Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) that this body passed its budget in March of this year. We are waiting for across the rotunda as usual. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Medicare Modernization Act which we passed last year. I wanted to discuss the fact that employers have been dropping health care benefits for retirees for 2 decades. This is prior to our passing the Medicare bill. A Kaiser Foundation survey notes that the percentage of all large firms offering retiree health benefits has declined from 66 percent in 1988 to 34 percent in 2002. Rather than worsening the situation, the Medicare Modernization Act works to stop the trend of employers dropping retiree coverage. We achieve this goal by providing incentives to employers to continue offering health care to their retired employees. Employers offering retirees coverage that at least equals the Medicare benefit will receive a tax-free direct subsidy. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that substantially fewer employers will drop or reduce coverage under the Medicare conference report.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The 121 Community Church on its outreach mission and dedication to the community. Five years ago, friends Ross Sawyers and Michael Moss founded a church in a living room. Today, 121 Community Church has volunteers all over the world including Australia, Guatemala, Mexico and Russia. Church membership has grown from 50 members to 400. On Sunday mornings, anywhere from 600 to 750 people attend the three Sunday services. In celebration of their fifth anniversary, the members of 121 Community Church wanted to do something truly unique. They decided to model a service project after the popular cable TV show, Trading Spaces. The project, called ``Aiding Spaces,'' provides free renovations to five families who cannot afford proper renovations. The families will be selected from five different areas of the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The renovations will be filmed by video crews and be created into a mini reality television series that will be aired at the churches 50th Anniversary celebration in September. Church membership includes a number of general contractors, electricians and plumbers will lend their services. Their donated work is estimated at nearly $150,000. I congratulate the efforts of 121 Community Church and their generous celebration. I am certain they continue their wonderful community outreach projects in the future. Through their church, members are able to make a substantial difference in each other's lives. The church should take pride in its hard work and commitment to service.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Principal Milton Wallace. Since 1990, Mr. Wallace has served as the principal of Denton High School. After serving for over a decade, this August, Mr. Wallace will leave Denton High School to become principal of Longview High School where he can be closer to his aging parents. For the three years leading up to being named principal, Milton Wallace served as the assistant principal at Denton High School. During this time he was named Assistant Principal of the Year for Region XI by the Texas Association of Secondary Schools Principals. As principal, he has been a finalist for Texas Principal of the Year twice. During his tenure, Principal Wallace significantly expanded the Advanced Placement Program. Denton High School students' SAT scores improved, and in 2002, the Texas Education Agency raised Denton High School's rating to ``recognized'' status. Milton Wallace is well loved by his students and very active in his school's community. He attends nearly every athletic, fine arts and academic event. In the fall, he travels with the football team and in the spring he travels to UIL events so he can support his school at every venue. Principal Wallace certainly put the ``pal'' in principal. I would like to commend Principal Wallace on the accomplishments he has made as principal of Denton High School. As principal during my son Mike's high school years, I know firsthand that he provided his students with an enjoyable, yet rigorous academic environment and will be missed greatly. We are proud of his achievements and wish him luck in the future.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Black Data Processing Associates (NBDPA). In honor of their upcoming 26th National Conference, I would like to commend NBDPA for their commitment to delivering Information Technology (IT) excellence to their members, partners and communities. BDPA was founded in 1975 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Today, it has grown to include over 45 chapters across the United States. The mission of BDPA is to build and strengthen its stakeholder proficiency and effective application of IT, to affect a just level of member participation at all levels of the IT industry's employment and business opportunities, and to become a powerful voice in the IT industry that represents the interests of their members and communities. The 3,000 members of BDPA include IT professionals, entrepreneurs, consultants, executives, educators and students. This wide base of members represents associates from across our nation as well as growing membership in Canada, England, France and Ghana. BDPA is involved in a variety of programs to attain their vision, mission and objectives. These programs include student internship and mentoring programs, an education and technology foundation, a career center, as well as interest groups that promote the perspectives of the IT industry. As BDPA celebrates its 26th National Annual Conference this year, I would like to commend this organization for their role in supporting the Information Technology industry and its employees. As technology continues to advance, their role will only grow. We are proud of your achievements, and we wish you the best in the future.