher than among older non-caregivers. Two-thirds of family caregivers report physical or mental health problems that are linked to their care giving.

Nationally, there is no coordinated approach that exists among different levels of government or advocacy groups to help those who need respite care to find it and to qualify for it and to pay for it.

The problem is that respite care is in short supply or it doesn't exist at all in some areas. This legislation that we are considering today would change that. The Lifespan Respite Care Act would improve coordination and access for respite care and recruit and train respite care providers. With $289 million over the next 5 years, the bill would also aid family caregivers in finding and paying for respite services through competitive grants to States to make quality respite care available and accessible, regardless of age or disability or family situation.

National and grassroots advocacy groups, including the AARP, Alzheimer's Association, Epilepsy Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy, they all support this legislation.

Why does this legislative effort have such strong support from such reputable organizations and many others? Because we know respite care works. Respite care improves the health and well-being of caregivers and reduces the risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, it also delays or even avoids more costly hospitalizations or placements in nursing homes or foster care.

Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years I have been working tirelessly with many of our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Chairman Barton for his support and the ranking member of our committee, Mr. Dingell. I want to offer a special word of thanks to Chairman Nathan Deal for his support of this bill. I know his heart is very close to this effort. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, as well for his strong support of this legislation.

I also want to thank the over 180 national and State and local organizations who, under the direction of the National Respite Coalition and its chair, Jill Kagan, who is here in our Chamber today with us, we have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Nation's family caregivers on this issue. I want to thank Tom Fussaro from our staff in our office, and Eric Joyce from the Family Resource Network and the Epilepsy Foundation of New Jersey. And I particularly want to thank Mr. Langevin, the gentleman from Rhode

Island, who has been such a strong supporter and my partner in this legislation all along the way.

Finally, I want to thank my dad, who has provided our family and many others with a remarkable example of the loving care that a family caregiver can provide.

Providing relief to our Nation's family caregivers is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Today's action by this House will represent not only an important victory for family caregivers nationwide but also sends America's caregivers a very clear message: Your selfless sacrifice is appreciated, and help is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3248, the Lifespan Respite Care Act. For over 2 years I have been working diligently with many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to bring this bill to the floor. Over 180 national, State and local organizations under the direction of the National Respite Coalition have worked tirelessly on behalf of the Nation's family caregivers to help us get to this point. This legislation will for the first time establish respite as a policy priority for the Nation's estimated 50 million family caregivers, who daily provide care for their loved ones with disabling or chronic conditions or illnesses.

Most caregivers freely and willingly provide this care out of love and commitment, but often at great cost to themselves physically, emotionally, and financially. One in five caregivers report that they are in fair or poor health; 43 percent report having a chronic health condition that requires ongoing medical care, putting themselves at great risk and jeopardizing their ability to provide continued care to their dependent loved ones. An estimated 46 percent to 59 percent of family caregivers are clinically depressed. A recent medical study found that older caregivers who were providing care for an elderly individual with a disability and experiencing caregiver strain had mortality rates that were 63 percent higher than non-caregiving controls.

Caregivers are stretched thin in others ways as well, often with lost income and multiple family responsibilities. Nearly half of caregivers--48 percent--providing care to child, adult or elderly family members who have chronic or disabling conditions, have other children under age 18. Forty-two percent have family incomes below 200 percent of poverty compared to 34 percent of women without family caregiving responsibilities. While most caregivers are employed, many are forced to make extreme financial sacrifices in order to continue to provide care. In an Iowa survey of parents of children with disabilities, a significant relationship was demonstrated between the severity of a child's disability and their parents missing more work hours than other employees. They also found that the lack of available respite care interfered with parents accepting job opportunities. Over the course of a caregiving ``career,'' family caregivers providing intense personal care can lose as much as $659,000 in wages, pensions and Social Security.

The cost to U.S. businesses is even more staggering. A new study by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the National Alliance for Caregivers found that U.S. businesses lose from $17.1 billion to $33.6 billion per year in lost productivity of family caregivers. Offering respite to working family caregivers could help improve job performance and employers could potentially save billions.

