Michael Bilirakis

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman sharing his story with us and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for offering this amendment. Back in the days when Ron Wyden from Oregon, who is now a U.S. senator, was here, he and I spent a lot of time on the issue of telemedicine. We ran into some roadblocks but it has been sort of a little bit of a cause of mine, a secondary cause of mine unfortunately, but I think it is an excellent resource. Frankly, my opinion is that it is not being used to its full potential and hopefully the gentleman's amendment will focus the agency on this particular issue, and hopefully we can improve upon that. So in any case, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, before I respond to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and commend the staffs, the people who really make all of this possible. We get the accolades, but they are really the ones who have done all the work: Jason Lee, a member of the committee staff; Tom Giles, another member of the majority staff; Ann Esposito from my personal staff; minority staff John Ford and Ellie Dahoney; and Pete Goodloe, legislative counsel. I really commend them and thank them. This has been a good piece of legislation. It has been very beneficial, I think. Mr. Chairman, the majority has had an opportunity to review the amendment by the Buy-American Congressman, the great Buy-American Congressman here in the Congress, and his amendment would require that the agency or any entity that expends funds authorized pursuant to this act comply with the Buy American Act. He is already very diligent in doing that. We are prepared to accept his amendment.

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his amendment. We have spent the better part of today on a prescription drug hearing in my subcommittee and have another one scheduled for next week and one for shortly thereafter. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) knows, prescription drug problems is the forefront of what we are doing up here these days, and well it should be. Even though the agency, I think it is quite clear that their functions would include something like this, it is good that we sort of focus and highlight the need for many of these amendments, to basically instill in the agency the thought that, yes, they have got to spend some time on them. So anyhow, we have studied this amendment and are prepared to accept it. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering it.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, as modified.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not in disagreement, as far as that area is concerned. We have studied the amendment and have talked with the gentleman and talked with the gentleman's staff, and we accept the amendment, as modified, and do not object to it.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I want to commend the gentleman. He has been very vocal on this, on the use of AEDs and of their great value to us on an everyday basis in committee. Of course his amendment is very helpful because again even though the general scope on functions of the agency would and could include these, it is another case of focusing attention, if you will, to it. We have had the opportunity to review the amendment and do accept it.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. Obviously I think we would all agree that any intelligent reading would indicate that the scope and the general function of the agency would be to include something like this. Again it is important to focus some of these and to red-flag them, if you will, for the agency. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned section 924. Certainly section 912(c), Reducing Errors in Medicine, and I will not repeat that, goes into that. Then you can go into Information on Quality and Cost of Care, section 913, subparagraph 2, I guess it is, Annual Report, and it refers to an annual report. I would say that it is intended the agency will report its findings to the Congress. And the second question when you talk about State to State, logically it would seem that that information would be accumulated by them on a State to State basis and thus reported from that standpoint. I honestly do not know why that would be a problem. So is it possible? I would say it is very possible.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the staff has, as they have in all of these amendments, reviewed this amendment, spent an awful lot of time in many cases with the proposers' staffs. We have had an opportunity to review this particular amendment along with the others, which would require the director to include among the evidence-based clinical practices and health-care technologies promoted by the agency, the examination and treatment of victims of sexual assault, the training of health professionals in performing medical evidentiary examinations of persons who are victims of sexual assault, and we are prepared to accept this very good amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the majority has had an opportunity to review the amendment, finds that it is consistent with the functions of the agency which would expand the eligible entities to receive grants and contracts for clinical practices and technology innovation, as determined by the director to include minority institutions of higher education. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2506, the bill just passed.