Michael Bilirakis

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor or H.R. 3487, 1 would like to revise and extend my remarks in support of passage of H.R. 3487, and I would like to note that this intent language is supported by all the members involved in reaching agreement on the final bill which passed the House and Senate on July 22, 2002. These members include myself, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Senator Tim Hutchinson, Congressman W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Senator John F. Kerry, Congressman John D. Dingell, Senator James M. Jeffords, Congressman Richard Burr, Senator Judd Gregg, Congressman Sherrod Brown, Senator Bill Frist, M.D., Congressman Ed Whitfield, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Congressman Eliot Engel, Senator Susan Collins, Congressman Robert L. Ehrlich, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Congressman Henry Waxman. 1. Funding Methodology During the last reauthorization of Title VIII in 1998, Congress required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine a funding methodology to be used for fiscal year 2003 and thereafter to determine the appropriate amounts to be allocated to three important programs within the Nursing Workforce Development activities--advanced nursing education, workforce diversity, and nurse education and practice. In developing this methodology, Congress outlined a series of factors that should be considered and required a report describing the new methodology as well as the effects of the new methodology on the current allocations between those three important programs. Given that the new funding methodology was to take effect in fiscal year 2003, Congress requested that the contract for the funding methodology be completed by February 1, 2002, and that the report to Congress regarding that methodology arrive no later than 30 days after the completion of the development of the methodology. Although Congress has not yet received the report, George Mason University has been working on this contract, and they have described the appropriate funding methodology on their website. This methodology states that advanced nursing education should receive 31.5% of the funds (a 46% decrease from fiscal year 2001 allocations), workforce diversity should receive 31.5% of the funds (a 25% increase over fiscal year 2001 allocations), and nurse education and practice should receive 37% of the funds (a 20% increase over fiscal year 2001 allocations). Because Congress expected the funding methodology to be completed by the beginning of fiscal year 2003, current law does not state how the funds should be allocated if no funding methodology was available. Therefore, the discretion is left to the Secretary. Due to that discretion, it is the Congress' intent that the Secretary allocate funds in a manner that would most appropriately address any current or impending nursing shortage while minimizing disruption and report such allocations to the appropriate committees of Congress, along with a justification for those allocations. Further, given that Congress has requested a new funding methodology for fiscal year 2003, the Secretary is now requested to provide an update on the development of that methodology and the expected timeline for implementation. ii. Authorizations Under the Nurse Reinvestment Act Throughout the bill, the legislation authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to accomplish the objectives of the legislation. It is the Congress' belief that the current nursing shortage is a significant national problem that has a major negative impact on the delivery of high-quality health care in the United States. It is the Congress' belief that funds should be appropriated for the initiatives authorized by this legislation at a level that is commensurate with the significance of this problem. The legislation authorizes the appropriations of such sums as may be necessary in order to accomplish the objectives of the legislation to allow flexibility in providing funding to respond to the ongoing needs of the programs authorized by the legislation. Although the legislation does not authorize the appropriation of specific dollar amounts, it is the Congress' belief that the investment of significant new resources, beyond those already provided under Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act, will be required in order to alleviate the current nursing shortage. III. Loan Repayment and Scholarships The Congress intends that nurses fulfilling their service requirement under the Loan Repayment Program or the Scholarship Program under Section 846 be able to fulfill their service requirement in a nurse- managed health center with a critical shortage of nurses. The Congress further intends that, in determining the placement of nurses under section 103 of the bill, the Health Resources and Services Administration is not expected to follow the placement requirements outlined under the National Health Service Corps. IV. Basic Nurse Education A. Intent of Legislation The legislation adds a number of new programs to section 831, and it is Congress' intent to ensure that these programs are actually funded and implemented. Therefore, Congress expects that the Secretary will seek to fund worthy applications received under the Section 831 authorities that have been added, while assuring that existing priorities indicated under section 831 also continue. Congress anticipates that the use of funds under 831(c)(2) will directly affect nurses in their workplaces and will be monitored for demonstrable improvement in the areas of nurse retention and patient care. B. Background