Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2941, a bill to reauthorize and enhance Johanna's Law to increase public awareness and knowledge with respect to gynecologic cancers. I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing this vitally important bill to the Floor. I would also like to thank Representative Rosa DeLauro and Representative Darrell Issa who have been tireless champions of this bill. I am proud to have worked with them to enact the ``Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act''--also known as Johanna's Law--back in 2006; and I am proud to be a part of their efforts this year to reauthorize and enhance this program. I first got involved in the fight against gynecologic cancer when Ms. Kolleen Stacey, a constituent of mine, who became a dear, dear friend, told me about her personal battle with ovarian cancer--the deadliest of the gynecological cancers. Kolleen told me about Johanna's Law, convinced me to become a co-sponsor; and she never stopped pushing me to get the bill signed into law; because she never wanted any other woman to go through what she was going through. It took more than two years and a lot of hard work but in 2006, Johanna's Law became law and this country took a huge step forward towards fulfilling Kolleen's dream. On July 10, 2009, Kolleen tragically lost her fight with ovarian cancer. But I know that she is looking down on us today and smiling because her dream lives on in our actions today. God bless you Kolleen. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 21,880 new cases of ovarian cancer will be diagnosed and 13,850 deaths are expected to be caused by ovarian cancer in the United States in 2010 alone. For the State of Indiana, The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2010, 450 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 300 women will die of ovarian cancer. This is a tragedy. Research shows that many of those deaths could be prevented if more women knew the risk factors and recognized the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers so that they could discuss them with their doctors. Ovarian cancer has a 93 percent five-year survival rate if detected in Stage One and only a 27 percent survival rate if detected in Stage Three or Four. Yet, the majority of women and medical professionals are unaware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Women can go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for years, like Kolleen Stacey. Just over five years ago on September 5, 2005, Kolleen testified before Congress about the need for legislation for added awareness and education on gynecological cancers. ``It took an entire year for me to be diagnosed correctly. By then the cancer was Stage IIIC, an advanced stage of ovarian cancer with only a 38 percent chance of complete cure. Had it been discovered in an early stage, I would have had a 90 percent chance of complete cure.'' That is why, in December 2006, Congress passed Johanna's Law, named for Johanna Silver Gordon, who lost her life to ovarian cancer despite being a health conscious woman who visited the gynecologist regularly. Like many women, Johanna had symptoms of ovarian cancer that were missed by both her and her healthcare provider. Johanna's Law authorized the Centers for Disease Control to create a gynecologic cancer awareness campaign aimed at educating women and health care providers about the signs and symptoms of gynecologic cancers--bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, and urinary symptoms (urgency or frequency). The campaign, Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer, seeks to raise awareness of the five main types of gynecologic cancer: ovarian, cervical, uterine, vaginal and vulvar. To date, the Inside Knowledge campaign has supported many activities, including the development of: Cancer-specific fact sheets about gynecologic cancers in both English and Spanish, A comprehensive gynecologic cancer brochure, Formative research and concept testing using focus groups to better understand the target audience, Materials for primary care and health care professionals, and Print and broadcast Public Service Announcements (PSAs). All materials created through Johanna's Law have been sent to television, radio and print outlets around the country. The CDC is tracking the airing of PSAs and audience impressions. The CDC is also reaching out to groups, encouraging the use of the materials. We still have a long way to go but Johanna's law is making a difference. Doctors, nurses and cancer survivors agree--providing more information about gynecologic cancers saves women's lives. H.R. 2941 reauthorizes and enhances this critically important awareness campaign. This legislation provides for the continuation of the education campaign started by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase the awareness and knowledge of health care providers and women with respect to gynecological cancers. It also enhances cooperation with non-governmental organizations carrying out complementary education and awareness campaigns. H.R. 2941 is a good bill, it is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge our colleagues in the Senate to act quickly and move this critically needed legislation to the President's desk for his signature. This is literally a matter of life and death.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1485, a resolution expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the designation of September 2010, as ``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.'' I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing this important resolution to the Floor. I would also like to thank Representative Randy Neugebauer for his tireless efforts to raise awareness of this terrible disease. The prostate is a topic that makes all men uncomfortable, present company included. And because of this fact, the disease has become a silent epidemic. According to the latest statistics, 1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime (218,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year alone); this rivals the rate of breast cancer in women which is approximately 1 in 8. That is why we must promote and support Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, to bring this issue into the light, and get men to begin having conversations about their prostate health. It is important for men to take advantage of prostate cancer screening exams in order to detect the disease at the earliest opportunity, when it is still curable. However, getting more men to pay attention to this issue is only half the battle because a recent study funded by the National Cancer Institute demonstrated that the most common available methods of detecting prostate cancer, the PSA blood test and Digital Rectal Exam, DRE, the only preinvasive indicators available for the detection of prostate cancer, are not particularly adept at detecting prostate cancer. The study showed that many PSA blood tests that screen for prostate cancer result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms (15 percent of men with normal PSA levels still have prostate cancer). Even when PSA levels are abnormal, 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer that would require surgery but undergo unnecessary biopsies. As a result more than 1,000,000 U.S. men have prostate biopsies annually--costing our health care system approximately $1.44 billion--many of which could be eliminated if we had advanced diagnostic imaging tools. When one look at the battle against breast cancer, a disease that again affects about 1 in 8 women, we see that it was a combination of increased awareness along with the development of more sophisticated diagnostic and imaging tools that help improve early detection and survival rates. The same strategy can work for prostate cancer. For example, preliminary data from a European study demonstrated that when prostate cancer biopsies were guided by high-precision, experimental MRI, they accurately detected 59% of clinically significant prostate cancer missed by at least two consecutive blind biopsies. Unfortunately, today, neither the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services nor the Department of Defense devotes substantial resources to prostate cancer imaging research. I have been told that the National Institutes of Health spent only $10 million on prostate cancer detection research last year out of a total prostate cancer research budget of $350 million. In short, there is no concerted Federal effort to bring the equivalent of mammography to prostate cancer detection. Representative Cummings and I have introduced legislation, the PRIME Act (H.R. 1485) to correct this problem. The PRIME Act would, among other things, require the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to: (1) carry out a program to expand and intensify research to develop advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment comparable to mammogram technology. I encourage my colleagues to co- sponsor this critically importance legislation. There is still much work to be done if we want to gain the upper hand against a disease that has negatively impacted so many men and their families. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month is a time for us to discuss and confront this epidemic, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us feel. Despite the fact that men don't like to address these sorts of issues openly, we must acknowledge that the numbers speak for themselves. 32,000 men will die in 2010, 1.5 million men will have invasive and inaccurate biopsies performed, and 70,000 men will have treatment failures while trying to seek help for their condition. These statistics stand as stark reminders of the importance of this month and the dialogue that it will hopefully encourage. It is my hope that through increased awareness and discussion about prostate cancer, we can begin to chip away at this silent killer. We owe it to ourselves, our fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and friends to make this effort. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 1458.