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment. Mr. Chairman, VERA, as it is called, corrects historic geographic imbalances in funding for VA health care services and ensures equitable access to care for all veterans. Long ago, Mr. Chairman, our Nation made a commitment to care for the brave men and women who fought the battles to keep America free. These are our Nation's veterans. Please take note when I say, ``our Nation's veterans.'' They are not Florida's veterans or Arizona's veterans or New York's veterans. They are our veterans, and we as a Nation have a collective responsibility to honor the commitment we make to them. When they volunteered to fight for America's freedom, no one asked these veterans what part of the country they came from. It simply did not matter. Unfortunately, when they came home, veterans found out that where they live matters a great deal. Until the passage of VERA, a veteran's ability to access the VA health care system literally depended upon where he or she happened to live. Since coming to Congress, and I am sure this is true for most of us, I have heard of veterans that were denied care at Florida VA medical facilities. In many instances, these veterans had been receiving care at their local VA medical center. However, once they moved to Florida, the VA was forced to turn them away because the facilities in our State simply did not have the resources to meet the high demand for care. This lack of adequate resources is further compounded in the winter months when Florida veterans are literally crowded out of the system by individuals who travel south to enjoy our warm weather. It is hard for my veterans to understand how they could lose their VA health care simply by moving to another part of the country or because a veteran from a different State is using our VA facilities. Congress enacted VERA for a very simple reason, equity. No matter where they live or what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve to have equal access to quality health care. Since VERA's implementation, the Florida Veterans' Integrated Service Network, VISN, has treated approximately 44,410 more veterans. The Florida network estimates that it will treat a total of 285,000 veterans by the end of fiscal year 1999. The Florida network has also opened 12 new community based outpatient clinics since VERA's implementation. It plans to open additional clinics in the near future. None of this could have happened without VERA. We have to ask ourselves, what happens if VERA is not implemented? The failure to move forward with an improved and fair funding allocation system would mean that the VA would miss a unique opportunity to revitalize its way of doing business. The negative impact would be felt most by veterans who would not be treated in areas that are currently underfunded. Failure to implement VERA will waste taxpayers' dollars because a rush to the funding practices of the past will mean that some VA facilities will receive more money per veteran than others to provide essentially the same care. The author of this amendment argues that veterans of New York are not being treated equitably. The VERA system already takes regional differences into account by making adjustments for labor costs, differences in patient mix, and differing levels of support for research and education. With the $1.7 billion increase in VA health care included in H.R. 2684, VA facilities in the metropolitan New York area will receive an average of $5,336 per veteran patient. This means that these facilities will receive an average payment for each patient that is 16.11 percent higher than the national average. On the other hand, the Florida VISN will receive $4,481 per patient, an average payment which is 2.49 percent below the national average. How is this inequitable to New York's veterans? If the Hinchey amendment passes, continued funding imbalances will result in unequal access to VA health care for veterans in different parts of the country. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the George Miller of California amendment which reduces U.S. taxpayer subsidy for foreign tuna fishermen. The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 1997 allows previously embargoed countries to export their tuna to the United States. In exchange for opening our markets, Congress required countries meet the legal and financial obligations of membership in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), which regulates tuna fishing and the International Dolphin Conservation program. These obligations include funding the IATTC. The operating expenses of the IATTC are to be divided between member countries based on the proportion of the amount of tuna which each nation harvests from the fisheries. The key word is ``proportion.'' The numbers speak for themselves. Historically, the United States has paid for 75% of the IATTC's operating expenses, but the U.S. share of the tuna catch is less than 40%. Should American taxpayers subsidize foreign fishing fleets by paying almost double our contribution? The State Department seems to think so. It has proposed using taxpayer money to pay for ``lapses'' in the contribution for the IATTC. In other words, the State Department wants the American taxpayer to pay almost ``double'' our share rather than impose stipulations on those members who have delinquent financial obligations. The George Miller of California amendment will reduce the U.S. financial contribution by $1 million, meaning that the U.S. will still be paying for 50% of the IATTC's annual budget. Since contributions by other countries have been based in the large part on the amount paid by the United States, supporting this amendment would force other fishing nations to begin paying their fair share. The Miller amendment does not undermine the International Dolphin Conservation program, particularly the observer program, which is funded by the tuna vessels and not by country contributions. Mr. Chairman, over the past nine years, American taxpayers have paid almost $15 million above our obligation under the Convention. Isn't it time that those nations benefitting from the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 1997 and profiting from our open markets, meet their financial obligations to the IATTC? I urge my colleagues to support the George Miller of California amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, early this month I had the privilege of presenting military medals to several of my constituents--a recognition which was long overdue. Julian Burnside was serving in the U.S. Army's 106th Infantry Division when he was captured by German Nazis during the Battle of the Bulge. He spent 10 days squeezed into a railroad boxcar with other U.S. soldiers. The conditions were so bad that the men had to keep their legs folded and were only fed 4 of the 10 days. Julian was eventually taken to a prisoner-of-war camp near Dresden, Germany. While there, he was forced to pull bodies from piles of burned human remains and dig holes for their burials. During his captivity he suffered from frozen feet, malnutrition, dysentery and yellow jaundice. On May 9, 1945, Julian was freed when his German captors surrendered to the Allies. He spent months recovering in a hospital before being discharged in October 1945. While in the hospital, someone told Julian about all of the medals that he was eligible to receive, including the Order of the Purple Heart for Military Merit, commonly called the ``Purple Heart.'' An officer then told him that they were no longer giving the Purple Heart for injuries like his. Julian didn't care. He was just happy to be free. But heros like Julian Burnside should never be forgotten, and on July 3, 1999, I was honored to present Julian with both the Purple Heart and the POW medal. The Order of the Purple Heart is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy. It is a combat decoration. The POW medal may be awarded to anyone who ``was taken prisoner and held captive while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.'' The front of the circular medal features a golden eagle standing with its wings outspread against a lighter gold background, ringed by barbed wire and bayonet points. Although symbolically imprisoned, the American eagle is alert to regain freedom, the hope that upholds the prisoner's spirit. On the reverse side of the medal, there is the inscription: ``For Honorable Service While A Prisoner of War.'' Another American hero who should not be forgotten is Luis Reyes. Luis was also in the U.S. Army Infantry, but he served during the Korean War from August 1950 until August 1951. He was wounded in the Injim River area during the War and suffered a bullet wound in his leg. On July 3, I presented him with the Purple Heart for wounds received in action against an armed enemy. That day, I was also honored to present the POW/MIA medal to the family of a third Army veteran, Lowell Pirkle. Lowell was killed while working for Air America in Vietnam in 1967. During his lifetime, he received two Purple Hearts, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. Lowell, who served two tours in Vietnam, was attempting to load wounded Laotian soldiers into a helicopter when the aircraft was hit by a rifle shell and exploded. The pilot and co-pilot escaped. Lowell and a Laotian soldier were not so lucky. His body was not recovered. Lowell was survived by his wife, Deborah, and two children, Robin and Scott. Lowell's family and the Air America Association pressed the federal government for information about Lowell after discovering he had never been listed among those missing in action. The crash site was discovered in 1995, and Lowell's remains were identified by the U.S. Army in January 1998. On August 3, 1998--thirty- one years to the day after being shot down--Lowell was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery. The POW/MIA medal depicts a bald eagle, which symbolizes all unaccounted for Americans, amidst the bamboo of a Southeast Asian jungle. The eagle retains the American spirit of freedom in its vigilant stance. On the reverse side is a representation of the Vietnam Campaign Medal lying on a table, issued, but not yet claimed by its owner. The words, ``You Are Not Forgotten'' reflect the sentiment of family, loved ones, and all Americans waiting their return. Mr. Speaker, Julian, Luis and Lowell all answered the call to duty when their country needed them. They are true American heros.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as I have done every year, I rise again to declare my deep concern and utter indignation regarding the 25-year occupation of the island of Cyprus by Turkish troops. It was in July 1974, that Turkish forces, consisting of 6,000 troops and forty tanks, landed on Cyprus' northern coast and captured a good part of the island nation. This military operation was appropriately code-named ``Attila.'' A few days later, the three guarantor powers, namely, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, were negotiating to determine the fate of the island. To maximize its illegal territorial gains, Turkey used this opportunity to launch the second phase of its pre-planned assault, code-named ``Attila II.'' Since then, Turkey has occupied 37% of the island in defiance of any code of civilized behavior in the community of nations. The consequences of that brutal action were devastating. More than 5,000 people were killed during the invasion. Even today, the fate of 1,614 Cypriots and 4 U.S. citizens, missing since the invasion, remains a mystery. More than 200,000 Greek Cypriots--men, women and children--were forcibly expelled by the invading Turkish army in a mass exodus reminiscent of Bosnia and Kosovo. These ``refugees'' settled in the southern part of the island. Of course, they have never been compensated by Turkey for their confiscated lands and houses, or for their ruined businesses. Ever since this atrocious act, Turkey has embarked on a methodical effort to first entrench and fortify its military presence on the island, and second, to alter the demographic characteristics and ethnic composition of its population. To achieve the former goal, Turkey beefed up its occupation force to more than 40,000. In addition, a large amphibious assault force