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida talked about stories we will not read in the New York Times. Let me talk about another one. Today, Mr. Speaker, 20, 25 women from the country of Iraq are here on the Hill talking with various Members of the House of Representatives, and their stories are so very poignant. I just left a meeting with them, and I needed to share some of their words with my colleagues. To the question: What about the fact that America might have gone to war with Iraq under false pretenses? The first woman who raised her hand said, ``What took you so long?'' A woman who is a city leader in Karbala said 48 people in her family have been executed, and to this day they do not know where most of those family members are buried. She said to us, ``Why would you even ask this question?'' Another woman said, ``Chemical warfare has been used on my family. So many have been lost. We don't know where they have gone. You should have been here in 1991. Liberation was late. We were left to be tortured.'' On the subject of Fallujah, one woman stood up and very powerfully said, ``Please finish the job.'' I could not agree more.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I also thank him for putting this hour together this evening. I think this is extremely important. Some of these things that we will not ever read of in the newspapers get reported here on the floor of the House because they do not seem to come out anywhere else. Today, on Capitol Hill, in our Subcommittee on Health Policy, we were joined by about 25 women from the country of Iraq. They had been here for about a week studying various Federal agencies and how democracy works and how the business of our government runs. And, in fact, after our policy meeting today, several of the Members of Congress had one of the Iraqi women go with them for the remainder of the morning. I took one of the participants to the Committee on Science, where we were talking about space exploration. It was kind of ironic, because we were talking about the bravery involved in space exploration, but these women showed great bravery in coming to this country to learn about democracy, to learn how disparate peoples work together to gain a common good. They took a big chance in doing that. In fact, some of them were too concerned to come out of the briefing room, where there were television cameras, because they did not want their faces filmed, for fear that they or their families would suffer back in Iraq. Surely these women showed a lot of bravery by coming here today and they shared a lot of stories with us. There was, of course, some question about can all of the various different groups exist in the country of Iraq. One of the spokeswomen from the group said that truly religious imbalance in that country is, in fact, propaganda. They are a tightly interwoven and interconnected country, and they have been for years. They said playing politics with ethnicity is wrong, not only in Iraq but in this country, I believe, but certainly that was the message they wanted to give us. They were generally happy with the new Prime Minister, Dr. Alawi. Several of them said it is too early to tell a lot about that administration, but the consensus of the women was that this is an Iraqi government and, therefore, it is good. There is a big distinction between what is Iraqi and what comes from abroad, even to the point that the situation in Fallujah, a lot of the problems that have occurred in Fallujah, according to the women, were caused by people who came from abroad, that is, people who came from other countries. One of the ladies there who was from the city of Fallujah said, ``In so many ways Iraq is much more beautiful now. For the first time in years I have the freedom to drive in a car. The situation is getting better daily.'' But Fallujah remains the magnet for terrorists and for outsiders seeking to influence the outcome in Iraq. She was very emphatic about Fallujah. She said, ``Please finish the job.'' I promised that I would relay that information to the Secretary of Defense, so, Mr. Rumsfeld, I hope you are paying attention this evening. They went on to say, why give them a chance? Why should we give the foreign fighters a chance in Fallujah? It should have been stopped at the beginning. We are only giving them increased determination to do what they came there to do, which is to cause trouble for the country of Iraq. Unfortunately, from Fallujah on to Karbala and Najaf, the terrorists have moved. One of the city leaders from Karbala was very well spoken and emotional in her talk. She said no one from Karbala was involved in the insurgency in that town. In fact, all of the victims of the fighting, all of the fighters who fell in that siege taken to the hospitals, none had identification on them that identified them as natives of the city of Karbala. They were all from outside the city. Unfortunately, now the city has been destroyed. She wound up to say that she felt that women are the best ally that civilization has in dealing with