Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee for all of the work he has done on this bill. I would also like to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen for authoring this bill. He has demonstrated his dedication and leadership on this issue. On July 25, Mr. Frelinghuysen presented H.R. 3100 before the Speakers advisory group on corrections. The corrections group is a bi-partisan group that seeks to fix, update or repeal outdated or unnecessary laws, rules or regulations. H.R. 3100 would prohibit telemarketers from intentionally hiding their identity by blocking caller ID devices. This would ensure someone knows if a telemarketer is calling them. One simple rule of telemarketing is that once you get a person on the phone your chances to make a sale are greatly increased. This is especially true with senior citizens who are seen as easy targets by telemarketers. That is why this bill is supported by the American Association of Retired People, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and the Federal Trade Commission. During the meeting several Members shared stories about how their constituents have been affected by telemarketers who hide their identity. I am proud as chairman of the advisory group to speak in favor of H.R. 3100 and would advise my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients of 2000 Act which will help Medicare beneficiaries who have had organ transplants. Every year, over 6,000 people die waiting for an organ transplant. Currently, over 67,000 Americans are waiting for a donor organ. Given that organs are extremely scarce, Federal law should not compromise the success of organ transplantation. Yet that is exactly what current Medicare policy does, because Medicare denies certain transplant patients coverage for the drugs needed to prevent rejection. Medicare does this in three different ways. First, Medicare has time limits on coverage of immunosuppressive drugs. Medicare law only provides immunosuppressive drug coverage for three years with expanded coverage totaling 3 years and 8 months between 2000 and 2004. However, 61 percent of patients receiving a kidney transplant after someone has died still have the graft intact five years after transplantation. Nearly 77 percent of patients receiving a kidney from a live donor still have their transplant intact after five years. For livers, the graft survival rate after five years is 62 percent. For hearts, the five year graft survival rate is nearly 68 percent. So many Medicare beneficiaries lose coverage of the essential drugs that are needed to maintain their transplant. Second, Medicare does not pay for anti-rejection drugs of Medicare beneficiaries, who received their transplant prior to becoming a Medicare beneficiary. So for instance, if a person received a transplant at age 64 through their health insurance plan, when they retire and rely on Medicare for their health care they will no longer have immunosuppressive drug coverage. Third, Medicare only pays for anti-rejection drugs for transplants performed in a Medicare approved transplant facility. However, many beneficiaries are completely unaware of this fact and how it can jeopardize their future coverage of immunosuppressive drugs. To receive an organ transplant, a person must be very ill and many are far too ill at the time of transplant to be researching the intricate nuances of Medicare coverage policy. The bill that I am introducing today, the ``Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients of 2000 Act'' would remove these short-sighted limitations. The bill establishes a new, easy to follow policy: All Medicare beneficiaries who have had a transplant and need immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection of their transplant, would be covered as long as such anti-rejection drugs were needed. As Congress considers further improvements to the Medicare program, I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to ensure patients waiting on the organ transplant have access to the anti-rejection drugs that are so needed.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think that schools are an inappropriate place to dispense morning-after pills, so I rise in support of the Coburn motion to instruct. I think more importantly, not only current law allows this to be done without parent's consent, this is done without parent's knowledge. I think to have in place a law that says, all parents are bad parents. If parents know that their daughter is expecting a child, that would be bad for their daughter. I think we definitely need to make this change, and I think that is probably why a majority of the Senators supported this change when this issue came up in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion to instruct is a start, because parents should be the first to know if their daughter is pregnant, not the last. There are so many things parents should and would want to do, and I do not think we can have in Federal law a situation where we just assume the worst about every parent in this country. That is why I strongly support this motion to instruct, and I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by Representative Karen Thurman and Senators Frist and Conrad in introducing the Medicare Renal Dialysis Payment Fairness Act of 2000 and 15 other original consponsors. This legislation takes important steps to help sustain and improve the quality of care for the more than 280,000 Americans living with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In 1972, Congress ensured that elderly and disabled individuals with kidney failure receive appropriate dialysis care. At that time, Medicare coverage was extended to include dialysis treatments for individuals with ESRD. Over