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concerns with H. Res 1631. I think many of my colleagues know that I have been a vocal supporter of religious freedom and human rights around the world for many years. But, I believe the resolution before us is less about promoting religious freedom and religious tolerance than it is about poking a stick in the eye of Turkish Cypriots; who are currently working together with their Greek Cypriots neighbors to strike a comprehensive peace deal for that troubled island. Time and time again, I have come to the floor to ask my colleagues to review the facts and stop oversimplifying this issue. Revisionist history attempts to lay all the blame for the ills of Cyprus at the doorstep of Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. H. Res. 1631 seems to repeat this pattern. I urge my colleagues to step back and ask themselves whether this resolution will truly advance the reconciliation process or merely add fuel to the fire. If we do that, the answer is obvious, H. Res. 1631 is an unnecessary and inappropriate assertion of opinion that does nothing to bring peace to a divided land. In fact, those on both sides of the issue are already working together to come to a resolution. On March 21, 2008 the Greek Cypriot leader Mr. Christofias and the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Talat forged an agreement that paved the way for the establishment of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage. This committee has already set in order plans to protect, preserve and restore the rich cultural heritage of Cyprus and by all accounts have made great strides to date towards achieving these goals. According to a recent press statement, the Cultural Committee has expressed a commitment to ``compile the entire list of immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus [and] to create an educational interactive program that would give the opportunity to younger generation of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to learn about each other and the cultural heritage of the island.'' The effort is an open and honest dialogue between Greek and Turkish Cypriots regarding the preservation of their shared history. I believe, if left alone, this cooperation could well serve to open dialogue in other areas. Rather than restating the tired talking points of yesterday which only serve to place blame for past offenses, as appears to be the case with H. Res. 1631, I would urge my colleagues to applaud and support these efforts. Too often, the international community and many well-meaning members of this body fail to recognize the two sides of this issue. For example, the Turkish Cypriots have expressed concern over destruction and neglect of Turkish-Muslim monuments of importance in the South of Cyprus while at the same time committing to protect the heritage of the Greek Cypriots. In a letter to Mr. Hastings, the Turkish Cypriots expressed that ``The Turkish side believes that the cultural heritage of a people is its most important asset, its identity and a sense of community through time. With this understanding, we regard all the cultural heritage in North Cyprus, regardless of its origin, as part of the common heritage of both the Turkish Cypriot people and of humanity.'' Thankfully, and as I've already stated, the Committee on Cultural Heritage has agreed to work to establish a mechanism that does just this. But why if H. Res. 1631, is the fair and balanced resolution its supporters claim it to be, is it silent in terms of commending all efforts to preserve the cultural heritage of both sides. Madam Speaker, if we can redirect our misspent energies towards the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots; by bolstering the efforts of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to work together in good faith for the future of all Cypriots; then the future will be bright for Cyprus. However, if we as the United States Congress continue only to echo the shrill cries of the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States, we will only help further delay the day that peace comes to Cyprus. I urge my colleagues to reject H. Res. 1632.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1637, expressing the support of the House of Representatives of the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness month. I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee for bringing this resolution to the Floor; and I would also like to thank Representative Ted Poe--author of the resolution--for his tireless efforts to raise awareness of the scourge of domestic violence. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution because domestic violence for me is not an abstract concept. I have lived through domestic violence and I think it is important for people to hear my story and understand the human side of this problem. My colleagues who spoke before me did an excellent job laying out the statistics but the numbers do not fully express what it's like to survive domestic violence. I have said this before but I can't stress this point enough: it is so important that everybody in America be involved in stopping domestic violence. There are so many people out there that have heard some woman scream in the night or seen some child beaten by a father, mother or caregiver and simply done nothing about it. They say to themselves that it is not their business, and so they go on their merry way, and they feel like this problem will go away on its own. It doesn't go away. It only gets worse and worse and worse until sometimes people get killed or maimed for life. I know because I have lived through this hell. My father was six-foot eight, and my mother was five-foot-and-a-half inches tall, and he used to beat her so badly that we couldn't recognize her. He would tear her clothes off of her in front of me and my brother and sister, and then if we said anything he would beat us too. Thankfully for my family he eventually went to prison for trying to kill my mother, but one of the reasons it went that far, in my opinion, is because there wasn't enough attention paid to what he was doing in the first place. I can remember one night about 2 o'clock in the morning, my mother, who had been beaten up, took me and my brother and sister down to the police station in Indianapolis, and she went to the desk sergeant and said to him, you know, she wanted to get a restraining order, get away from this brute and this brutality. And the desk officer said, you know what time it is, lady? It's 2 o'clock in the morning, and these kids ought to be in bed. If you don't take these kids home right now, I'm going to arrest you for child abuse. That was the attitude that we saw back in those days. I can remember when she would throw a lamp through the front window when he was beating on her, or me, and scream for help so loud that you could hear it for blocks away and nobody came. Nobody's light went on. Nobody paid any attention. That is the crime! The crime isn't just the wife abuse or child abuse or spousal abuse. The crime is that people don't take it upon themselves to stop it. Today, police departments have improved across this country; and there are a lot of organizations that are trying to help men, women and kids who are abused, and that's great. It's a great step in the right direction, but as the statistics that we've heard today tell you, the violence still goes on and on and on. The only way it's going to stop is, if collectively across this country, men and women who see violence in public or in private or hear about it, report it to the police, report it to the proper people and get that perpetrator away from that man and that woman and those kids. If we don't do that, this is never going to stop. The perpetrator has to be afraid of what's going to happen to him or her. And so I'd like to say to my colleagues, this is very important legislation. I really appreciate it. I'm glad that we sponsor this every year, and I encourage everyone to vote in favor of this resolution. We need to make sure there's awareness of this violence. Only by shining the light of day on it can we eliminate this scourge once and for all.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as cofounder and cochair of the Congressional Serbian Caucus, I rise tonight to honor an outstanding Serbian-American, Captain (Ret.) George M. Vujnovich, who was recently awarded the Bronze Star Medal, for his heroic actions during World War II. The Bronze Star is awarded to military service personnel for bravery, acts of merit or meritorious service. When awarded for bravery, it is the fourth-highest combat award of the United States Armed Forces. Captain Vujnovich's participation in the planning and execution of Operation Halyard--one of the most successful air force rescue missions in history and an operation so secret that the records were only declassified in 1997--certainly exemplifies the heroism required to receive this prestigious military honor. Captain Vujnovich served with the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the modern Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, and the wartime organization charged with coordinating activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States military. Operation Halyard evolved in the wake of the Allied bombing campaign to destroy Nazi Germany's vast network of petroleum resources in occupied Eastern Europe. The most vital target of bombing was the facilities located in Ploesti, Romania, which supplied 35 percent of Germany's wartime petroleum. Beginning in April 1944, bombers of the Fifteenth Allied Air Force began a relentless campaign to blast the heavily guarded facilities in Ploesti in an attempt to halt petroleum production altogether. By August, Ploesti was virtually destroyed--but at the cost of 350 bombers lost, with their crews either killed, captured, or missing in action. The assault on Ploesti forced hundreds of Allied airmen to bail out over Nazi-occupied eastern Serbia, an area patrolled by the Allied- friendly Chetnik guerrilla army. When the Chetnik commander, General Draza Mihailovich, realized that Allied airmen were parachuting into his territory, he ordered his troops, as well as the local peasantry, to aid the aviators by taking them to Chetnik headquarters in Pranjani, Serbia, for evacuation. General Mihailovich's attempts to alert American authorities to the situation regrettably initially failed to produce action. Fortunately, fate would have it that when Mirjana Vujnovich, a Serb employee of the Yugoslav embassy in Washington, DC, heard of the trapped airmen, she immediately wrote to her husband, Captain Vujnovich, stationed in Bari, Italy. As an American, descended from Serb parents, Vujnovich knew the region intimately and also knew how to escape from Nazi-occupied territory: he had been a medical student in Belgrade when Yugoslavia fell to the Axis powers in 1941, and he and his wife spent months sneaking through minefields and begging for visas before they finally escaped from Nazi-occupied Europe. Captain Vujnovich made it his personal crusade to get the airmen home. From the outset though, Operation Halyard encountered opposition from Allied leaders--from the U.S. State Department, from communist sympathizers in the British Special Operations Executive, SOE, even from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself. It was an operation that seemed condemned from the start, but Captain Vujanovich persevered rather than let the mission die. His persistence eventually won out. Within only the first two days, Operation Halyard--which officially ran from August 9, 1944, through December 27, 