extremism. I would agree with her about that. She said that Iraqi women have suffered a lot. Discrimination was common in Iraq for the past many years. There have been over 120 Assyrian villages that are just gone, destroyed. No one knows where the people have gone. Liberation for that individual was really one of the best things that had ever happened. In response to a question that perhaps this country went into Iraq under false pretenses and perhaps we should not have gone, a woman stood up, and really this brought out a lot of participation from the ladies in the audience. The first woman stood up and quite accusatively said, ``Why did you delay?'' Again, the city leader from the city of Karbala said, ``Forty-eight people in my family are gone, and I don't know where they are. I don't know whether they're dead or alive. If they're dead, I don't know where they're buried. Why would you even ask this question?'' Another woman stood up and said, ``Chemical warfare was used on my family. So many have been lost. Again, we don't know where they have gone. The liberation should have begun in 1991.'' ``Liberation was late,'' another woman said, ``and we were left to be tortured.'' Another woman told a very touching story of having to hear on the telephone from a relative who had been in prison, had his tongue cut out and his hand cut off and he was telephoning to try to tell them what had happened to him and her story was very, very difficult to listen to, I promise you. So did we do the right thing in Iraq? History will judge. History will tell. Certainly these women who will do a lot to restore civil society in Iraq, in this group of women today, the answer was a resounding, yes, we did the right thing. Perhaps we took too long to get it done.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman yield, let us not make the process more complicated than it need be. We do not need to involve the Secretary of State. They simply need to change their residence. At the University of North Texas in my district in Denton, Texas, the NAACP organized a voter drive, and it was called ``Sleep Here, Vote Here.'' They received an award from the NAACP for their efforts. They have had no problem instituting it. The difficulty comes if you have not changed your residence 30 days before the election. People do not realize that, and then they feel they are unfairly disenfranchised. Again, to go to the Secretary of State to do a simple change of address is unnecessarily complicating the process, and I am afraid the gentleman will drive more people out of the process by making them call Austin or whatever the capital of Ohio is, I do not even know, but making them call the State capital to talk to the Secretary of State.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if it is a bipartisan issue, I would point out to the gentleman, since he referenced the Texas case, for those students who wish to vote in their college town, it is going to be necessary to change their legal residence to their college dormitory. It is done all the time. You can live in a college dorm, you can live in a tent, you can live in a van by the river, but you do need to change your legal residence. Many people elect not to do that because their residence changes frequently during their college years and they stay at their parents' residence. If they do that and their parents live in Houston and they live at Prairie View, they are not going to be able to vote in that town, but if you change your legal residence in Texas 30 days before the election, you can vote, no problem. Thank you.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, there is no higher priority for us than the reform of the medical justice system. It costs the country $230 billion a year, and right now we have never been closer to getting this ball across the goal line. We have passed the bill in this House, and we have a President in office who has said he will sign this bill. Our only problem is 400 feet away from us, on the other side of the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, we have also never been further away. If we lose this election at the Presidential level, it will be nuclear winter as far as any type of meaningful medical liability reform in this country for easily the next 4 or 8 years time. And it is important, Mr. Speaker, because $230 billion is what it cost this country in the medical justice system in the year 2003. One- fifth of that went to compensate patients for their actual injuries, and one-fifth of it went to the trial bar. The impact of the medical liability crisis is clear: Patients, doctors, and hospitals are put in jeopardy while the plaintiff bar continues to enrich itself.