the last three decades, dialysis facilities have provided services to increasing numbers of kidney failure patients under increasingly strict quality standards; however, during this same time frame reimbursement for kidney services has not kept pace with the increasing demands of providing dialysis care. While these efforts were a step in the right direction, a recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report suggests that we must take further action to sustain patients' access to dialysis services. In particular, MedPAC recommends a 1.2 percent payment adjustment for Medicare-covered dialysis services in the next fiscal year. In addition, MedPAC recommends that the Health Care Financing Administration provide an annual review of the dialysis payment rate--a review that most other Medicare-covered services receive each year. I believe these recommendations represent critical adjustments that must be addressed this year. For this reason, I have worked with Representative Thurman, Senator Frist, and Senator Conrad to develop the Medicare Renal Dialysis Payment Fairness Act of 2000. This legislation would provide the payment rate improvements recommended by MedPAC and would establish an annual payment review process for dialysis services. This proposal would help ensure all dialysis providers receive reimbursement that is in line with increasing patient load and quality requirements. This is particularly important for our nation's smaller, rural dialysis providers that on average receive Medicare payments that do not adequately reflect costs. As Congress considers further improvements to the Medicare program, I urge my colleagues to support this important effort to ensure patients with kidney failure continue to have access to quality dialysis services. I thank my colleagues for working together on this bipartisan and bicameral proposal.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Carolyn L. Wilberding, who has recently retired as an elementary school teacher from the 4th Congressional District of Michigan. It has been said that a teacher effects eternity, she can never tell where her influence ends. These words certainly apply to Carolyn L. Wilberding. For over three decades, Carolyn educated hundreds of Mid- Michigan's elementary school children. Not only was she seen as a leader by her peers but an educator by her students. Her positive impact on her students and their families is truly incalculable. Mrs. Wilberding retires knowing she achieved that intangible, often elusive goal that haunts the careers of many, she made a difference. I would like to commend Mrs. Wilberding for her service to her students and congratulate her on her retirement. Mrs. Wilberding's contribution to education and the community make her an outstanding role model and a respected professional in her field. On behalf of the residents of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Wilberding and her accomplishments.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, today we are working to repeal the death tax so that family businesses can be passed down to children and grandchildren, and family farms can continue to exist. Less than half of all family-owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only about five percent survive to the third generation. Under the tax laws that we currently have, it is cheaper for someone to sell a business before dying and pay the capital gains tax than to pass it on to his children. It's clear and simple--the death tax is double taxation. Small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime. At the time of death, they are assessed another tax on the value of their property. It would be like giving a friend a gift, which you already paid sales tax on, followed by your friend receiving a bill from the IRS for another cut. It is absurd. Repealing the death tax makes good economic sense. One out of every three small-business owners expects all or part of their business will have to be liquidated when death taxes come due. That doesn't just mean that the family loses the business. It also means that the employees of that business are laid off. Repealing the death tax will not only save those jobs that would be lost--it will create new jobs. Death tax liabilities caused 26 percent of family businesses to reduce capital investments--investments that would have resulted in new jobs. Nearly 60 percent of businesses owners say they would add jobs over the coming year if death taxes were eliminated. Economists predict that repealing the tax would create 200,000 extra jobs every year. Estate and gift tax collections amounted to less than 1.4 percent of the federal government's current annual budget. This tax is not worth the costs they impose on the economy, family businesses, and individuals. 70 percent of Americans believe this is one of the most unfair taxes. I happen to be one of those 70 percent. I encourage may colleagues to vote to override this veto and end this tax.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I obviously rise in support of this conference report. I think once again, this Congress is sending common sense legislation to the President that will help America's working families make ends meet. This Congress is doing its work and bringing fairness to the Tax Code and helping families. This marriage penalty relief bill is very close to the version that the House passed twice this year with strong bipartisan support. In fact, it is even better than the version we had earlier, because we have accelerated the tax relief to married couples so that they can get tax relief from the marriage penalty burden in the year 2000 this year. The doubling of the standard deduction and the doubling of the 15 percent income tax bracket, the expansion of the earned income tax credit limits, those will all be effective retroactive to January of this year. That means if President Clinton signs this bill, millions of couples will be helped next year during tax time. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is fiscally responsible, because it is less than one-half of 1 percent of the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security surplus, less than one-half of 1 percent. Second, it gives the most help to those middle- and lower-income Americans who are hit hardest by the marriage tax penalty, by doubling the 15 percent bracket and the IC income thresholds. Finally, this bill is part of an overall budget framework. For the first time, this Congress this year passed a budget that would totally eliminate the national debt by the year 2013, and this is part of that budget framework that not only eliminates the debt, but also protects Social Security and Medicare. So this maintains fiscal discipline and balances our budget. Because of these actions, I am hopeful the President will now see that he has every reason to sign this bill. I hope that we can put politics aside and help the needs of the 25 million couples, married couples that would get relief under this bill. I urge support of this conference report.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our bipartisan legislation to strengthen the international adoption process. I would like to commend the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the subcommittee, and our leadership on this important issue. I also have to mention that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member, and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) have been very active on this issue; and I appreciate all of their efforts to make this bill a reality. Of course, no bill comes to the floor without the help of competent staff: Kristen Gilley, David Abramowitz, Mark Agrast, Joseph Reece, and especially Dr. Cassie Bevan of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. Our bill today is about families opening their homes and their hearts to children who need them. Before I came to Congress, I represented families seeking to adopt. There is nothing more rewarding than seeing a mom and dad bring home a new child into their family through adoption. This bill will help bring families together. In the last 10 years, almost 100,000 children from other countries have been adopted by U.S. families. That is a doubling of international adoptions. We adopt more children from abroad than all other countries combined. In 1998 alone, over 15,000 children were adopted by U.S. parents. This increase has created many opportunities for children to find loving homes. At the same time with the sharp increase, we have a responsibility to establish international standards to ensure that adoptions are safe, that they are in the best interest of the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents. Mr. Speaker, no important bill is ever easy; but it is easy to work on legislation where you can see up close the impact it has on the lives of children and their families. For that reason, the United States in 1994 signed the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention, which establishes basic international procedures for concluding safe intercountry adoptions. The Intercountry Adoption Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor, implements the Hague Convention. We were careful to include in this implementing legislation only what was specifically mandated by the convention. And, second, in U.S. law, especially in U.S. family law and adoption, State authority is assured. The bill establishes the State Department as a central authority to monitor these adoptions and help adoptive parents in dealing with officials in other countries. The State Department will designate one or more private, nonprofit organizations to accredit U.S. adoption service providers using strict standards of ethics, competence, and financial soundness. These accredited agencies can then facilitate intercountry adoptions in other Hague countries. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I, again, want to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Chairman Johnson), and everyone involved in our bill, our leadership, especially the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the hard work they put in for making this bill possible. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the work we have done will allow the other body to quickly take up ratification of the treaty and passage of our implementing legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of our bill.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. I represent the middle part of Michigan. In my district alone, there are 106,000 people paying more taxes simply because they are married. The Vice President is trying to criticize the Congress as a ``do nothing for the people'' Congress. Yet he probably will not mention that this is the second time we have had to pass this bill because the President and some congressional Democrats think we are doing too much for 28 million American couples. Earlier this year, the President said he supported marriage penalty relief, but here we are today, 6 months later, again passing marriage penalty relief. Yet he continues to threaten American families with a veto. The President does not mention that his own proposal and the Democrat substitute, I might add, does not do one bit for a working couple who saved enough last year to buy a home. Why? Because those people itemize. They fill out a different tax form. To not help those people is simply not fair. I for one am proud that we are able to take this step forward and fix this glaring inequity. Let us strengthen families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4810.