is permanently stationed at the Turkish mainland base closest to Cyprus. To accomplish the latter goal, scores of Turkish people from Anatolia were transplanted into the occupied lands to take possession of the properties and businesses of the expelled refugees. These settlers, conservatively estimated at 80,000, and the Turkish occupation force currently outnumber the Turkish-Cypriot population who legitimately inhabited northern Cyprus before the invasion. The illegal nature of this aggressive act, and the brutality with which it was conducted, aroused the indignation of the international community. In the ensuing years, the arbitrary declaration of the occupied northern Cyprus as an independent ``republic'' failed to expunge its illegal nature. A quarter of a century later, the occupied Northern Cyprus has remained a pariah ``entity,'' not recognized by any nation in the world, except Turkey. Over the years, repeated attempts have been made by individual governments and by the United Nations to find a solution to the problem of Cyprus. All of them failed because of the intransigence of Turkey. As a result, the relations between Greece and Turkey have been adversely affected to the point that direct military confrontations between them have been narrowly averted on at least two occasions. Given their geographic location and the fact that both countries are member states of NATO, such a conflict would seriously impact the stability of the eastern Mediterranean region. Demilitarization would alleviate the security concerns of all parties and substantially enhance the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the problem. Unfortunately, Cyprus' efforts to resolve the situation have been rebuffed by Turkey and the self-proclaimed leader of the illegitimate Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Mr. Denktash. The intransigence of the Turkish side is clearly reflected in the two pre-conditions set by Mr. Denktash for a solution of the Cyprus problem. Specifically, he demanded that this illegal ``government'' in the occupied part of northern Cyprus be formally recognized. He also said Cyprus must withdraw its application to join the European Union, threatening that ``there will be war if Cyprus joined the European Union''. Both demands are obviously unacceptable to the Congress, the United States Government, the Government of Greece, the legitimate Government of Cyprus, and to any neutral member of the international community. Denktash's threats have been echoed by the Government of Turkey which has threatened to annex the occupied part of the island if Cyprus joins the European Union. In fact, Turkey has already signed a number of ``agreements'' with the illegal Turkish regime that lay the groundwork for the eventual annexation of the occupied area. What Mr. Denktash and Turkey fail to understand is that acceptance to membership in the European Union must be earned on the basis of performance and achievement. Over the years, it has become obvious that the intransigence of Turkey on a just settlement of the Cyprus problem represents a strategy aimed at forcing Turkey's acceptance to membership in the European Union. Such membership has so far been denied for several reasons. First, is the fact that Turkey has not yet achieved the level of economic prowess deemed necessary for membership in the European Union. Second, the political system and the philosophy and practices of its governments over the past several decades do not conform with the democratic principles of the western world. Third, Turkey's record on respect of human rights and political freedom leaves a lot to be desired. Lastly, Turkey continues to reject proposals for a just and permanent solution of the problem of Cyprus, despite the European Parliament's position that membership is contingent upon resolution of the Cyprus problem. The recent dispute over Cyprus' plan to purchase defensive anti- aircraft missiles to protect itself also demonstrates the bellicose posture of Turkey as opposed to the conciliatory stance of the Government of Cyprus. This incident clearly illustrates the need for a concerted effort to solve the problem of the divided Cyprus. Turkey objected to the planned deployment of the defensive missiles, falsely claiming that they represent a threat to its security. It also made clear its intention to use force to block this deployment. In response to these threats, the Government of Cyprus offered to cancel deployment if Turkey would resume serious and constructive reconciliation talks. Yet, the Turkish side remained intransigent in its refusal to renew negotiations and continued to threaten Cyprus with military action. In a remarkable gesture of good will, the Government of Cyprus eventually and unilaterally canceled the deployment of the missiles, forgoing its legitimate right to self-defense against Turkish aggression. It is regrettable that this conciliatory decision failed to bring the Turkish side to the negotiations table. Prolonging this explosive state of affairs in eastern Mediterranean is fraught with risks for all parties involved, including the United States. An armed conflict between Greece and Turkey over the Cyprus dispute remains a dire possibility. Such a conflict would have devastating consequences for peace and stability in that sensitive and highly volatile region. It is the interests of the United States, the countries involved in the dispute, as well as other neighboring countries to have this matter settled in a spirit of mutual respect. I, along with Representatives Maloney and Kelly, today introduced a bill that urges Turkey's compliance with all relevant United Nations resolutions relating to Cyprus. This bill also requests our administration to use its influence to persuade Turkey to accept the United Nation's Secretary General's invitation for negotiations without preconditions in the fall of 1999. To this end, I call upon the administration to focus its attention on the problem at hand and to apply the necessary diplomatic pressure on Turkey and Mr. Dektash in order to promote a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the dispute. If nothing else, history has taught us that neglecting a smoldering problem that has the potential of a major crisis, only makes its consequences more devastating. In the threshold of the third millennium, the United States can hardly afford to turn a blind eye to the Cyprus problem.