Still, many barriers exist to accessing respite--including a reluctance to ask for help, fragmented and narrowly targeted services, cost, and the lack of information about how to find or choose a provider. Even when respite is an allowable funded service and resources are available to pay, a critically short supply of well- trained respite providers may prohibit a family from making use of a service they so desperately need.

Restrictive eligibility criteria also preclude many families from receiving services or continuing to receive services they once were eligible for. A New Jersey mother of a 12 year old with autism was denied additional respite because she was not a single mother, was not at poverty level, and was not exhibiting any emotional or physical conditions herself. As she told us, ``Do I have to endure a failed marriage or serious health consequences for myself or my family before I can qualify for respite? Respite is supposed to be a preventive service.''

Respite, the most frequently requested service among family caregivers, offers a temporary break from the rigors of continuous care and helps sustain their own health and well-being. Others are able to tend to an emergency situation or personal health crisis. For a caregiver providing intense and exhausting care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, an occasional short break can literally be a life saver.

Respite reduces stress, enhances caregiver health and well-being, and ensures the safety and health of the loved ones in our care. Studies have shown that respite care for family caregivers has resulted in fewer hospitalizations for the children and elderly family members in care. Respite has also been shown to help reduce the likelihood of abuse and neglect and foster care placements. Research conducted by the ARCH National Respite Resource Center has also shown that respite can help keep marriages intact and enhance family stability. Another study found that if respite care delays institutionalization of a person with Alzheimer's disease by as little as a month, $1.12 billion is saved annually.

The bill authorizes $289 million over 5 years for competitive grants to States through Aging and Disability Resource Centers working in collaboration with State respite coalitions or other State organizations. These organizations provide or have expertise in respite to make

respite available and accessible to family caregivers, regardless of age or disability, through coordinated lifespan respite systems. This legislation would help States maximize the use of existing resources and leverage new dollars by building on current services and systems that States already have in place. The bill would help support planned and emergency respite, respite workers and volunteer training and recruitment, caregiver training, and program evaluation.

The congressional intent of the legislation is to ensure that respite becomes more accessible to all family caregivers in need, especially to those who currently do not qualify for any respite programs, who have no respite programs or providers in their areas, and those who do not know where to turn to find information on how to find and pay for respite. By using the broad term child or adult with special needs, Congress intended for the State to be highly inclusive and ensure that family caregivers of children and adults with developmental disabilities, cognitive, neurological, physical and mental health conditions and illnesses be equitably served. The focus for direct service delivery should be on those who currently may not qualify for respite under any State or Federal program or who have no service available, such as individuals under age 60 with multiple sclerosis, cancer, ALS, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, or children, adolescents or adults with behavioral, emotional or mental health conditions.

Just as importantly, Congress intended that States focus immediately on establishing coordinated lifespan respite systems that will serve all age groups equally. The Secretary should ensure that State agencies and ADRCs use the funds provided by this act to serve all age groups and disability categories equally and without preference. The Aging and Disability Resource Centers were established by the administration with the intention of being one-stop shops for all individuals with long- term care needs, making them logically a good place to administer lifespan respite systems, which are meant to be one-stop shops for respite services. However, many centers are still focusing on the elderly population or adults with physical disabilities and phasing in others at a later date. For the lifespan respite care effort to work most efficiently to coordinate all respite resources in the State, share and pool providers across age and disability groups, and to maximize use of current State respite resources, the ADRCs, in implementing this particular program, must start out with the goal of establishing coordinated respite systems of community-based agencies that will serve all age groups, including children.

Congress also intended lifespan respite to be coordinated at the State level. Many of the ADRCs in the States are serving only one county or region in the State. However, this legislation mandates the establishment of state lifespan respite programs, meaning that at least one ADRC in the State must function statewide, at least for the purposes of this legislation, with the assistance of a State respite coalition or other State respite agency to ensure coordination of resources at the State level, again for maximum efficiency and cost savings.