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in recognizing the long service of Ron Lasch. He has been a very good friend to many of us in this House, and not just to new Members. I have been here a number of years and he has been friends and a good advisor to all of us. I think it is his judgment and friendship that most of us admire and respect. As we rush to the floor to cast votes, he was somebody that you could always go to and count on for the judgment on what was happening on the floor and the real fine points of debate. But he was also a very good friend, and he was someone who you could seek advice from and certainly as a new Member that is important, but it is important every day of the year around here. He was also somebody who really new how to keep the confidence but was not afraid to tell you when you needed some guidance or direction, and I think it was his plain-spokeness, his directness, his loyalty, his friendship, his high intellect. I think those are things that really drew all of us to him. He will be sorely missed. I hope, in the next few days, we will all get a chance to talk to him personally and tell him how much we appreciate this service to this institution, to this House of Representatives, and I know that many Members on the other side of the aisle would come and seek his advice as well. I know he will be missed greatly by all of us, and I just wanted to go on the record and state what a good friend Ron Lasch has been to me and to many Members of this House. He will be missed tremendously, and we wish him all the best in his retirement. And this will be opening a new chapter in his life, and I think that would be very exciting for him after 42 years of service to this House, it certainly is well deserved. I want to join my colleagues in wishing him all the very best.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I received a call from one of my constituents; and he told me that he currently receives prescription drug coverage from his employer. He wanted to ensure that prescription drug coverage was available for seniors that do not have any coverage at all, but he did not want to give up on the coverage that he already has. The bipartisan legislation that we are discussing today protects him and everyone. It allows seniors with coverage to keep their plan. It allows seniors without coverage to choose from two plans. Not only can they elect to receive prescription drug coverage, they can elect not to receive it if they do not need it. Our seniors spend more than any other age group on prescription drugs. This legislation brings the benefits of marketplace and negotiating power to our seniors. By negotiating with pharmacies and manufacturers, plans will seek the best possible discount. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, our plan, the bipartisan plan, is expected to result in twice the reduction in drug costs as the alternative. I ask Members to support the bipartisan drug plan.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I first want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee for understanding how important this amendment is to myself and many other Members of this Congress. I also want to thank the Committee on Rules and its chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me to bring this important amendment before the House today. This amendment simply requires unspent office funds to be used for deficit or debt reduction. I believe that many Members are now familiar with this common sense amendment that former Congressman Zimmer and I and others first proposed back in 1991. Before 1995, this amendment was never made in order. In 1995, this amendment was approved on the House floor by an overwhelming margin of 403-21 in 1996, and in 1997, it was accepted on the floor by the committee chairman. In 1998, the committee brought the bill to the House floor with this provision, Mr. Chairman, incorporated into the bill. Last year, it was accepted on the floor by the committee chairman. I want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for his efforts on this matter as well. I believe that the Camp-Roemer-Upton-Smith amendment will ensure that Members of Congress can demonstrate their personal commitment to a balanced budget. This amendment requires any unspent office funds at the end of the year be used for debt reduction, or if a deficit exists, deficit reduction takes priority. Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, we have achieved, what has eluded Congress for 30 years, a balanced budget. The fiscal year 2001 legislative branch appropriations bill continues our efforts to reduce the national debt and eliminate the national debt and holds a line on spending. I thank the chairman again for considering the Camp-Roemer-Upton- Smith amendment, and I urge all Members to support the amendment and the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, a bill to repeal the death tax. Small businesses and family farms are the lifeblood of our economy. Yet we have a tax system which unfairly taxes these small business employers and farmers twice. Less than half of all family- owned businesses survive the death tax and only about 5 percent survive to the third generation. After being taxed two, three or four times, Uncle Sam taxes us again at 55 percent when we die. At a time when families need to be thinking about what they can do to bounce back from such a tragedy, they have to worry about taxes. Fiftyfive percent is high enough, but it is 100 percent penalty on employees of small businesses and family farms who lose their jobs when their company or farm is liquidated to pay the death tax. Since its beginning, America has been about building a better life for people and their children. A farmer's commitment to not sell his farm, to invest his profits in his farm, and to continue working instead of retiring, that is what America is all about. And there is nothing more un-American than telling that farmer and family, you are going to have to give the fruits of your labor and your children's future to the government. Mr. Speaker, death by itself should not trigger a tax. The 50,000 farmers in Michigan deserve to have this tax repealed. Let us give them the opportunity to focus their attention on building their farms and providing for their children, rather than figuring out to avoid losing their farm to the government.