1944-- successfully retrieved 241 American and Allied airmen. By the time the Operation was officially ended, Vujnovich's team had airlifted 512 downed Allied airmen to safety without the loss of a single life or aircraft--a truly impressive accomplishment. Captain George Vujnovich's recognition as a hero and valued asset to this country and the United States Air Force is long overdue. Frankly, had the records of the operation not remained sealed until 1997, I feel certain Captain Vujanovich would have received this honor years ago. Nevertheless, the decades do not and cannot diminish the valor and patriotism of this extraordinary man. I ask all my colleagues to join me now to honor this Serbian-American hero, to thank him for his dedicated service to our country and to congratulate him for winning the Bronze Star. Captain Vujanovich, I salute you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' (H.R. 5756). Upon the diagnosis of only grandson, who is autistic, I took it upon myself to be active in promoting autism awareness and advocating more research for the disorder. I am also a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus. About twenty years ago, autism was considered a rare disease affecting about 1 in 10,000 children. Today, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that an average of 1 in 110 children in the United States are diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) every year. ASD occur in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, but are four times more likely to occur in boys than in girls. In my home state of Indiana, we experienced a 923% cumulative growth rate for autism from 1992-2003. The ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' is desperately needed in our country. Thousands of families living with autism on a daily basis have to cope in their own way and fight to find available resources and services for their children, or in the case of adult individuals with autism services to help them live independent and productive lives. All too often, there is little to no coordination between service providers, government agencies, and the medical/ academic community who are researching and trying to unlock the mysteries of ASDs. The ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' is a first step in filling these gaps. Specifically, the ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' would authorize the establishment of a new Federal program to provide technical assistance to improve services rendered to children and adults with autism, and their families and to expand the number of University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service. Grants would go to University Centers for Excellence to provide individuals--including parents, health, allied health, vocational, and educational professionals--with interdisciplinary training, continuing education, technical assistance, and information to improve services provided to children and adults with autism and their families. The bill also authorizes grant money to a national organization to provide training and technical assistance to do the following: assist in the dissemination of information; develop a web portal; compile and disseminate materials for training and technical assistance so that the entire network can benefit from items developed at individual centers; and convene expert panels to exchange ideas and make recommendations that further training, assessment, interventions, services, and support for individuals living with autism. Another grant would be awarded to not more than 4 new University Centers to facilitate outreach and collaboration with minority institutions. I want to thank Representatives Smith and Doyle for working to bring this important bill to the House floor for a vote. As a member of the Coalition on Autism Research and Education also known as the Congressional Autism Caucus, I have worked closely with both Representative Doyle and Smith on autism awareness issues and I'm proud to join them in supporting this initiative. While I believe that the ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' will go a long way to provide needed resources and information to families living with autism, I also believe that as a Nation we need to do more. This epidemic of autism is an immediate crisis to our education system, and our health care systems, our long-term housing and care system for the disabled. Autism is a condition that can be treated to a degree but it has no known cure; it will not go away and neither should our efforts to research this disorder and aide American Families. Autism is not bound or limited to the walls of a household. I believe that our Nation's educational, labor, housing, law enforcement and medical communities are currently ill-equipped and undertrained to handle this underrepresented generation of autistic individuals and that it is going to take a national commitment driven from the highest levels to marshal the necessary resources and energy to catch up. That is why I introduced legislation H.R. 3703 to require the President to call, not later than December 31, 2010, a White House Conference on Autism. Therefore, in addition to lending their support to the ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'', I am also urging all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring H.R. 3703. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of both the ``Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act'' and the ``White House Conference on Autism Act of 2009.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and member of the House Taiwan caucus to express my congratulations to the leaders and people of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of National Day this October 10th. It has been nearly a century since the October 10, 1911 start of the revolution that toppled the Qing dynasty and established the Republic of China, the first republic in Asia. Today the ROC on Taiwan has become a full-fledged democracy and a beacon of prosperity and freedom for all of Asia. Just twenty some years ago, Taiwan was a closed authoritarian society with no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, and no right to vote. It now has robust political parties, and virtually every office in Taiwan is contested through free and fair elections. Two and a half years ago, Taiwan successfully concluded its fourth popular election for president since 1996 by electing Dr. Ma Ying-jeou. President Ma has worked tirelessly since his inauguration on May 20, 2008 to improve the relationship between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland and he has been a strong ally to the United States. The Taiwanese and the Chinese mainland governments have worked together in productive talks on issues such as direct cross-strait flights and shipping, more tourist visits by mainlanders to Taiwan, and the recent signing for Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that serves as a platform for economic interaction between the two sides. This cooperation has served to reduce tensions in the Strait considerably. Taiwan has long been a strategic partner of the United States. We have worked closely with the government of President Ma and our mutual relationship continues to be strong. It is my hope that the relations will continue to grow through enhanced cooperation in trade, science and technology, educational and cultural exchanges, security cooperation and Taiwan's participation in international organizations. As Taiwan has demonstrated cooperation in good faith both with the mainland and with the United States, I hope that it will soon enjoy greater inclusion in the international community. It is exciting to learn that Taiwan was once again invited last May to attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland as an observer. This was a breakthrough for Taiwan's participation in a formal UN activity since in 1971, the world body switched recognition to mainland China. However, this is not enough. I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize Taiwan's participation in the WHA and encourage them to put pressure on the international community to allow Taiwan's participation in the activities of other organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Madam Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to congratulate our Taiwanese friends on the 99th Anniversary of National Day and to join me now in thanking the people of Taiwan for their friendship.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1613. I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Pakistan due to the recent historic floods and hope that this resolution will bring much-needed attention to the plight of the Pakistanis. I am always moved and inspired by the generosity of the American people when they hear about those in need around the world and I believe that the United States should do everything possible to help expedite the flow of U.S. and international aid supplies and workers into the region. We must do everything possible to help expedite the flow of U.S. and international aide supplies and workers into the region. I believe that we should immediately reprogram funds from the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, which were initially set aside for democracy building, into the relief effort. This way we can have an immediate impact without spending a single additional taxpayer dollar. While food shortages and instances of waterborne disease continue to spread, we must act quickly and decisively. The generosity of the American people has been commendable. Let's make it count by acting as swiftly and competently as possible. We are currently fighting extremists throughout the region of South Asia, extremists who propagate the lie that Americans are out to destroy the Muslim way of life. Now we have an unprecedented opportunity to prove that this couldn't be further from the truth by helping the Pakistanis when they need it most. The U.S. response to the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan led to a short-term increase in positive public opinion of the United States in Pakistan and I know that a similar response to this, a much larger tragedy, is sure to have an even greater influence in the hearts and minds of people.