In authorizing section 831(c)(2), Congress did so with the evidence of the efficacy of magnet hospitals in mind. The concept of magnet hospitals dates back to the country's last nursing shortage in the 1980's. At the time, nursing professional organizations and other experts noticed that despite the nationwide nurse shortage, certain hospitals were able to successfully attract and retain professional nurses, behaving as nursing ``magnets.'' A study of these hospitals showed that they shared a number of characteristics, each of which contributed to making these ``magnet hospitals'' attractive workplaces for nurses. Many of these attributes have been mentioned in section 831(c)(2). Currently hospitals can receive a magnet designation from the American Nurse Credentialing Center, and extensive research on magnet-designated facilities shows that nurses in these hospitals show an average length of employment twice that of nurses in non-magnet hospitals, and magnet hospital nurses consistently report greater job satisfaction. Research has demonstrated that magnet hospitals also show lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, and higher patient satisfaction. V. Nurse Faculty Development The purpose of the nurse faculty loan program is to encourage individuals to pursue a master's or doctoral degree to teach at a school of nursing in exchange for cancellation of educational loans to these individuals.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I must say that last evening, late last night about 11:15, 11:30, my favorite uncle, my wife's and mine, passed away with leukemia. And during these last few weeks when he was in the hospital in Tarpon Springs, Florida, my hometown; and afterwards with the hospice people at his home for 3 or 4 days, well, the dedication of nurses was just there and I do not think I told any of them; but I wanted to tell them about this piece of legislation, but they were awfully busy. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), who is a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3487, the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Over the past several weeks, both the Senate and the House have worked to reach agreement on legislation that will help alleviate the national nursing shortage. We have all heard about issues with recruitment and retention of nursing staff across the nursing continuum. Our health and long-term care systems rely heavily on the services of these dedicated health care professionals. Nurses provide critical medical services necessary to ensure quality health care. Our legislation provides new authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that we will have an adequate supply of qualified nurses in our health care system. To address the nursing shortage, this legislation focuses on two key areas. The first one pertains to the recruitment of new nurses, which means we must encourage more young people to choose this challenging and fulfilling career. This legislation directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create public service announcements designed to promote nursing and nursing education programs. Secondly, this legislation focuses on the training of those in the profession by building on the recruitment theme. The compromise bill we are considering today expands title 8 of the Public Health Service Act to include scholarships for students entering the nursing profession. In exchange, students must enter a commitment to serve in a health facility determined to have a critical shortage of nurses. Third, H.R. 3487 focuses on the retention of the talented workforce that is in the system today. To aid in the retention of qualified nurses, the legislation provides the HHS Secretary with authority to expand on career ladder programs that promote career advancement of nurses within the profession. The bill also allows grants to enhance the nursing workforce by initiating and retaining nurse retention programs. Moreover, this legislation authorizes grants for programs that will train and educate individuals in providing care for elderly, which may be critical with our aging baby boom population. Our efforts to recruit and retain qualified nursing professionals will be in vain if we do not also address our system for educating nurses. If we are successful in recruiting nurses to the profession, we will need to build up our Nation's capacity to educate nurses. To this end, the bill establishes a faculty loan cancellation program to encourage people to complete advanced education and treat future nurses. Under this program, Ph.D. and master's nursing students will be eligible to receive loans if they agree to teach in a nursing schooling upon completion of their degree. For every year up to 4 years that a loan recipient teaches, he or she will have an increasing portion of their loan canceled. Nurses are invaluable, Mr. Speaker, to the success and quality of our health care system. The legislation helps ensure that our Nation will have a well-trained supply of nurses on which to rely. Again, this legislation, and I am very proud to say this, was put together with a bipartisan effort of the House and the Senate. And I would certainly be remiss if I did not mention the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a nurse herself who has lived these particular problems and she has been a pusher, I guess is the best way I can put it, on this; and we are very, very grateful to her for this and to her staff. I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work and dedication to this issue, and I would also add thanks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). There are so many from the other side of the aisle and our side who have been so helpful because of the great interest in trying to solve this particular problem. I would like to take a moment to thank some of the staff who worked on this bill. Please forgive me if I miss anyone in this process. I would like to recognize a few people. First, Anne Esposito, who recently left my staff, was instrumental in obtaining House passage of the bill. John Ford, Jeremy Sharp, and Katie Porter on the minority were also most helpful, as were Steve Tilton, Erin Ockunzzi, Cheryl Jaeger, and Pat Morrisey from my staff. I thank each of them for their hard work on this legislation. I know that we all should feel awfully proud and awfully good about having passed this or at least brought it to this particular point. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3487, the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3487) to amend the Public Service Act with respect to health professions programs regarding the field of nursing.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 385, which expresses the support of the Congress for research on tests to screen for ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women. Approximately 50 percent of the women in the United States diagnosed with ovarian cancer die as a result of the cancer within 5 years. The sooner ovarian cancer is diagnosed and treated, the better a woman's chance for recovery, since ovarian cancer is readily treatable when it is detectable before it has spread beyond the ovaries. If diagnosed and treated while the cancer is still limited to the ovary, the 5-year survival rate is 95 percent. However, only 25 percent of all ovarian cancers are found at this early stage, primarily because ovarian cancer is hard to detect early. Women with ovarian cancer often do not display symptoms until the disease is in an advanced stage. Without a reliable, easy-to-administer screening tool, we will continue to lose the battle to detect and treat this cancer in its early stages. This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the National Institutes of Health should conduct or support research on the effectiveness of screening technologies to detect ovarian cancer. The resolution also requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services submit to Congress a report on this research, including an analysis on the effectiveness of these screening techniques. Finally, the resolution states that if the research demonstrates that the screening technique is effective for identifying ovarian cancer, Federal health programs and health plans should cover this new diagnostic test. It is important for women to get tested yearly for ovarian cancer. Effective screening techniques coupled with yearly exams will ultimately save lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further request for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 385 and to include extraneous material.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 385) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should conduct or support research on certain tests to screen for ovarian cancer, and Federal health care programs and groups and individual health plans should cover the tests if demonstrated to be effective, and for other purposes.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), our own coach.

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 496) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association should implement a mandatory steroid testing program.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 496 which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association should implement a mandatory steroid testing program. Baseball is our national pastime. I am a lifelong fan and proudly hang pictures of my beloved Pittsburgh Pirates in my office and now have season tickets to Tampa Bay Devil Rays games. As a fan, I know that whether professional players like it or not, they are heroes to many of our children. Recently, many players have made outstanding achievements on the baseball field. Unfortunately, this has coincided with disturbing reports of widespread steroid abuse. Unless we do something to change the culture in major league baseball, children might believe that steroid use is not only permissible but also desirable and can help an individual perform at a higher level than they could without drugs. In fact, some reports already indicate that steroid use is rising in children. As a baseball fan, I am concerned about the integrity of the game that I love. As a grandparent, I am determined to ensure that my grandchildren grow up in an environment where dangerous performance- enhancing drugs are not a part of sports. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a positive step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as I have done every year and as the gentlewoman from New York just did, we usually do this together, I rise again today to reiterate my fierce objection to the illegal occupation of the island of Cyprus by Turkish troops and declare my grave concern for the future of the area. The island's 28 years of internal division make the status quo absolutely unacceptable. In July 1974, Turkish troops captured the northern part of Cyprus, seizing over a third of the island. The Turkish troops expelled 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and killed 5,000 citizens of the once peaceful island. Over a quarter of a century later, about 1,500 Greek Cypriots remain missing, including four Americans. The Turkish invasion was a conscious and deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing. Turkey