Legislative language is also clear in mandating a Federal coordinated approach. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in implanting the program to have all agencies in HHS with respite programs or resources work collaboratively at every level, from developing program guidance and awarding grants and cooperative agreements, to monitoring and evaluation. Congress intends the following agencies to work together: the Administration on Aging, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Administration on Children and Families, including the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Centers for Disease Control's Family Caregiving Initiative, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, and other appropriate public health agencies in the Health Resources and Services Administration.

When considering a Federal agency to take the lead in implementation of this program, the Secretary of HHS should select an agency that is not limited in scope or mission by any age or disability category, has experience in serving all populations across disability and age groups, and will ensure that the ADRC is collaborating fully and sharing joint responsibility with a private or public nonprofit State respite coalition or organization in implementing a state lifespan respite program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. With 80 percent of long-term care provided by family caregivers, too many are shouldering the responsibility alone. At a minimum, they need respite to continue serving their loved ones at home where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 488 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have vote ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of a bill that would help us usher in 21st-century medicine into the doctors' offices of our country. By encouraging the dissemination of health information technology, we move full speed ahead toward establishing an infrastructure necessary to create an environment where errors are reduced and care is improved.

This bill promotes cooperation between doctors and hospitals and provides physicians with the IT support services they need to establish this infrastructure. In particular, I am pleased this bill includes an amendment that I sponsored in the Energy and Commerce Committee with Congressman Towns that would provide grants for the use of health information technology to coordinate care for the uninsured.

These grants are targeted to integrated health systems that have demonstrated success in the past for treating the uninsured and underinsured populations in underserved communities. This is just one example of how this bill helps to provide the necessary framework for health IT for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I invite all of our colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. It will help establish a framework of care for all Americans as we head into the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome Monsignor Robert Sheeran to the House floor and thank him for taking time to be our guest chaplain today. Monsignor Sheeran is joining us in part because Seton Hall University is celebrating its sesquicentennial this year. The celebration started last year on October 1, and for the past year Seton Hall University in South Orange, NJ, where Seton Hall is located, has been celebrating its 150th anniversary.

New Jersey's largest Catholic university was founded in 1856 by Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley and named after the first American-born saint, Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton. Seton Hall is the oldest diocesan university in the United States.

Monsignor Sheeran has a long history with Seton Hall University, receiving his bachelor's degree in classical languages, and, finding his way back to his alma mater in 1980, he served as rector of Saint Andrew's College Seminary. He was then appointed assistant provost of the university in 1987 and promoted to associate provost in 1991.

After another short leave, he returned to Seton Hall to hold the position of executive vice chancellor in 1993, and 2 years later he was appointed to be president of Seton Hall University, and is still serving as president today.

I am honored to welcome Monsignor Robert Sheeran to the United States House of Representatives. On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate him on Seton Hall's milestone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

For generations Hamas and Hezbollah, which are committed to the total destruction of Israel, have indiscriminately targeted Israeli civilian populations and military forces. In recent days, these terrorists organizations have kidnapped Israeli soldiers and singled out Israeli citizens for arbitrary relentless rocket fire.

Hamas and Hezbollah, as dangerous and destructive as their actions are in the current conflict, are mere puppets. Hamas and Hezbollah are supported by Iran and Syria. With their financial and military support--including providing the missiles that today are raining down on Israeli towns--the Iranian and Syrian governments are co- conspirators in the ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel.

The world community of nations must hold Iran and Syria accountable for their actions.

Their active support of terrorist nations not only threatens Israel but also all nations in the Middle East and those throughout the world who are waging the ongoing global war on terror.

In the face of these terrorist attacks, we must resolve that Israel has the absolute right to defend itself--just as the United States did following September 11, 2001.

The time has now come for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to Israel and the Israeli people, their absolute right to existence and their absolute right to defend themselves.

Israel is one of the United States' strongest allies. In the last 50 years, our two nations have forged strong economic, military and educational connections. Our bonds have never been more important than today in our shared fight against terrorism.