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2010 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition (NECO), the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since NECO's founding in 1986, more then 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Army Specialist Chad Derek Clements, 26 years old, died on Monday, August 30, 2010, while serving his country in Afghanistan. He was one of my constituents. He was born on March 16, 1984, in San Diego, California. After he graduated from Huntington North High School in Huntington, Indiana, he decided he wanted to proudly serve in the U.S. Army. Upon his graduation from basic training, Chad reported to the 1st Armored Battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado; and he was deployed shortly after to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. During Chad's distinguished career, he received multiple awards for his service: the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Medal, the NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Combat Action Badge. He has also recently been posthumously promoted from private first class to Army specialist. His expertise and enthusiasm for his job in the United States Army was insurmountable. To the citizens of the State of Indiana, to his fellow troops and to the countless people that he touched, Chad will forever be remembered as a hero. He was preceded in death by his father, Daniel, and our thoughts, prayers and deepest condolences go out to his mother, Anne; to his stepfather, Eddie; to his sister, Danielle; to his stepbrother, Cory; and to his stepsister, Heather. These are some of the things we hate to talk about on this floor, Mr. Speaker; but, unfortunately, war brings us to these kinds of conclusions. We just wish that all of those like Chad will never be forgotten for the service they gave to our country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say, before I start my 5-minute Special Order, Mr. Speaker, that I concur with what my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe) just said. There are innumerable crimes that are being committed by people who are illegal aliens. And he is absolutely correct, we've got to secure that border, and we need to do whatever is necessary. The President of the United States has the responsibility to protect that border, and he needs to get on with it. States like Arizona and other States are very concerned about what is going on. There is a sign 80 miles north of the Mexican border in Arizona that says don't go south of here because it's not safe. That's unconscionable. The American people should not have to worry when they are in their own country about terrorists or criminals coming across the border from another country to kill them. So I would just like to say to Mr. Poe that I really appreciate your comments. Let me just say in my Special Order, there was a book called ``A Tale of Two Cities'' by Charles Dickens that said ``It was the best of times and it was the worst of times.'' I heard some of my colleagues on the other side saying earlier tonight that we really ought to do something about extending the tax cuts that are in place that were put there during the Bush administration. We really need to do that. If you're one of the 10 percent that are unemployed or one of the 15 or 16 percent that are unemployed or unemployable right now, you realize how really bad it is. We live in the greatest country on the face of the Earth in the history of the Earth, so from that standpoint it is the best of times. But for those who are out of work and struggling right now, it is the worst of times. I had town meetings this past week, and I can't tell you how many people told me how bad it was and how soon they were going to lose their jobs, or their husbands or wives had lost their jobs and they're suffering, so what we need to do is take the steps necessary to bring about economic recovery. As I've said many times on this floor, when Ronald Reagan took office in the early eighties, he came in, and instead of raising taxes he cut taxes and we had 20 years of prosperity. We had 12 percent unemployment and 14 percent inflation. And what happened was he came in, and when they said he had to raise taxes in order to get the economy moving, he did just the opposite and the economy took off. That's what we ought to be doing today. If I could talk to the President--and I know I can't because I'm here on the floor--I would say, Mr. President, look at history. Look at John F. Kennedy, a great Democrat President, and look at Ronald Reagan--who I think was the greatest Republican President in our lifetime--and see what they did to bring about economic recovery, and that is, cut taxes, cut government spending, move the country in the right direction, even if it's just for a couple of years that we have the tax cuts in place. But right now is the wrong time to be increasing taxes or letting the Bush tax cuts expire. And I don't want to be political, but I think I have to say to my colleagues who may be paying attention in their offices right now, there will be a price to be paid in about 6 weeks for those who don't heed the message that is coming from the American people. They want economic recovery, and they understand what needs to be done. And they're going to hold those of us who don't listen to them accountable on November 2. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2010 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition (NECO), the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since NECO's founding in 1986, more then 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders. As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the Nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who really seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promotes unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation. Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulating all of the 2010 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's recipients be placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. 2010 Ellis Island Medals of Honor Recipients Ichak K. Adizes, PhD, Adrienne G. Alexanian, Richard F. Ambinder, MD, Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Anousheh Ansari, Rao S. Anumolu, Robert S. Atallah, Mohamed A. Atassi, MD, FACC, Kevork D. Atinizian, Nancy H. Bailey, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, Samira Kanaan Beckwith, Sarkis Bedevian, Dorothy L. Beeve, RN, Jerold E. Beeve, MD, Suraj P. Bhatia, Carole Black, Chief George F. Brown (Ret.), Richard R. Burey, Jr., Michael Capasso, Dominic Chianese, Hank Hyunho Choi, Yen S. Chou, Jim Lin-Chi Chu, Carl J. Clause, Eugene P. Conese, Sr., John F. Conley, Thomas J. Cook, Edward Cruz, Paul R. Davies, Chief Raymond Diaz, Edward B. Diethrich, MD, Andre C. Dimitriadis, PhD, Borko B. Djordjevic, MD, Thomas J. Donohue, David Du, David B. Falk, Lina Fang, Eric Friedberg, Col. Arnald D. Gabriel, USAF (Ret.), Rod G. Gilbert, Col. David G. Goulet, USMC, E. Bulkeley Griswold, Col. Gina M. Grosso, USAF, S. K. Gupta, Wolf Hengst, Gregory M. Hodge, PhD, Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, USA, Hon. Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Chief James Jephthah, Ted Johnson, James Keach, Alan Krutchkoff, Tak W. Kwan, MD, William K. Lee, MD, Robert J. Loggia, Wing K. Ma, Vahid Majidi, Fouad Malouf, James V. Malpeso, MD, MSgt. Chester L. Marcus, Jr., USA, Chief Denis McGowan, Shekhar Mitra, PhD, Mohsen Moazami, Curtis E. Moll, Yasmin Motamedi, Jeremiah A. Mullins, Agneta E. Nilsson, RADM Joseph L. Nimmich, USCG, Sr. Irene M. O'Neill, Bedros S. Oruncakciel, Hemant Patel, MD, Francis J. Pearn, Richard R. Pergolis, Timothy A. Phillips, Michael J. Piazza, Hon. Rosemonde Pierre-Louis, Kappana Ramanandan, Maj. Gen. Michael S. Repass, USA, Hon. Edward J. Rollins, Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.,William J. Ryan, Kenan E. Sahin, PhD, Joseph M. Saponaro, John F. Scarpa, Jane Seymour, Faryar Shirzad, John Shu, Esq., Dr. Ruth J. Simmons, Prasad Srinivasan, MD, Bert R. Sugar, Hon. Eugene R. Sullivan (Ret.), Jordan P. Thomas, Annie S. Totah, Suzanne von Liebig, PhD, William D. Walsh, RADM Philip A. Whitacre, USN (Ret.), Morrill Worcester, Mohammad Yahyavi, Vartkes B. Yeghiayan, Esq., Matt H. Yildizlar, Chang Bin Yim

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution in support of a national day of recognition for parents of special needs children. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with my good friend Representative Turner from Ohio in sponsoring this resolution. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Children with special health care needs are defined as those children who have a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition that requires special health-related services of a type or amount to go above and beyond what is generally required for children. The Department of Health and Human Services' most recent National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs estimates that 14 percent of children between the ages of 0 and 17 in the United States are diagnosed as having special health care needs. As many in this Chamber already know, I am active in promoting autism awareness and advocating for more research; my only grandson is autistic and I have taken it upon myself to learn about autism and the challenges families face living with autism. Parents serve a critical role in the development of special needs children and in preparing them to succeed in school and life. All too often, children with special needs require specialized services that go well beyond those required by children generally. I believe the time has come to recognize the selfless dedication, compassion, and sacrifice of these parents. The resolution is simple. It calls for recognition of the importance of honoring the Nation's parents of special needs children; that a National Day of Recognition for Parents of Special Needs Children should be established to honor such parents; and urges the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities. Again, I would like to encourage all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critically important resolution.