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan agreement on S. 880, the Chemical Site Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. As you know, this legislation is the product of hard work and good faith compromise between the majority and the minority members of the House Commerce Committee. The legislation recognizes that there are complex public policy issues to be resolved concerning the dissemination of ``worst case scenario'' data for chemical and industrial facilities. Thus, the legislation seeks to resolve these issues in a straightforward manner: first, by imposing a one-year moratorium on the release of such information, and second, by requiring the President to assess security risks and the incentives created by public disclosure and then to promulgate regulations based on specified criteria. During hearings held by the Health and Environment Subcommittee, we learned that security experts inside and outside of the Administration had concerns that widespread dissemination of worst-case scenario data could provide a ``roadmap for terrorists.'' An estimated 35,000 facilities nationwide may eventually file such data with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This data, especially if manipulated in an electronic format, could provide for a ranking of potential targets and a means to select targets of opportunity. The bipartisan compromise requires additional review of this threat, which balancing such risks against the incentives created by public disclosure of off-site consequence analysis information. Regulations must be based on this analysis and provide for public access to a limited number of paper copies of off-site consequence analysis information and other public access as appropriate. Additionally, qualified researchers may obtain access to this information and the Attorney General must establish a ``read only'' technology information system to provide further public access. Under the bipartisan agreement, facilities which are subject to the requirement to file off-site consequence analysis information are also required to inform surrounding communities of the local implications of the risk management plans through public meetings. Small businesses may fulfill this requirement through a public posting of such information, but altogether, it is clear that public outreach concerning risks to the surrounding community must occur. Under separate provisions of the legislation, the Attorney General is to further a review of the vulnerability of covered stationary sources to criminal and terrorist activity, practices concerning site security and transportation security. The Attorney General must then report back to Congress on these matters within 3 years. The legislation also provides an exemption for certain retail facilities which sell flammable substances used as a fuel. This exemption recognizes that such facilities are regulated under state and local laws and codes and that section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act was designed to address accidental releases of toxic substances, not fuels which are subject to a myriad of other requirements and industry procedures. Thus, it is clear that this legislation is fundamentally about protecting the public. Rather than cross our fingers and hope that nothing will happen if detailed off-site information on 35,000 facilities was released, our agreement asks for a cold-eye assessment and public rulemaking. During this process, all points of view on access to off-site information will have the opportunity to be heard. Yet, at the same time, we will not take the precipitous and irreversible step of releasing all information without a thorough assessment of the damage to national security and local communities that could occur. Altogether then, the revisions we have made to S. 880 are prudent, reasonable and balanced. They are based on our committee's hearing record and consultations with the Administration. They protect the public without unduly burdening the flow of information in our free society. And they promote a deliberate process to resolve outstanding issues, instead of a quick legislative fix. I want to thank my colleagues from the other side of the aisle for the free and frank exchanges which have occurred in reaching agreement on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this agreement and vote to approve S. 880, as amended.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, as to the Andrews amendment and the water boundaries in the Aegean, I rise in support. My parents were born on the island of Kalymnos only miles from an occupied islet of Imia. The group of islets have always been considered Greek territory, and at no previous time has Turkey questioned Imia's territorial ownership. The European Parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution which stated that, and I quote, the islets of Imia belong to the Dodecanese group of islands on the basis of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, the protocol between Italy and Turkey of 1932, the Paris Treaty of 1947, and whereas even on Turkish maps from the 1960s the islets are shown as Greek territory. Turkey has been invited by Greece to take their case to the International Court of Justice at the Hague; and to this day, Turkey has not sought redress. Although Turkey is an ally, Mr. Chairman, its actions must not go unquestioned. Turkey must respect and abide by international law. As President Eisenhower once stated and I quote him, there can be no peace without law, and there could be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends. Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. We must support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the Andrews amendment regarding Taiwan. Taiwan has been one of our oldest and closest friends in Asia since 1949. The people of that republic live in a free democratic society, and we should commend Taiwan for its dedication to democratic ideals. Last year, the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution reaffirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act and our commitment to the people of Taiwan. Congress must once again send a strong message to the People's Republic of China and the world that we intend to stand by our friends and allies. The United States must dispel any notion on the part of China's leaders that we will tolerate the use of force in determining the future of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan must be responsible for determining their own future in a peaceful and democratic fashion. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Andrews amendment on recognition of the Sovereignty of the Territories in the Aegean Sea. On December 25, 1995, a Turkish cargo ship ran aground on one of the Imia islets. The ships' captain refused assistance from the Greek Coast Guard on the basis that the Islet was Turkish. Tensions began to mount and by January 29, 1996, both Greece and Turkey had dispatched naval vessels to the area. On January 31st, through U.S. mediation, both sides agreed to withdraw. While I am thankful that this incident did not lead to an armed conflict then, this matter still remains unresolved today because Turkey continues to breach international law. As you may know, my parents were born on the island of Kalymnos--only miles from Imia. The group of Islets have always been considered Greek territory and at no previous time has Turkey questioned Imia's territorial ownership. Indeed, past Greek foreign minister Theodore Pangalos stated ``This is the first time that Turkey has actually laid claim to Greek territory.'' The European parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution which stated that ``The Islets of Imia belong to the Dodecanese group of islands, on the basis of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, the protocol between Italy and Turkey of 1932, the Paris Treaty of 1947, and whereas even on Turkish maps from the 1960's, the Islets are shown as Greek territory.'' Moreover, the governments of Italy and France have publicly stated their support of Greek sovereignty over Imia, as provided by international law. Turkey has been invited by Greece to take their case to the international court of justice at the Hague. To this date, Turkey has not sought redress. Although Turkey is an ally, its actions must not go unquestioned. Turkey must respect and abide by international law. As President Eisenhower once stated, ``There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.'' Mr. Chairman, enough is enough.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, Representatives Sherrod Brown and Jim Greenwood, the Health Research and Quality Act of 1999. We are introducing this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and and redefine the mission of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Our bill renames it as the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ-pronounced ``arc''). The purpose of this new name, and the reauthorization, is to foster comprehensive improvements in our health care system. Our bill refocuses the efforts of this critical agency to support private sector initiatives. Building on its current activities, the new agency will become a key partner to the private sector in improving the quality of health cae in America. Specifically, our bill directs the new agency to take action to improve health care quality by: Conducting and supporting research to reduce errors in medicine; supporting the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and expanding its sample size to provide information on the quality of patient care; supporting research to evaluate and initiatives to advance the use of information systems for the study of health care quality and other information initiatives; maintaining the Center for Primary Care Research and continuing primary care research; and establishing grants for regional centers to improve and increase access to preventive health care services. We realize the importance of supporting public-private solutions to improve health care quality in our nation, and we hope that Congress will support the reauthorization of this important agency. A brief summary of the legislation follows: Summary of the Health Research and Quality Act of 1999-- (Legislation to Reauthorize the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research) Part A: Establishment and General Duties Redesignates the agency as the ``Agency for Health Research and Quality'' (AHRQ, pronounced ``arc''), and changes the agency head's title from administrator to ``director.'' Revises the agency's mission to emphasize its role as a partner to the private sector, with responsibility for promoting health care quality through research, synthesizing and disseminating scientific evidence, and advancing private and public efforts to improve health care quality. Prohibits the agency from mandating ``national standards of clinical practice or quality health care standards.'' Emphasizes the agency's non-regulatory role in building the science of quality, while private and public sector purchasers and accreditation agencies set quality ``standards.'' Part B: Health Care Improvement Research Directs the agency to take specific action to improve the quality of health care by: 1. Identifying and disseminating methods for rating the scientific