Today, let us stand in firm resolve against terrorism and with Israel.

I encourage my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues and fellow citizens across the country, my family, too, has been touched by the scourge of disease. I have seen firsthand the devastating effect that disease can have on a loved one and on a family. That is why I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, research on adult stem cells and stem cells derived from umbilical cord and placenta blood.

Adult stem cell research has already proven successful and worthy of our investment of taxpayer money. It has proven so useful in fact that therapies derived from adult stem cells are treating patients today throughout the country.

Before the House today we have a bill that supports new and even broader horizons in stem cell technology, H.R. 5526, the Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.

To be sure, positions on embryonic stem cell research are deeply held by every Member. This legislation focuses on what scientists at many of our country's most esteemed research universities have developed, embryonic stem cells that do not require the destruction of the embryo. Scientists seeking the same compassionate cures to many of our most debilitating diseases have recognized that science and ethics need not be divorced to produce positive results for patients.

Adult stem cell therapies and pluripotent stem cell therapy present exciting and hopeful new possibilities and treatments and even cures to families with loved ones facing the scourge of disease. This is good news worth repeating. We can do worthwhile and groundbreaking stem cell research to benefit patients without destroying human life.

Mr. Speaker, science and technology must always serve humanity, not the other way around. H.R. 5526 is faithful to that principle. We can both conform to the highest bioethical standards and provide the potential for hopeful medical advances. I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a part of the global war on terrorism, and a strong democratic Iraq means a safer America.

Rather than debate the past, I choose to look at where we are today and where we will be tomorrow. In the days and weeks and months ahead, the global war on terrorism will come to a turning point. Today the question is, do we continue to fight and defeat the terrorists who will stop at nothing to destroy Iraq's democracy?

Ultimately, the success of democracy in Iraq will be decided by the Iraqis themselves, for it is they who must take their country back.

Like many of our colleagues, I have traveled to Iraq. I have visited with its leaders, including the new Prime Minister. I have also visited with our troops, including from my home State of New Jersey. I have met with members of the Signal Battalion from Westfield and our Finance Battalion in Flemington before their deployments. Their courage in the face of danger and willingness to serve inspire us all.

Difficult days still lie ahead. We acknowledge the sacrifices of our Armed Forces and their families here at home. For those Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice, 2,500 as of today, their sacrifice is immeasurable, and America extends our hands and our hearts to their families.

Looking forward, not backwards, I believe we must stand with the Iraqis who are fighting for their country, because a strong democratic Iraq means a safer America. There can be no alternative to winning the global war on terrorism. There can be no alternative to a democratic Iraq, lest it return to tyranny and a breeding ground for international terrorists who would then seek to fight us far closer to our own shores.

Let us choose a democratic Iraq and a safer America. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and his leadership on this issue.

I also want to thank and recognize the chairman of the subcommittee for his years of distinguished work in this House. I am a supporter of the bill on the floor today, but I am also deeply disappointed that it provides money for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Our own government continues to chronicle Saudi Arabia's continuing human rights abuses, their lack of religious freedom, and lack of rights for women. In 2005, the Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices called Saudi Arabia's human rights record ``poor overall with continuing serious problems.'' Reported human rights violations include beatings, denial of fair trials, political prisoners, restrictions on civil liberties and discrimination against women, religions, and other minorities.

In December 2005, Saudi Arabia officially became a member of the World Trade Organization, despite the significant objections of a number of us here in this body. A key condition of their membership was that they would not longer participate in the Arab boycott of Israel, which is one of our key allies in the Middle East. But there are still credible reports that this condition even today has not been met.

The fact that their continued reassurances to our own diplomats prove to be all talk and no action is an affront to the United States and every other country in the WTO.

Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the biggest financial supporters of the Hamas-led Palestinian government, despite appeals by the United States to cut funding to this terrorist organization. How can the House of Representatives continue to send American taxpayer dollars to a country which supports a government led by a terrorist organization?