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the life of Richard ``Dick'' Wilson, Sr., who recently lost his 21-month battle with brain cancer at the age of 78. Dick is survived by his wife Phyllis JoAn; two sons, Rick (and his wife Leslie), Indianapolis, Indiana--my long-time staffer and former District Director--Steve (and his wife Michelle), Overland Park, Kansas; a daughter, Patricia Geyling (and her husband Rolf), Santa Barbara, California; 12 grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Study after study has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that fathers play an important role in teaching their children life lessons and preparing them to succeed in life. Although I did not know Dick Wilson, Sr. very well, I do know his son Rick extremely well. For a little over 15 years Rick Wilson served the people of Indiana's Fifth Congressional District with grace and skill; first as director of my mobile office and later as my District Director. And if the measure of a father is the quality of the children that he raises, then based upon what I know about his son Rick, Dick Wilson, Sr. was undoubtedly an exceptional man. Richard ``Dick'' Wilson was born December 29, 1931, in Schenectady, NY. He graduated from Mount Pleasant High School in 1950 and attended the University of Kansas on a cross country and track scholarship. Dick was a member of the 1953 NCAA championship cross-country team--Kansas' only cross-country team to ever win a national championship--and part of the four-mile relay team that broke the American record that same year. In 2008 he was inducted into the KU Athletics Hall of Fame. After graduating from the University of Kansas, Dick Wilson served in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserves from 1956 to 1968, achieving the rank of captain. On July 15, 1956, he married Phyllis JoAn Fink. He and his wife raised three children, moving from Schenectady, NY, to Palatine, IL, and then to Indianapolis before settling in Lawrence in 1992. Dick began his career in commercial underwriting in 1957; eventually serving with the Travelers Insurance Company for 35 years before he retired in 1992 in Lawrence. In addition to working hard all of his life and raising a family, Dick Wilson was also a competitive Masters runner for more than 30 years; and was nationally ranked in the top 10 of his age group every year from 1985 to 2005--a remarkable 20 year streak. In fact, in 2003 Dick was ranked No. 2 in the nation and No. 4 in the World in his age group. Twenty-one months ago though, Dick began the race for his life when he was diagnosed with cancer; a race he would ultimately lose. However, no matter the odds, Dick never gave up living life. Last year, after doctors removed 95 percent of a brain tumor, Dick ran in the Head for the Cure 5K--a race to support the Chris Anthony Tumor Research Fund at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The race honors the late Chris Anthony, who died at the age of 37 from a brain tumor. When interviewed by the Kansan--the University of Kansas' Daily newspaper-- about what running in the Chris Anthony meant to him, Dick said: ``Maybe someday there will be a cure, and if there is, it can hopefully help my children and help my grandchildren.'' Shakespeare once wrote: ``All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts. . . .'' Dick Wilson played his parts and played them well. May flights of angels sing him to his eternal rest. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending condolences and best wishes to the Wilson Family in their time of need. God bless you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues who are so hell bent to get the training troops that we have, 230 U.S. troops, helping with the training in Pakistan, out of Pakistan, I'd like to remind them that on 9/11 we were attacked by al Qaeda terrorists, whose head was Osama bin Laden. And Osama bin Laden has been going back and forth across the Afghani/Pakistani border. And there has been training going on with terrorists there, and in Yemen, to try to foment more terrorism and to try to get them to move toward more attacks on the United States of America. This is a war that we're fighting to protect America, as well as make sure the entire region over there is stable. Pakistan is a nuclear power. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are successful in taking over that country, can you imagine what the rest of the world would have to deal with with them having the nuclear capability that they would have? That's one of the things we have to talk about. And without the training, I'd like to point this out, without the training of our troops that are in Pakistan as trainers, the 230 of them, the money that we're using to fight this war against the Taliban and al Qaeda would not be used as effectively and as efficiently because those people have to be trained to use the technology that we're giving them. And you have to have somebody over there that can train them and teach them about what this equipment can and will do. Now, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, if we cut military ties to Pakistan, it's crazy. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan just goes all over the place. Nobody can really tell you when you cross the border and go back and forth. So you're going to have some mistakes made in going after the Taliban or al Qaeda terrorists in that region. And for us to cut aid and assistance to Pakistan at a time when we're trying to win the war and stop terrorism in Afghanistan would be, in my opinion, insane. We need to continue to work with Pakistan, not only for the stability of that country, but to make sure we stop the terrorist training that's taking place. Now, there's no question we have some differences, some policy differences with the Pakistani Government, but we have differences with a lot of our friends. But we still support them, especially when it's in our national interest to do so. And we are working with them, and helping with the training is extremely important, as I stated a moment ago. And as I said before, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has mountains and valleys, and it's extremely difficult to know where those borders are. And we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary. That's why it's important for us to train their troops to be able to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda, because if Osama bin Laden can go into Pakistan with impunity, if the terrorists can go in there with impunity, if they can go back and forth across that border, we can never win the war. To say they can have sanctuary in Pakistan is like saying to a football team, win the game, but don't go beyond the 50-yard line. You cannot let the enemy have sanctuary. If we didn't learn anything from Vietnam, we should have learned that. This is an entire breeding ground for terrorism, that border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, part of Pakistan and all of Afghanistan. And because we've been putting so much heat on the Taliban and al Qaeda, they have been moving their training grounds outside of Afghanistan into Yemen and into Pakistan, and that's why we must not allow them to have sanctuary. And another thing I would like to talk about that has not been mentioned is the rules of engagement. When I was coming in today, I heard on the radio an Afghanistan American soldier who had just gotten back from Afghanistan. And he said, the rules of engagement are crazy. He said, he'll go into a combat situation and he'll have an enemy target, and they'll say, you can't fire on that target unless you get approval from your commanding officer. And he says many times the soldiers who are put in that position will get killed before they get the approval to fire on their targets. We need to change those rules of engagement so we can go after the enemy, where they are and get the job done. Why should we handcuff our troops when they're in a combat situation? It makes absolutely no sense. That's a recipe for disaster. So if I were talking to the President or General Petraeus I would say, let the troops do their job. Don't give sanctuary to the enemy. Help the Pakistanis fight them, train the Pakistanis over there. And give our troops the ability, when they hit a target, to be able to go after that target, to knock that target out, and not wait for orders that might endanger their very lives. That's a good way to get all of our troops killed. We are in a war, not only in that area that's going to decide what's going to go on in the entire Middle East with Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we're in a war that may very well come back to the United States and hurt us a great deal. We cannot let the terrorists have the ability, with impunity, to be trained and be ready to attack the United States again or any of our allies. And that's why we, and our allies, must work together to make sure we stop the terrorists from having the ability to feel safe in their training practices in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Yemen or wherever they are. This is a war. And it's a war for the survival of many parts of the world and, I believe, including the United States. And so we must do whatever is necessary to win that war.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The point I made in my floor statement, I would like to ask you about this. There are 230 military trainers in Pakistan. The men that were killed were there on a training mission. The money that we're giving to Pakistan has to be used efficiently and effectively. If we give them the money and the equipment and they don't know how to use it in the front lines, it's a waste of our money when they're fighting the enemy. And that's why it's important for the 230 military trainers there to be there, to make sure that our tax dollars that are going over there to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda are used effectively and efficiently. I hope you agree with that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Monday, July 20, 2010 marked the 36th anniversary of the day in 1974 that Turkey intervened to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots by militant Greek Cypriots. As usual, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor of this Chamber over the last few days and weeks to lament the so-called ``invasion'' of Cyprus by Turkey. And as usual every year I come down to the floor to set the record straight and ask my colleagues to stop perpetuating revisionist history that attempts to lay all the blame for the ills of Cyprus at the doorstep of Turkish Cypriots and Turkey; to ask them to lay aside the inflammatory rhetoric; and to ask them to actually work to bring peace to this troubled island. So, once again, here I am but I am not going to focus on the past--I believe an objective evaluation of the history of Cyprus proves that the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to believe. Instead, I am going to focus on the future. While the Cyprus dispute is between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, it has a much greater impact on the global community. Over the past few decades this dispute has involved not only the two peoples on the island, but also Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. Moreover, Turkey's membership to the European Union, which the United States enthusiastically supports, is unfortunately being impacted because of the situation in Cyprus. All of us in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, want to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus. In fact, in 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution H. Res. 165 urging support for the U.N. backed Annan Plan-- which proposed the creation of a new bizonal, bicommunal state. Unfortunately, the Annan Plan collapsed in 2004, because Greek Cypriots opposed the referendum which would have approved the plan. Although Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly supported the referendum, the Greek Cypriots became EU members, and despite promises made to Turkish Cypriots, they remain under international isolation despite their