strength of research studies; 2. Conducting and supporting research, and building partnerships to support research, in order to reduce errors in medicine; 3. Supporting the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and expanding its sample size to provide information on the quality of patient care; 4. Supporting research to evaluate and initiatives to advance the use of information systems for the study of health care quality and other information initiatives; and 5. Maintaining the Center for Primary Care Research and continuing primary care research. Authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Director, to coordinate all research, evaluations, and demonstrations related to health services research and quality measurement and improvement supported by the federal government. Requires the Secretary to contract with the Institute of Medicine to develop two reports on the organization and coordination of the quality improvement, research, and oversight activities of the federal government. Part C: General Provisions Reauthorizes the agency's existing national advisory council and standardizes membership among the groups represented. Directs the council to more broadly focus on overall priorities for health care research (quality, outcomes, cost, use, and access to care), the field of health services research, and identification of opportunities for public- private sector partnerships. Increases the limit on small grants from $50,000 to $100,000 to reflect inflation. Revises the authorization of appropriations to reflect congressional intent to increase research funding related to health care quality and improvement (authorizes $250 million in funding for FY 2000 and ``such sums as necessary'' for Fiscal Years 2001-2006). Amends Title III of the Public Health Service Act to establish grants for regional centers to improve and increase access to preventive health care services.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce legislation that will help millions of Medicare beneficiaries whose health coverage is in jeopardy. My Florida colleague, Peter Deutsch, has joined me in sponsoring this bipartisan measure. Our bill--the ``Medicare+Choice Risk Adjustment Amendments of 1999''--will help to preserve and expand health care choices for seniors who participate in Medicare managed care plans. The Medicare+Choice program was created as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act to increase health care options for Medicare beneficiaries. While the majority of beneficiaries remain in traditional fee-for- service Medicare, enrollment in managed care plans has grown rapidly in recent years. Many seniors now depend on the additional benefits (such as prescription drug coverage) available through plans under the Medicare+Choice program. However, a serious crisis threatens this vital program. Last year, nearly 100 Medicare managed care plans did not renew their Medicare contracts or reduced their geographic areas of service. This year, many more plans have announced their intent to leave the Medicare+Choice program, raising serious concerns about its continued availability as an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Many plans cite inadequate reimbursement as a major factor in their decision. Unless Congress takes action to correct this problem, the consequences will be devastating for Medicare beneficiaries, especially low-income seniors. Many will lose the option of participating in a Medicare managed care plan altogether. Others will face increased out- of-pocket costs or a reduction in benefits. This situation is largely due to a decision by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to disregard the intent of Congress in establishing the Medicare+Choice program. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act required HCFA to establish a process for ``adjusting'' Medicare+Choice payments based on the likelihood or the ``risk'' that enrollees will use health care services. Congress anticipated that this new ``risk adjustment'' process would provide Medicare+Choice plans with higher payments for patients who are chronically ill and lower payments for those who are generally healthy. We did not intend to decrease overall Medicare+Choice spending through this process. Instead, we were simply trying to make sure that Medicare+Choice funds would be distributed based on the health status of Medicare+Choice enrollees. However, HCFA has completely disregarded the intent of Congress on this critical issue. The agency is using its authority to establish a ``risk adjustment'' process as an excuse to try to impose deep spending cuts in the Medicare+Choice program. HCFA's ill-advised decision threatens to seriously underfund the Medicare+Choice program. Estimates indicate as much as $11 billion may be drained from Medicare+Choice over the next five years, if HCFA is allowed to go forward with its plan. At the time the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated no savings from the risk adjuster. CBO's analysis assumed that the risk adjuster would simply shift funds within Medicare+Choice. By contrast, HCFA's approach would drain billions of dollars from the program. The ``Medicare+Choice Risk Adjustment Amendments of 1999'' would address this problem in two ways. First, it would require HCFA to implement its risk adjustment process on a budget neutral basis--as Congress intended. Second, the bill would repeal a provision of current law that automatically requires the annual increase in Medicare fee- for-service payments. Millions of seniors rely on Medicare+Choice for greater flexibility in meeting their health care needs. My legislation will help to stabilize this vital program and guarantee continued health care choices for Medicare beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting seniors' health care choices by cosponsoring the ``Medicare+Choice Risk Adjustment Amendments of 1999.''