proceeded to install 35,000 military personnel. Today these troops, in conjunction with the United Nations peacekeeping forces, make the small island of Cyprus one of the most militarized areas in the world. Turkey is the only nation, Mr. Speaker, in the world which recognizes the Turkish Northern Republic of Cyprus. Twenty-eight years later, the forced separation of these two communities still exists despite efforts by the United Nations and G-8 leadership to mend this rift between north and south. The U.N., with the explicit support of the United States, has sponsored several rounds of proximity talks between the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, and Mr. Rauf Denktash, the self-proclaimed leader of the occupied northern part of the island. In January 2002, direct negotiations between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash began. Thus far, these negotiations have not produced any breakthroughs. Regrettably, the progress on an agreement has been thwarted by the intransigent position taken by Mr. Denktash with the full backing of the Turkish government. However, it is encouraging that the two leaders are continuing their direct talks which maintains the possibility that a comprehensive settlement can still be reached. The recent political events in Turkey and the decision to hold early elections in November of this year will have a direct effect on the outcome of the Cyprus negotiations. While we support the call for elections in Turkey and trust the democratic voice of the Turkish people, we hope that the Cyprus negotiations will not be undermined by election year politics. We hope that all parties running for Parliament will declare their support for a resolution of the Cyprus problem before the end of the year so that a united Cyprus can enter the EU. Despite the division of the island constantly taking center stage, the Republic of Cyprus has flourished and grown as an economy and society. It is a Europe-oriented nation that is of strategic, economic and political importance to the region and to the rest of the world. Sadly, the people living in the northern part of the island continue to be mired in poverty as a direct result of their leadership's and Turkey's separatist policies. Cyprus is one of the leading candidate nations to join the EU in the next round of enlargement. European Union membership has the potential to act as a catalyst for resolving the problem of Cyprus which has been poisoning the relations among the parties to the conflict and their NATO allies and the United States. It would also be in the best interest of Turkey to cooperate with the U.N. on Cyprus in order to advance its own membership in the European Union. Northern Cyprus will perhaps be the greatest beneficiary of Cypriot membership and resolution of the entire affair. It is currently in a state of economic distress which is being exacerbated by Turkish intransigence. Turkey spends more than $200 million annually to sustain northern Cyprus. With settlement on the matter of Cyprus, this huge financial obligation would be eliminated. By joining the rest of Cyprus, northern Cyprus would become part of an already progressive economy, eliminating its financial dependence on Turkey. We are all standing at the threshold of an historic opportunity that will shape the futures of generations of Cypriots, Greeks and Turks. We have a responsibility to these ensuant generations to secure their futures by contributing to the efforts to create a peaceful world. It is precisely, Mr. Speaker, to express the above stated points that I have felt compelled to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 164, a bill which expresses the U.S.'s support for Cyprus' admission to the European Union according to the Helsinki Conclusions of 1999. These specifically state that while a solution to the political crisis in Cyprus is preferable prior to EU accession, it is not a precondition for entry. Mr. Speaker, we have a moral and ethical obligation to use our influence as Americans, as defenders of democracy and as defenders of human rights to reunify Cyprus. There have been 28 years of illegitimate occupation, violence and strife. Let us not make it 29.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3214, a bill I introduced to amend the Federal charter for the AMVETS organization. The bill makes a number of simple changes to the organization's current charter, which was first approved in 1947. First, my bill changes the meaning of AMVETS from American Veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam to American veterans. AMVETS was founded on December 10, 1944, in Kansas City, Missouri. It was born out of the desire for WWII veterans to have their own organization. Overtime, AMVETS' charter has been amended to allow veterans from following wars to join the organization. In 1984, the charter was amended to allow anyone who served honorably after 1940 to join the veterans' group. As a result, its current name does not encompass this broader membership. H.R. 3214 would correct this discrepancy and allow the organization's name to more adequately reflect its current membership. This name change was also approved by the organization's members at their 1998 annual convention. In 1961, AMVETS modified the structure of its governing body. However, its current charter still reflects its old organizational structure. Therefore, H.R. 3214 also revises the organization's Federal charter to reflect the new composition of AMVETS' governing body. Finally, since the approval of the original charter, the organization has relocated their headquarters from the District of Columbia to Lanham, Maryland. H.R. 3214 amends the original AMVETS charter to provide for its headquarters and principal place of business to be in Maryland rather than the District of Columbia. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee Chairman Gekas, full Committee Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking member Sheila Jackson-Lee for their assistance in moving this legislation. H.R. 3214 is noncontroversial and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before I get into my remarks, I would say that the gentleman from New Jersey, as usual, does not listen. When the chairman read from the AARP letter, when they said, ``We are pleased that your bill makes the voluntary prescription drug benefit permanent and maintains the entitlement nature of the Medicare program,'' that means it is under Medicare. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I rise in support of the bill. I believe that today's vote is another example of our commitment to getting something done for seniors this year, not just talk about it this year. The bill creates a new entitlement under Medicare. Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will now have access to a voluntary, comprehensive prescription drug benefit. Our bill creates this benefit without jeopardizing the financial health of the overall program, which would certainly happen under the plan offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. During the Committee on Energy and Commerce's consideration of the bill last week, committee Democrats offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that, while not scored, would likely cost over $900 billion over 10 years. I was disappointed that they would offer such an irresponsible plan during such a serious debate, especially since, just last year, House Democrats included $330 billion for a new prescription drug benefit in their proposed budget resolution. A benefit without explanations is, of course, no benefit at all. The counter-proposal offered by my colleagues does not explain how they would fund this enormous program since they did not even offer a budget resolution this year. I repeat, they did not even offer a budget resolution this year. The fact that they have now tripled the amount they say is necessary for a prescription drug benefit tells me that, instead of being serious about a solution, they care only about outbidding Republicans in an attempt to score a political point for the November elections. After all, as has been said before, they controlled this House for 40 consecutive years and at no time did they attempt to address this problem. We are addressing it. We want to help seniors now, not just use political rhetoric. Our plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with meaningful, comprehensive coverage. It does not force beneficiaries into a one- size-fits-all program where bureaucrats pick their medicines. Instead, seniors will have a choice of at least two prescription drug plans which will provide the best price discounts available. The bill also puts into effect an idea presented to me some time ago by Dr. William Hale of Dunedin, Florida, to offer at government expense an initial medical physical for all beneficiaries going into the Medicare program. It is easy to envision, I think, that many diseases will be picked up at that time in their early stages and, thus, result in more healthful retirement years and ultimate health cost savings. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4954 places an appropriate focus on two populations that have long been, as many know, a priority of mine: the low-income senior without prescription drug coverage and the very ill senior who is in danger of impoverishing him or herself in order to pay for their medications. The bill we are considering today includes strong protections for these vulnerable beneficiaries. It fully subsidizes cost-sharing, except for nominal copayments for Medicare beneficiaries with incomes up to 75 percent of poverty. This feature means that 44 percent of our Nation's seniors, those with incomes less than $15,505 for singles and $20,895 for married couples, could be eligible for full cost-sharing assistance. Mr. Speaker, $20,895 for married couples, could be eligible for full cost-sharing assistance. Our bill makes needed changes to the program by raising reimbursement rates. That has been talked about. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Senate follows our lead and passes a bill soon so that we can begin the process of reconciling our two packages later this year. This is a good bill, a responsible plan, not a perfect plan by any means, but intended to help our seniors now, and we need to support it.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall votes numbered 246, 247, and 248 because I was traveling with the President of the United States and other members of the Florida delegation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 246, ``no'' on rollcall No. 247, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 248.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the conference report. This important legislation strengthens our ability as a country to detect and respond to bioterrorist threats or attacks. Just this week, the Vice President stated that another terrorist assault is almost certain. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we quickly pass this legislation and send it to the President for his signature. The legislation is a strong and comprehensive measure that enhances the security of our Nation. First, we strengthen our public health systems by increasing State and local preparedness to detect and respond to an attack. Secondly, this bill enhances security measures in relation to the handling, transport and storage of dangerous substances. Third, we strengthen our Nation's food security systems. And, fourth, we improve the safety and security of our drinking water systems. Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive approach and a meaningful step to improve our Nation's security systems. The conference report includes provisions to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. This is critically important, because without this program the Food and Drug Administration would have lost millions of dollars and numerous personnel which are used to review and approve lifesaving medicines. I am very pleased we worked in a truly bipartisan, bicameral manner to reauthorize this program. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach resolution on medical device changes. But I am committed, Mr. Speaker, I like to think we all are, to working to update device laws this year. I want to take a moment to thank the staff who worked so hard to complete this legislation, particularly to single out Pete Goodloe, the House's Legislative Counsel. We would not have been able to complete this legislation in a timely fashion without his expert services. Unfortunately, there are so many other staff that have worked so hard, I am unable to name each of them here today. But please know that our country will be better prepared in the future because of your hard work. Mr. Speaker, this is a strong measure supported by all the conferees, and I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I too rise proudly to celebrate the 61st anniversary of the Battle of Crete, a World War II event that had a profound impact on the ultimate result of the war. Amidst the cataclysm that had engulfed the countries of Europe at the time, it seems now preposterous that a small island dared to stand up to such a powerful enemy. For the benefit of future generations, I will share a brief account of these events as they unfolded. In early April 1941, Greece was invaded by the German Army rushing to the aid of their defeated and humiliated ally, Italy. Following a valiant struggle against overwhelmingly superior German forces in and among the mountains to the north, Greek forces had been pushed entirely off the continent and were forced to take refuge on the Island of Crete. The German Army then looked across the sea to Crete because of the British airfields on the island, which could be used by the allies for air strikes against the oil fields of Romania, thereby denying this vital war commodity to Hitler's forces. If captured, it would also provide air and sea bases from which the Nazis could dominate the eastern Mediterranean and launch air attacks against Allied forces in northern Africa. In fact, the Nazi high command envisioned the capture of Crete to be the first of a series of assaults leading to the Suez Canal. Finally, as a result of the battle, Hitler's master plan to invade Russia before the coming of winter had to be postponed, thus directly resulting in the deaths of many of their troops as a consequence of not being properly prepared to survive the harsh Russian winter. On May 20, 1941, Crete became the theater of the largest German airborne operation of the war, code named Operation Mercury. On that day, more than 8,000 paratroopers were dropped on the island. They were met with ferocious resistance by the Allied troops waiting for them and by the Cretan population. Cretans fought bravely with whatever was at hand during the invasion. Even though the Allied forces had decided not to arm them, old men, women and children used whatever makeshift weapons they could find. They pointed their rusty guns at the descending German paratroopers. They used sticks, sickles and even their bare hands to fight those soldiers already on the ground. Most of them were illiterate villagers, but their intuition led them to fight with courage and bravery. ``Aim for the legs and you will get them in the heart'' was the popular motto that summarized their hastily acquired battle experience. Although a tactical victory for the Germans, the Battle of Crete proved to be rather costly to them in terms of casualties and loss of aircraft. Of the 8,100 paratroopers involved in this operation, close to 4,000 were killed and 1,600 were wounded. So injured were the German units in fact that they never again, never again, attempted an airborne assault of the magnitude of that launched at Crete. In retaliation for the losses they incurred, the Nazis spread punishment, terror and death on the innocent civilians of the island. More than 2,000 Cretans were executed during the first month alone, and thousands more the following 4 years. Despite these atrocities, the people of Crete put up a courageous guerrilla resistance. Mr. Speaker, there are historical reasons why we Americans are very appreciative of the sacrifices of the Cretan people in defending their island during the Battle of Crete. We have a history replete with similar heroic events, starting with our popular revolt that led to the birth of our Nation more than 2 centuries ago. We must always remember that as long as there are people willing to sacrifice their lives for the just cause of defending the integrity and freedom of their country, there is always hope for a better tomorrow. May we take inspiration from the shining example of the people of Crete in ensuring that this is indeed the case.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 165) expressing the sense of the Congress that continual research and education into the cause and cure for fibroid cancer be addressed.