positive efforts. To their credit though, Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a settlement to the issue. This is a testament to their hope for the future. In September 2008, Greek Cypriot leader Dimitris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat began a positive and concerted effort to reach some type of acceptable solution. From all reports, over the last two years, the two men have been able to reach a number of ``understandings'' regarding so-called ``convergences.'' However, on April 18, 2010, through a democratic process Turkish Cypriot voters elected a new President, Dr. Dervis Eroglu of the National Unity Party (UBP). Almost immediately the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups began screaming that the change in Turkish Cypriot Leadership from Talat to Eroglu would lead to a period of retrenchment with future negotiations dominated by harder-line views. Once again, though, the ``blame Turkey'' crowd was wrong. Since taking office, Dr. Eroglu has reassured everyone of his commitment for a just and lasting comprehensive settlement through the ongoing negotiations, under the auspices of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The first round of the new talks was held on May 26, 2010, and continued briefly on June 3rd and again on June 15th. Four additional sessions have been scheduled through the end of July. Are negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as everyone would like; no, but progress is still being made. But, I believe that we are really on the cusp of a breakthrough that could lead to a fair and lasting peace on Cyprus; a peace where the two parties on the island enjoy political equality. The United States has long maintained a position of strong support for a negotiated settlement. This position has been reaffirmed by the Obama Administration and I urge the Administration to continue to take an active role in the efforts to reach a mutually agreed upon resolution. If the Administration can keep the sides talking; if the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States can end the ``blame game'' and redirect their misspent energies towards the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots; and if the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots can continue to demonstrate political will and negotiate in good faith for the future of all Cypriots; I am hopeful for the future of Cyprus.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, I don't want to be redundant; I just want to point out a couple of things that have been said because I think everybody who is interested in air safety needs to understand what the ramifications of this legislation are, and I hope my colleagues will pay attention, those who aren't here on floor. Taiwan's regional information center covers airspace of 176,000 square nautical miles and it provides air traffic control services to over 1.35 million flights a year. Now, when you are talking about air safety, and you are talking about that region--and many of us in this body have gone to that part of the world--you have to realize how important Taiwan's inclusion is because we are flying through that airspace and they should have observer status. In addition to that, as has been stated, it's the eighth largest airport of international cargo volume in the entire world--so there are a lot of flights regarding cargo that are flying out of there on a regular basis--and it's the 18th largest airport as far as the number of passengers are concerned. The safety of millions and millions of people that fly in and out of that entire region are at stake. In fact, they estimate as many as 10 million people's lives are at stake when they go through that area. So it seems to me logical and reasonable that Taiwan have observer status. It's important that everybody is coordinating, and Taiwan is an extremely important asset to that region. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I want to thank the sponsors, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Ms. Berkley, for sponsoring this bill. I think it's extremely important.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I want to thank everybody that's been involved in this legislation, Mr. Poe; my colleague from California (Mr. Lungren); and I especially want to say something about Chris Smith. Chris Smith, who is the sponsor of this bill, has been one of the hardest working Congressmen that I have ever seen in my life. He has worked very hard on the rights of the unborn since he came to Congress what, 25 or so years ago. He has worked very hard on things like Megan's Law. We have had a lot of great legislators in this body throughout history, but I don't know of anybody who has been more dedicated, more committed to doing the right things for children, both born and unborn, than Chris Smith. And I think in the Bible, and I may misquote this, but Paul the Apostle said, ``I have fought the fight, I have kept the faith, henceforth the crown of righteousness is laid up for me in Heaven.'' And that fits you too, Chris. I really mean that. Let me just say this about Megan's Law. There should be no place in the world for these people to hide. There should be no place where they're not prosecuted or persecuted for what they do to these children. And so I think this law is so important because there have been literally planeloads of perverts, pedophiles that travel around the world to ply their evil when they can't do it here in the United States because we've started passing laws that deal with them so severely. No matter what we do in this legislation or with this legislation, in my opinion it's not enough. It's just not enough. And I don't think I want to be redundant and say anything more than that except for all of you who have worked so hard on this legislation, you have my undying gratitude.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, out on the plaza a few minutes ago, the new Tea Party Caucus met with a bunch of Tea Party members from across the country. I have heard a lot of my colleagues and people across the country and in the media criticize the Tea Party as being racist and a whole host of other things. But when we were out there and met with these people, we found African Americans. We found Hispanics. We found people from all ethnic groups out there saying very clearly they want less government spending, less government regulation, lower taxes, and the things that everybody believes in this country, and better and closer constitutional government. That's what the Tea Party is all about, and we are here in the Tea Party Caucus not to tell them anything but to listen to them, because they are speaking from the heart for the American people. It's time that people realize on both sides of the aisle that the Tea Party movement is not something that's just not really speaking for the American people. These are people from all across the country that want Congress and the American Government to know that they want less government and more responsibility.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I get a little concerned sometimes when there's a real inconsistency in our policy toward illegal aliens in this country. The administration and the Justice Department have said they're going to take the State of Arizona to court because the State of Arizona has passed a law which deals with stopping illegal immigration, and it parallels, it mirrors almost exactly the Federal statute. So the Federal Government is not doing what it should in enforcing the law dealing with our southern border. And so Arizona, who's dealing with drug traffickers, criminals, illegal aliens and possibly terrorists coming across the border, they have decided to do what the Federal Government won't. The Federal Government is supposed to do what Arizona is doing, and because Arizona is doing it, the Federal Government is suing them. Now, at the same time we have what's called sanctuary cities, cities where illegals are encouraged to go, and they are in effect being protected. That is against the law. And so here you have the Federal Government, the Justice Department and the President saying we're not going to go after the sanctuary cities who are protecting illegal aliens that are in this country, and at the same time they're not going to enforce the law which says that we've got to protect the border against illegals coming in in the first place. It really is a real inconsistency, and it bothers almost everybody who thinks about it to say we're not enforcing one law and we're opposing another law. The government of the United States, the Justice Department, is opposing the very law that they're suing Arizona for in trying to protect that southern border. And at the same time, there is a law that deals with illegal aliens in sanctuary cities, and the Federal Government will not go after them. And the appearance is the Federal Government under the President, President Obama, and the Justice Department wants to protect those who are here illegally in sanctuary cities, but they do not want to police the border as prescribed by law. That is just dead wrong. It's an inconsistency. And the Justice Department and the administration should be taken to task for this. If I were talking to the American people, I would tell them to contact their Congressman if they are concerned about illegal immigration. We've got 12 to 15 million illegals in this country, and they are being protected in sanctuary cities against the law, and the Justice Department will do nothing about it, and the administration will do nothing about it. And at the same time, because Arizona is experiencing a real tragic situation down there, and they passed a law that is consistent with Federal statutes, the Federal Government is going after them. It makes absolutely no sense. And it begs the issue and the question about whether or not this administration and this Justice Department does want to protect our borders from illegal aliens. It doesn't appear that they really want to do that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if I were tonight addressing the people of this country, I would say: beware of special sessions. We're not going to accomplish much between now and when we get out of here for the election in November. And the reason we're not is because of my Democrat colleagues, many of whom realize that they're probably not going to be reelected. And so the President and the majority in this body and the other body are going to wait until the election is over and they're going to call a special session. And when they call that special session, they're going to try to ram through things such as cap-and-trade, which is going to cost every family in this country about $4,000 more for utility bills. They're going to try to ram through a bunch of tax increases and a whole lot of other things that are bad for the United States of America and all the people in this country. And so if I were talking to the America people tonight, I'd say: Call your Congressman, call your Senator, and call the President and say, We don't want anything being rammed through by people who are out of office between November and January of next year.