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I come tonight to report on the activity of the House policy committee this week. The Subcommittee on Health met for a hearing on medical liability insurance, and the purpose of this meeting was to outline in the current concept of medical liability reform and to point to some of the proven successes and to look at the future of reform. This meeting, which was held on Tuesday of this week, was attended by Jose Montemayor, who is the insurance commissioner of the State of Texas. Mr. Montemayor was appointed by then-Governor George Bush and has continued in that capacity since 1998. We were also joined by Dr. Brennan Cassidy, a board-certified emergency physician from the State of California, who spoke on the status of tort reform in that State. Paul Bahcarach, the president and CEO of Uniontown Hospital, was at our meeting and spoke about the particular problems that they are experiencing in Pennsylvania. And Donald Palmisano, a physician and lawyer from New Orleans, who is the past president of the American Medical Association, spoke to us with considerable passion on what he believed some of the answers might be in the arena of tort reform. First, Commissioner Montemayor from Texas talked about what he had seen in Texas since the passage of a major piece of tort reform legislation in Texas last year at the end of the regular State legislative session; and then in September of last year, September 2003, a constitutional amendment was passed in the State of Texas which allowed this legislation to take effect. In Texas, Commissioner Montemayor had seen his number of liability insurers, the number of companies that wrote insurance for physicians in Texas, decline from a high of 17 to a low of four; and Commissioner Montemayor correctly recognized that if that situation continued, medical practice as we know it was going to disappear from the State of Texas. Texas is a large State, and very different regions were affected differently. The Rio Grande Valley was particularly hard hit, not necessarily in the dollar amounts that were awarded by juries in that region, but more so just by the sheer number of lawsuits. Most practitioners and physicians in that area could be expected to be sued three or four times a year, oftentimes for sums of money not exceeding $100,000, but still the time away from family and practice in defending those lawsuits and the wear and tear on a doctor's soul was considerable in that portion of the State. Right before the constitutional amendment passed, there was a significant increase in the filing of lawsuits in the State of Texas; but since the constitutional amendment passed, the number of suits has dropped precipitously. Commissioner Montemayor also pointed out to us that there are companies that are reducing their insurance rates to physicians in Texas as a result of this legislation, a constitutional amendment that was passed. And, in fact, Texas Medical Liability Trust, my old insurer of record, has reduced their rates by 12 percent this year. Another insurer who sought a rate increase and, in fact, had received a rate increase of over 100 percent in the State of Oklahoma and 39 percent in the State of Florida actually is going to receive no rate increase in the State of Texas this year. So it has been good news on not only the number of insurers that is available which has now increased to 12 but also the rates paid by hospitals and physicians in Texas has significantly reduced. Commissioner Montemayor told us that he thought hospitals had fared somewhat better than physicians in this new day that has dawned in the State of Texas. Dr. Cassidy, the emergency physician from California, was there in 1975 in California when the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 was passed in California by a Governor of California who was on the Democratic side, Jerry Brown, past candidate for president. But Dr. Cassidy related how the $250,000 cap on non-economic damages had stood the test of time, and in fact he had some rather graphic evidence showing how rates in that State had stayed relatively stable while rates across the country had exploded. Paul Bahcarach, the chief executive officer of Uniontown, Pennsylvania hospital where the situation has far from improved, in fact, the situation has deteriorated in Pennsylvania significantly over the past years, told some rather poignant stories of the inability to hire, to attract physicians to the State of Pennsylvania. He was not able to cover services that he wanted to provide; and, in fact, he told of a service area of 148,000 people that was serviced by one single ear, nose and throat physician. If I have done my arithmetic right, that is about one ENT doctor for 300,000 ears, which is a lot of ears to be responsible for in a community. Dr. Palmisano, the general surgeon from New Orleans who has been the past president of the American Medical Association, again spoke with a good deal of passion on what he saw as some of the solutions available to us. We will talk about this in nights to come. Dr. Palmisano gave excellent testimony on how the doctors in this country are engaged and see this as a real problem, threatening to their profession.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. It is causing doctors to leave the practice of medicine. There is no question about it. I saw it myself. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and I are perhaps the poster children for that. We left our practices and came to the relative safety of the United States Congress to avoid the pernicious medical liability climate. In south Texas along the Rio Grande Valley, it is a crisis of epic proportions. And until we passed some State reforms this past year, in September of last year, doctors were leaving the State in significant numbers. Malpractice insurers were leaving the State. We had gone from 17 insurers to four; and the policies were very, very restricted that were being written. Since we put in some very, very basic reforms, some very, very basic curtailments of noneconomic damages, the insurers in the State of Texas have now increased to 12, insurance prices have come down significantly. The crisis has been adverted to some degree in Texas, but it remains a nationwide problem.