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999.'' This important bill reauthorizes the National Organ Transplantation Act and promotes efforts to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation. I have been joined by two of my Commerce Committee colleagues, Rep. Gene Green and Rep. Frank Pallone, in sponsoring this bipartisan measure. Our legislation addresses a serious national health concern. Quite simply, we do not have enough organs to satisfy the demand for those in need of a transplant. By even the most optimistic estimates, anticipated increases in organ supply are not projected to meet demand. This year, 20,000 people will receive organ transplants--but 40,000 will not. In the last decade alone, the waiting list for transplants grew by over 300 percent. This is literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of Americans each year. To address this problem, our bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a program to educate the public with respect to organ donation, in particular, the need for additional organs for transplantation. In addition, it authorizes grants to cover the costs of travel and subsistence expenses for individuals who make living donations of their organs. The bill specifically recognizes the generous contribution made by each living individual who has donated an organ to save a life. It also acknowledges the advances in medical technology that have enabled transplantation of organs donated by living individuals to become a viable treatment option for an increasing number of patients. The bill also reauthorizes the National Open Transplant Act, which was enacted to provide for the establishment and operation of an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. It clarifies that the Network is responsible for developing, establishing and maintaining medical criteria and standards for organ procurement and transplantation. This will ensure that organs are distributed based on sound scientific principles--without regard to the economic status or political influence of a recipient. Given the enormity of the issues involved, Members of Congress must work together to address these concerns on a bipartisan basis. To that end, I urge all of my colleagues to support our effort to increase organ donation by cosponsoring the ``Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999.''

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of increasing the federal government's commitment to biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. As Chairman of the Health and Environment Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, I am a strong advocate of this agency's vital mission. I have joined many of my colleagues in supporting efforts to double federal funding for the NIH. The NIH is the primary federal agency charged with the conduct and support of biomedical and behavioral research. Each of its institutes has a specialized focus on particular diseases, areas of human health and development, or aspects of research support. When we consider its role as one of the worlds's foremost research centers, it is amazing to remember that the NIH actually began its existence as a one-room Laboratory of Hygiene in 1887. Medical research represents the single most effective weapon against the diseases that affect many Americans. The advances made over the course of the last century could not have been predicated by even the most far-sighted observers. It is equally difficult to anticipate the significant gains we may achieve in years to come through increased funding for further medical research. Last year, Congress gave a substantial increase in funding to the NIH. The fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations law provided $15.6 billion for the NIH--an increase of almost $2 billion or 15 percent over the previous fiscal year. This increase represents a sizable down payment toward the goal of doubling its funding over five years. This year, I am hopeful that we can make similar progress in that regard. As we work to increase federal funding, I am also sponsoring legislation to encourage private support for NIH research efforts. My bill, H.R. 785, the Biomedical Research Assistance Voluntary Option or ``BRAVO'' Act, would allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their federal income tax refunds to support NIH research efforts. I introduced the bill on a bipartisan basis with the Ranking Member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Brown of Ohio. Madam Speaker, every dollar invested in research today will yield untold benefits for all Americans in years to come. Indeed, our own lives might some day depend on the efforts of scientists and doctors currently at work in our nation's laboratories. I urge all Members to join me in supporting a strong federal commitment to biomedical research.