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I have come down to this Floor many times over the past year and a half to share with my colleagues my profound concerns over the direction the Majority was taking with regard to health care reform. Regrettably, the enactment into law of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--accomplished via an unprecedented and extraordinary misuse of budget reconciliation rules-- did nothing to alleviate my concerns. In fact, now that health care reform is law and the American people can finally see, in the full light of day, the law that the Democrat Majority wrote and jammed down their throats, a strong preponderance of Americans want this turkey of a law repealed. I am firmly convinced that the credibility gap between what the Majority claimed its health care reform bill would do, and what all of the experts say it will actually do now that it is law, is a large part of why, according to the latest Gallup opinion poll, only 20% of Americans, a mere 2 in 10, have a favorable opinion of this Congress. This Majority and this Administration has shown more disregard for the opinions and desires of the American people then any Congress and any presidential Administration, certainly of the modern age, if not history. It is time we listen to the American people; listen to the ordinary moms and dads and the small business owners who must live with the consequences--intended and unintended--of the laws that we pass. To that end, I would like to share with my colleagues a letter I received from Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals; two Indiana corporations that provide pharmacy services to Indiana nursing and institutional facilities. Founded in 2003, these two companies have grown to over one hundred and fifty, 150, full-time employees serving more than six thousand, 6,000, people throughout Indiana and part of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the letter in the Congressional Record after my statement. I ask my colleagues to pay particular attention to the questions and concerns expressed in the letter about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but I think it is also important to understand their observations about problems with Medicare and insurance billing as well as their concerns about DEA rules when it comes to dispensing medications; because these are the kinds of real world problems in our health care system that we should have been working to resolve if only we had been listening. Letter to Congressman Burton on Healthcare May 27, 2010 Congressman Dan Burton, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals (d/b/a Pharmakon Compounding, Inc.) Inc. are two Indiana Corporations founded by Paul J. Elmer R.Ph. Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. was founded in 2003 with the purpose of providing pharmacy services to Indiana Nursing Facilities and Institutional Facilities. Since its founding Pharmakon has grown from 5 employees to a company with over 150 full time employees; serving more than 6,000 individuals throughout Indiana and part of Illinois. Carol and Paul Elmer, R.Ph. founded Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2006 with the purpose of providing medications to hospitals run by the Department of Defense, throughout the United States. Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals has a current staff of 25 employees with an expected growth of over 100 within the next two years. In the past 7 years, both Pharmakon LTC Pharmacy and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals have been able to provide jobs in this rough economy and continue to grow and provide services to our most vulnerable population, the elderly. Currently, the Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. experiences multiple barriers as a long-term care pharmacy. A long-term care pharmacy differs from your local retail pharmacy in that it is a highly specialized organization, with the primary purpose of providing pharmacy services (medications, medical supplies, consultant services, and the such) to the elderly and institutional residents in nursing facilities and various institutional facilities, such as mental hospitals. Because it is a highly specialized pharmacy, it faces multiple barriers daily, which make it extremely difficult at times to provide the required services to the most fragile population in the American Society. These barriers are not challenges but are rather outright problems that must be solved in order for these individuals to receive the service and care they deserve. The following are examples of some of our current barriers, none of which are addressed in the current Healthcare Reform. First, most pharmacy bills come due the 15th of the month or the 30th of the month. The problem with this is that the pharmacy is not paid on insurance claims for usually 30 days; however, it is more common for the insurance company to take up to 60 or even 90 days to pay the pharmacy. In addition any claims submitted to Medicare Part B or D generally are not paid to the pharmacy for 30 to 90 days. So while the pharmacy must pay its bills when they come due, the insurance and government plans generally do not pay within a timely matter--this thus leaves the pharmacy with an ongoing debt. Furthermore, another payment problem with Part D is whom does the pharmacy contact when there are problems with Part D? It would be beneficial for the pharmacy to know who holds the position of managing the administration of the government program. For example, when the pharmacy is not getting paid on claims by Part D Anthem who can they contact to get this resolved? The pharmacy, cannot continue to operate without getting paid; we set out to create jobs in the community while servicing some of the most vulnerable populations; however, when the pharmacy is not being paid, we cannot pay our bills or employees and thus those who need our services cannot receive the services and goods they require in some cases to continue living. With that being said, another barrier the Pharmacy continues to run into is Prior Authorizations. We, as a pharmacy, have had to hire a nurse to work on prior authorizations due to the fact that the nursing staff at the facilities has no time to handle these and the doctors generally refuse to do them. We must contact the insurance company for prior approval for a medication. Generally, on a good day, it is a 30-minute phone conversation with the insurance company; however in some instances it may take up to 72 hours for the insurance company to reply and say yes. While we wait for the insurance company's reply, the individual is suffering in pain waiting for their medications. Because we must contact the insurance company for a prior authorization this slows our ability to get the medication to the individual, leaving them suffering in pain. Additionally, many hours are spent handling, monitoring and appealing insurance audits; rather than providing pharmacy services. Insurance audits have become burdensome; we understand the need for them; however, insurance companies do not understand the Long Term Care Industry and the majority of the time as it relates to these audits is spent on educating the insurance company about this industry. Once educated we usually win the audit; however, the time it takes to reach this result, takes away from our primary purpose, which is providing pharmacy services. Additionally, the time frames set forth by the insurance company are not realistic; they are too short for a pharmacy to return with proper information and many times, we end up paying for something that was originally covered and properly processed to begin with. Similarly, insurance formularies are not conductive to residents in a Long Term Care Facility; for example, many do not cover IV therapy, in which case we must get an override in order to provide the necessary medication to the individual and even with that we are audited for those claims. It appears from our point of view that the insurance companies do not grasp that these residents are cared for 24/ 7 by healthcare professionals of many different disciplines and when they are denied various medications due to the formularies, they lay in pain suffering until we can finally get the needed medications covered. These individuals pay for plans to cover their medications, in most cases these are expensive medications which the individual themselves more than likely could not pay for out of pocket. Additionally, we are not in the business of providing free, expensive medications; as much as we would like to, we cannot pay our employees while handing out free medications. Since we cannot just give the medications away, and since the patient cannot pay for it and nor will the insurance; we are left in a difficult position while the individual suffers. Finally, one of our biggest barriers is the DEA not treating nurses in long-term care facilities as agents of the prescribing doctor when it comes to controlled substances. There are times when a resident needs an emergency dosage of a Controlled Substance, generally a Schedule II, and the nurse must call a doctor who is generally not near a fax machine. The nurse may not call in the prescription due to the fact that the nurse is not considered an agent of the doctor by the DEA and thus the pharmacy must attempt to reach the doctor via phone before sending out the medication; which can take hours; all the while the resident is agonizing in pain. If the nurse would be permitted to be an agent of the doctor this would reduce the time between when the order is called in and when it is delivered to the individual. How will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act effect Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.? First, there are several sections that state the employer must provide affordable coverage, but who is determining what is affordable? In some instances, our hourly individuals may want to opt out and purchase from the exchange because to them they may find one a plan on the exchange more to their liking and more what they deem affordable opposed to the plan we offer. Why should we be punished for the decision that the individual makes. We, as a corporation, cannot force our employees to spend their hard earned wages toward something they may personally decide either (a) they have no interest in procuring from us (b) find that they just do not think they can afford it or (c) they have no interest in purchasing period from us or the exchange. The affordability is truly a personal decision and should be left to the individual to