Mr. BURGESS. Obstetrics and gynecology.

Mr. BURGESS. That is my firm belief as well.

Mr. BURGESS. I think access is going to be severely, severely restricted. A woman who is the head of the Columbia University residency program, an OB-GYN, Columbia University has a very good residency program, perhaps second only to Parkland Hospital where I did my residency, this individual told me that currently they were accepting people into their residency program that 5 years ago they would not have even interviewed. That is, the quality of applicant has dropped off so significantly because people simply fear this issue. They see no reason to enter a life where there is going to be this much uncertainty. So it is really extracting a high toll as far as the availability of our future providers, not just what is happening right now, but what is happening for our children and our children's children.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for yielding to me this evening. I felt compelled to come and talk a little bit about the issues this evening. We have been hearing a lot about the relative preparedness or unpreparedness for the second highest office in this land to which they have been nominated, and that is actually not what I wanted to speak about this evening; but I would rather speak about the experience or the preparation that that individual does have, and that is in his profession as a trial lawyer. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday of last week in its lead editorial, the last paragraph says, ``Our runaway tort system is a genuine problem that is causing economic harm, and far more importantly, it is distorting the cause of justice. American politics typically responds to such problems, but in this case, the power of the tort bar centered on Democratic Senators has blocked even the most modest fixes. If this compromise fails this year, we will know for sure that this issue deserves to be joined until the Presidential campaign.'' That is the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial from the end of last week. As far as the issue of the medical civil justice system or the medical liabilities system in this country, we have had some legislation passed in this House twice in the past year and a half, but the action has been blocked on the other side of the Capitol. And what is the cost, Madam Speaker, what is the cost of doing nothing in this regard? Well, between 1994 and 2001, the typical medical liability award increased by 176 percent to $1 million. That is from ``Liability of Medical Malpractice: Issues and Evidence''; Joint Economic Committee, May of 2003. The National Journal cited in the issue just last week that $230 billion was the cost to this country of the medical civil justice system last year; and of that $230 billion, about one-fifth went to compensate patients for actual damages. About an equal amount, about a fifth, a little less than that, 19 percent, was the payment for the trial lawyers' part of that, a fifth went to the insurance companies, and one quarter of that amount went to pay the exploding costs of non- economic damages. The American Medical Association in its Medical Liability Reform Fact Sheet last year said 60 to $108 billion per year would be saved in health care costs by placing a reasonable limit on noneconomic damages. Not eliminating them entirely, but placing a reasonable limit. ``Defensive medicine is a potentially serious social problem. If fear of liability drives health care providers to administer treatments that do not have worthwhile medical benefits, then the current liability system may generate inefficiencies much larger than the costs of compensating malpractice claimants.'' This may lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without an increase in the quality of medical care. The study by McClellan in 1996 in 1996 dollars estimated that $50 billion dollars a year could be saved in the Medicare system by the elimination of some practices of defensive medicine. There is a significant human impact as well. Doctors are leaving practice, and we are losing that critical human capital that we as citizens of this country and of our States have paid to educate. There is a perinatologist in my community who left his practice about a year after entering practice because he could no longer afford the six-figure liability premium. He went to work for Perot Systems, a medical information systems consultant; but the fact is, he is not practicing perinatology. The State paid for his education. The State paid for his education in medical school and residency, and now we will never see the benefit of that payment because this individual was driven from his practice by the high cost of the liability insurance. At Methodist Medical Center in Dallas last year, we lost a neurosurgeon because he could not afford the six-figure liability premium that he was faced with, putting the whole trauma system in the north Texas network at risk. Madam Speaker, even more importantly than that, the cost of the human capital that is now being extracted on our youngest citizens and citizens as they contemplate what careers to pursue, individuals in undergraduate school and medical school and in high school, look at the medical profession and turn away because of the crisis in medical liability, and it is so unnecessary. Some reasonable fixes have been proposed by this House. They have been blocked on the other side of the Capitol; and, unfortunately, one of the individuals who is at the root of blocking those commonsense reform is now the nominee for the second highest office in this land. So I would say I am not so much concerned about the experience that he lacks in the administrative side of the government. I am far more concerned about the type of experience he brings from the plaintiffs' bar. I do not believe that this issue can get a fair hearing with that individual sitting in the second highest office of the land.