Last year, this House overwhelmingly passed this amendment in this same appropriations bill. Things have not changed for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We cannot continue to reward a country that has a poor human rights record, terrorist connections, and has continued to break promises made to the United States and the international community. We need to continue to hold them accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. This amendment is essentially a solution in search of a problem. When we considered this bill in both the subcommittee and in the full committee, we asked experts to identify one example of a problem that this amendment would solve. They couldn't point to one example where a Bell-operated company or a cable company had blocked access to their networks or infringed on so-called Internet freedom.

Further, when we asked these experts to define net neutrality, these same experts couldn't even agree on a definition for this term or even provide a description that was less than confusing.

I am concerned that this amendment will give the FCC the authority to impose old network common carriage requirements on new networks.

Since the advent of the Internet, Congress's hands off policy has allowed the World Wide Web to prosper by having the market pick winners and losers, rather than the government.

The Markey amendment takes us in the opposite direction. It forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls. This amendment would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, and, at the end of the day, very simply, it would reduce choice for our constituents. The Internet has prospered very well without this type of heavy-handed interference.

This amendment is not about network neutrality, it is about network neutering, and this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, specifically pertaining to H.R. 1790, the Child Medication Safety Act, I firmly believe that parents should have the final say about the administering of medication to their child. I agree with the legislation's main intent to prohibit school personnel from requiring a child, as a condition of attending school or receiving services, to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug.

Mr. Speaker, if I were present earlier today, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1790, the Child Medication Safety Act of 2005, H. Res. 547, Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Deplorably Infringed on Parental Rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District and for the Adoption of the Rule for H.R. 1065, the United States Boxing Commission Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 261, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the project, at least through next year.

In 2005, CMS implemented a Quality of Life demonstration project to assess quality care for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy services in an office-based practice. The demonstration project was designed to gather data on the effects of chemotherapy on Medicare patients. Practitioners participating in the project must provide data and document services related to pain control management, minimization of nausea and vomiting, and the reduction of fatigue. This program is now underway and I strongly support its continuation.

I would note, however, as the program is currently designed, it only applies to patients receiving IV infusion and push chemotherapy, not to patients receiving oral chemotherapy. As was originally intended when Congress created this demonstration program, it is critical that all patients, regardless of the method of chemotherapy treatment, are included in the assessment of these key quality of life factors impacting their treatment for cancer. As it stands today, the data collected under the QOL is incomplete--patients receiving oral therapies are not assessed in the same way, and their side effects cannot be compared to the side effects of infused chemotherapy. As I stated, I strongly support the continuation of this demonstration program but I believe CMS should act to ensure that data is collected from patients receiving oral drugs as well as injectable drugs.

Oral chemotherapy treatment can improve the quality of life for cancer patients by allowing patients to have chemotherapy at home or work without daily visits to the doctor's office or to a cancer infusion center. These treatments can also be cost effective as they require fewer physician visits and fewer invasive procedures. While these treatments are relatively new, more are being developed each year and they can provide unprecedented freedom for Americans battling cancer. If we are going to collect data and learn how to improve the quality of life for those fighting cancer it is my belief that we should focus on collecting data on all treatment options--including the very promising use of oral drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Simon Wiesenthal, who died today at the age of 96.

Simon Wiesenthal, a concentration camp survivor, worked tirelessly to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. By compiling testimonial evidence at his Jewish Documentation Center in Vienna, Austria, Wiesenthal provided trial material and evidence to the lawyers who prosecuted the Nazis for their crimes. Through his lifetime, Wiesenthal helped to bring as many as 1,100 Nazis, including Adolf Eichmann, to justice.

For Wiesenthal--who lived by a standard of justice, not vengeance-- trying the Nazis for their war crimes brought moral restitution to the Jewish people who suffered so severely under the Nazi regime. Wiesenthal dedicated his life to preserving the memory of all those

who lost their lives in the Holocaust, even when many in the world wanted to forget.

The Holocaust was an act of brutal genocide and unprecedented evil. But those such as Simon Wiesenthal remind us that the cause of justice is never lost.