decide and the employer should not be punished for the individual's decision. Furthermore, there is also the issue that in some cases, our employees may choose just not to purchase insurance from us or from an exchange and again we cannot force them to buy it. We have many employees who just choose not to buy the insurance we currently offer. Additionally, the Bill states that the Employer is responsible to cover 60% of all health care; for our particular business this is a large sum that we just possibly could not do and continue to pay our employees at their current rates. If we are forced to cover 60%, there is a good chance that we would have to lay off many employees in order to be able to provide the required healthcare coverage. Under this Bill, HSA cannot be used for over the counter drugs, this seems to be counterproductive. The purpose of an HSA is for the individual with a high premium to use those monies for office visits, medication, and the such. In some instances, why should an individual visit the doctor to receive a prescription for Claritin-D just so that they can use their HSA, now the individual will have to pay for the office visit, which in the scheme of things may be more costly than just buying the medication out of pocket. In all reality this is the individual's hard earned money, the government should not tell them how they may spend it; especially when it comes to accounts set up just for health care concerns. Yes, people may be irresponsible; but at some point, the government needs to just trust that its citizens will do the right thing and use their non-taxed dollars on their health care. We at Pharmakon have HSA accounts due to our high premiums; we believe that it should be the individual's decision as to how to spend their monies and if they choose to purchase Over the Counter medications, which they need then they should be permitted to use their HSA accounts. The Class Act states that an employee can enroll and disenroll but how will this affect the employer? If an employee chooses not to enroll, will we the employer be penalized? Again, we cannot force our employees to do something they do not want; nor can we force them to spend their hard-earned money on something they have no desire to. Additionally what protections are there that we will not be forced to enroll all employees in this when it becomes apparent that it cannot support itself? The Bill sets up Health Information Technology; however, it is vital to ensure that Long Term Care especially the Long Term Care Facilities and Pharmacies are brought to the table in this process. We must realize that in a few years, the baby-boomer generation will be the new class of residents in these Long Term Care Facilities and with this increase of resident population; we must look to the LTC community for suggestions as it relates to Health Information Technology. Many do not realize that while the pharmacies may be state of the art, many of the facilities are not equipped with some of the most basic technology; additionally most of the staff would be in complete shock if they were just slammed with this new technology; thus input from the LTC area is extremely vital. Furthermore, the way things are done in a doctor's office and hospital do not always transfer as easily to LTC settings. HIT while vital and extremely beneficial will be useless in the LTC setting if LTC providers are not consulting in the development of it. In additional the Pharmacy cannot be left holding the price tag for updating LTC facilities when it comes to this technology; there must be a way in which we can encourage these facilities to update their own technology and not depend on the Pharmacy to do it for them. Some of these HIT grants should not only be given to LTC Pharmacies but also the Facilities we service. With the new Bundling system, the unanswered question here is under the pilot program if one hospital receives a bid will they determine which nursing facilities the individual may use? One of the concerns with Bundling is what if the hospital chooses to use nursing facilities which they own or which are related in some manner to the hospital, will patients have a choice as to which facility they want? If not then the question becomes what will protect those facilities, which are currently in business? Those facilities which are related to the hospital may have the technology which non- related facilities lack and then the question becomes who is to provide the technology, across the board, most Long Term Care Facilities are accustom to Pharmacies providing all of their equipment needs, fax machines, med carts and so forth. If and when this new technology is implemented there will be a vast problem of who is to provide it and furthermore uniformity. Pharmacies cannot bear the burden of providing this to Facilities, and additionally neither should hospitals. The establishment of CMI within CMS aims to move the fee payment from fee for service based reimbursement toward a salary-based payment; however, providers are not defined, so do Pharmacies fall into this? Additionally under CMS, there is the Medicare Shared Saving Program, which sets up Accountable Care Organizations--with the development of this new organization the question becomes will pharmacies be a group later determined by the Secretary to be part of this process? If so or if not the question then becomes how will these organizations effect our ability to procure business or which homes may be able to willingly choose us for their pharmacy services? All of these issues are left open and yet to be determined, these are rather important issues; and there are so many unanswered questions and with the possibility of this new fee payment reimbursement, which may affect LTC pharmacies. Under the Medicare Shared Savings Program, subsection (b) Eligible Accountable Care Organization. The payment would be via shared saving; this section does not list pharmacies but allows the Secretary to determine groups of providers and supplies as appropriate. The big question is would this new program affect how we as a pharmacy obtain new business and in some cases keep current customers? Would this limit which nursing facilities, institutions and so forth can utilize our services? Due to the fact that the bill does not address these above stated questions, we are left wondering how these new programs will affect the Long Term Care industry, specifically the Pharmacies. While there is some concern about how we will be paid, we are more concerned as to what will happen to us and how these programs affect us. There is a concern that because LTC pharmacies aren't mentioned by name, we may not necessarily fall into one of these programs, and under the guise of cost control our reimbursement fees may be cut; which in turn will create a larger problem for us as how to pay our employees and how to continue to provide the services that we are do and that the facilities are accustom to. Our concern with Individuals at Home Demonstration Program, specifically the payment methods governed by (subsection (c)). The issue is the spending targets, which will be determined on a per capita basis, what does that mean for items covered under Part A and Part B and those cuts? While, we agree that there is wasteful spending and that budget controls are needed, we ask that those cuts to remedy the increase in cost do not affect the Pharmacy. As a pharmacy, there is only so much we can provide while not running at a loss and if the spending targets reduce payments to the pharmacy, there is a chance that the pharmacy will not be able to provide to those who are most vulnerable and need all the care we can give them. While we at Pharmakon agree that Health Care needs to be reformed, we believe that this current Reform Bill will create more barriers in our ability to provide services to the most vulnerable in our society and in addition as a medium size business with mainly hourly employees, we feel that many of these changes will affect our ability to continue to employ many of our employees and will affect them in their personal choices. Sincerely, Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if I were talking to the President right now, I would remind him that Lord Chamberlain flew to Munich in the late thirties and signed an agreement with Herr Hitler that led to 60 million people being killed in World War II. Sixty million. We were not in the nuclear age at that time, but we still lost 60 million people in this world. We are now in the nuclear age, and that's why this legislation is so important. There are waivers in this bill, and that really troubles me. I didn't want there to be any waivers in this conference report, but they are there. The President can waive these sanctions. And I would just like to say, if I were talking to the President, Look at history, Mr. President. Look at what happened because of a weak-kneed approach back in the late thirties that led to 60 million people dying in World War II, and don't let that happen now. We need to let Ahmadinejad and the leaders in Iran know that we mean business. And that means don't waive any of the sanctions we are passing here today. You have the authority, but don't do it. They are building a nuclear weapon. Everybody in the world knows it. And if a nuclear weapon is set off, millions will die, and it could lead to a conflagration that would be worldwide in scope. So I would just like to say there are problems with this bill. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work they put into it. I wish those waivers weren't there, but they are. And so we are talking now, if I were talking to the President, that's what I would say to him. And I would also like to say, Don't let the Russians get away with continuing to give nuclear technology and other technology to the Iranians.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I won't take 2 minutes, Madam Speaker. I would just like to say that my colleague who just spoke, Mr. Engel, and I became aware of this some time ago when one of the people we know, who is in this business, brought to our attention the way some of these companies have been so unscrupulous in bilking the public out of the minutes that they pay for. I am very happy that Congressman Engel has introduced this bill. Though, I only wish I'd known about it because I certainly would have wanted to have been a cosponsor on it. You may rest assured that I will support it, and I hope that all of my colleagues will because it is unconscionable that the American people would buy something like this, especially military personnel, knowing that they are going to be able to call their loved ones, then to find out that they've been shortchanged. It's almost a criminal act. I think we ought to look down the road. If this is being done intentionally by these calling card companies, there possibly ought to be some prosecutions that take place.