Mr. BURGESS. For 25 years.

Mr. BURGESS. Certainly that would be at the top of the list. Reimbursement rates from HMOs is going to be second. The slow rate of payment from insurance companies and HMOs would probably rank as third.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, $230 billion. That is the cost last year of the medical justice system in this country. Of that figure, 20 percent went to compensate patients for actual pain and damages, 20 percent went to lawyers' fees, 20 percent went to insurance overhead, and 25 percent was paid out in noneconomic damages for things like pain and suffering. Mr. Speaker, we can scarcely afford this continued type of expenditure in this country; and, indeed, this House has passed, twice in the past 2 years, legislation seeking to reform this system. Unfortunately, that legislation has languished on the other side of the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, it is more than just the monetary damages, though. It is the cost in terms of the human capital that we are losing today from doctors who are leaving practice early, hospitals that are having to close their doors. But even more important than that, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of human capital that will never be developed. I am talking about students in medical school, undergraduate school, and high school who will look at their medical career ahead of them and decide it is just not worth the effort. Mr. Speaker, we must act in this Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has been unable to pass an energy bill, an energy policy, that would allow us some measure of independence from foreign oil imports in this country. But a couple of weeks ago just before our break, we were treated to the exhibition of several cars that embrace the hybrid technology, the gas/electric technology, here on Capitol Hill. Many of us did not have the chance to get over and look at those. But I just wanted to call attention to the 2004 Motor Trend Car of the Year, the Toyota Prius, and if I could quote from their article, that the Prius brilliantly, more than any other car, is a feature- packed and user-friendly gas/electric hybrid capable of delivering an astonishing 60 miles to the gallon in city driving. They go on to say that the all-new 2004 Prius is an altogether more compelling car than any other, that it is the first hybrid that any enthusiast could not only enjoy, but it provides a tantalizing preview of what the future of extreme fuel efficiency, ultralow emissions, and stirring performance where they will happily co-exist in one package. Mr. Speaker, this was truly a bipartisan technology. I understand that on the other side even the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) owns a Toyota.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, we have heard from several people tonight on the other side of the aisle who spoke out against the activity in Iraq and said that they were opposed to the activity in Iraq, and that is their right, their privilege, their obligation to do so. Madam Speaker, I was not here when the Congress voted on authorizing the use of military force in the country of Iraq. I think had I been here that I would have voted in favor of that use of military force, but that is merely speculation. I was not here. But, Madam Speaker, I think it is useful to go back in the Congressional Record and read the remarks of people who were here who had those debates, who had to work through those issues, and who did then ultimately vote for the use of force in Iraq. I quote the Congressional Record from September 12, 2002, where an individual said, ``I firmly believe the issue of Iraq is not about politics, but it is about national security. We know or have known for at least 20 years that Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction by any means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his long-term goal of a nuclear capability, a capability that could be less than a year away. I believe,'' this speaker said, ``I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime wants a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy that we hold dear.'' Madam Speaker, this individual went on to say, ``Saddam has proved his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capability has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos and poses a moral threat to our vital allies. Furthermore, the threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal.'' The speaker went on to say, ``There is every possibility that he could turn those weapons over to terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists had had weapons on September 11, had had those weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly forget the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used. Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It, Iraq, is violating terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and is ignoring as many as 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands; they involve obligations that Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations.'' Let me repeat that. ``By ignoring them, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations openly and openly violating international law and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action.'' Madam Speaker, this individual on September 12 of 2002 wrapped things up with the very concise statement that goes on to say, ``The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards, but the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week before we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and to take out the plotters.'' Well, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, these words were spoken by a Member of the other body, and the decorum of the House prevents me from properly attributing them, but most people would recognize the speaker of these words as the man who has recently been designated for the second highest office in this land, the Democratic, purported Democratic nominee for Vice President of the United States.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I just want to draw a sharp criticism against Members of this House who have sent a letter to Kofi Annan of the United Nations asking for United Nations monitors at our elections in November. Mr. Speaker, I will have to admit there are people in my district, a great many constituents in my district who do not understand what goes on in Washington. We have a candidate for the highest office in the land who talks about some vague references to foreign leaders who would prefer him. We have a judiciary that seems to have its eye on the international courts. And now we have Members of this body asking for U.N. observers at our elections. We have got borders that are so porous as to be a joke. The people in my district rightly ask, ``Does serenity mean anything in Washington?''

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important issue to physicians and patients around the country. Over the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has been targeting groups of doctors known as Independent Physician Associations, alleging anticompetitive business activities. These groups, IPAs, are integrated groups of physicians that can provide a wide array of medical services to patients in their community. While it is important that the Federal Trade Commission enforce the antitrust laws when organizations engage in anticompetitive behavior, they must understand that the recent complaints brought against IPAs could and do disrupt patient care. This amendment would ask that the Federal Trade Commission keep in mind and provide Independent Physician Associations with guidance and a time to ameliorate any arrangement that could violate the law before the FTC pursues enforcement action. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, if you are an Independent Physician Association, in the eyes of the FTC, you are by definition a conspirator or in the process of conspiring. In fact, the FTC seems to pursue a mission statement that you are guilty unless you happen to be able to prove your innocence, and these actions are extremely expensive to fight. My concern is not so much the innocence or guilt of the organizations, but the impact that the lack of guidance from the Federal Trade Commission can have on the provider community and patients who receive a high quality of care from IPAs. IPAs consistently rate high in customer satisfaction and positive health outcomes. One such organization in north Texas, the North Texas Specialty Physicians, provides excellent health care. With over 600 doctors, they serve around 11,000 patients a day. They are the only Medicare risk provider in north Texas. This is important because Medicare risk is the old Medicare+Choice. Here is the group that took that Medicare HMO and made it work, made it work for the doctors and made it work for the patients; and as a consequence, they are punished for their success. They accept new Medicare enrollees when many other networks in the area do not. Most emergency calls are responded to by their physicians. Their access ratings are very high. At a time when most doctors will not take new Medicaid clients, they are one of the few networks that take new Medicaid enrollees every day. Federal agencies should not be punishing businesses when their only transgression is success. By having the FTC give IPAs basic guidance on how they contract with health plans and how they communicate with other IPA members and established business relationships, patient care in the community will not suffer. That should be our concern. It is important for the FTC to enforce the law. All this amendment asks is that a reasonable standard be applied and care be exercised when patient care could be disrupted. What brought this to my attention was this particular group which has been charged by the FTC with an action. This group has spent $1 million over the last year and a half, defending itself against what it believes are unfair allegations, and probably the FTC has spent, conservatively, three times that amount, and these are dollars we can scarcely afford out of this appropriation. Groups that are procompetitive and manage risk are being punished. Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but I hope to work with the chairman in the future to bring more balance to this situation. Mr. Chairman, at this time I withdraw my amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that as a physician before I came to Congress, medical marijuana is actually not necessary because the active ingredient in medical marijuana is delta- 9-tetrahydrocannabinol. This is a compound that is readily available not in a handful of States as medical marijuana is, but in every State of the Union. It is legal today. It is called Marinol. It is a pill. It is easy to take. And people who suffer from cancer, people who have anorexia from chemotherapy, people who suffer from AIDS may use Marinol today to their benefit. Mr. Chairman, it just challenges the imagination. As a physician, I wrote a lot of prescriptions for morphine for patients who were in pain. I would have never recommended to a patient that they go home and score some opium and smoke it. That would be an inappropriate way for them to deliver the drug. This drug is delivered in a humane and compassionate way. It is delivered in a way that deals with the symptoms it is designed to deal with, and we do not explode the drug culture in this country by doing so.