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report. This legislation will provide needed protection for our farmers who have struggled with low commodity prices and weather-related disasters. I want to thank the chairman for his continued work to help our family farmers. There is another part of this legislation that is very important to the farmers in my district and throughout the State of Michigan. This legislation will provide $6 million in emergency funds to combat bovine tuberculosis. Bovine tuberculosis has historically been a very rare disease in wild deer. However, extensive testing in Michigan found the disease had spread throughout the deer population, and these deer have passed on the disease to our cattle herds. There is no vaccine for bovine TB, and cattle infected with TB are destroyed. In addition to the fear of losing their herds, Michigan farmers are now facing the news that USDA has taken steps to remove Michigan's bovine TB-free status. The loss of that status is expected to cost farmers $156 million over the next few years, and that is a conservative estimate. The State of Michigan, USDA, and Michigan State University have worked hard to address this escalating problem. These emergency funds being appropriated today will assist in providing the tools necessary to continue fighting this disease and provide relief to Michigan farmers. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest). I would like to thank the entire Michigan delegation for their work on this issue, and I would especially like to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) from the first district of Michigan. The first outbreaks of this disease began in the first and fourth districts, the districts he and I represent; and since that time his commitment to this issue has been unwavering and a great help. Again, I urge my colleagues to support final passage.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of granting normal trade relations to China. First and close to my heart, Michigan farm families, employers and working men and women win with this. Passage of today's legislation will mean that Michigan farmers will no longer have to compete with high tariff barriers on U.S. agricultural products. Restrictions on the importation of meat and poultry will be eliminated and products like fruit and vegetables will see tariffs cut in the range of 65 to 75 percent. Tariffs on auto parts will be reduced by 57 percent. And motor vehicles, cut by 70 percent. I do not need to tell Members that these things mean a lot to the people of Michigan and America. There are some people who claim that we cannot grant normal trade relations with China because of their human rights record. We can all agree that China's people are mistreated, but I will not agree that isolating China is an improvement. I would like to illustrate some of the changes that our trade with China has resulted in. In 1990, 400,000 Bibles were sent to China. This year, we will deliver 4 million Bibles to China. Human rights activists who have been involved in China for years have voiced their support for this agreement, including the Reverend Billy Graham and Leonard Woodcock, the former President of the United Autoworkers and former Ambassador to China. I would like to address one other issue that is very important to me. I have worked hard to advance the issue of international adoption. China's cruel policy of limited family size has left thousands of orphans living in deplorable conditions. However, since opening relations with China, adoption agencies have been able to go into China and develop a network to allow these children to come to the United States. In 1989, 200 Chinese children were adopted. In 1998 over 4,000 Chinese orphans were adopted by loving American families. I urge a yes vote on normal trade status for China.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, we do agree that the Tax Code is complex and burdensome. I am sure these statistics have been cited before, but the IRS laws and regulations are currently 17,000 pages, more than 5\1/2\ million words. The complexity and difficulty of filling out the tax forms each year get worse and worse. What this legislation will do is it will sunset the Tax Code in 4 years. Also what this legislation does is it creates a commission, and I want to commend also the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for his leadership not on a commission that helped us restructure the IRS, but also a commission contained within this bill which will help us replace our current income tax code. This bipartisan commission is modeled on the IRS commission that was successful in 1996 and 1997. This will have 15 members appointed by the President, the Senate majority leader, the Speaker, and two appointed by the House and Senate minority leaders. It will have a short timetable. This commission will have to act within 18 months. If we do not, what is also in this legislation, which is new this time around, we will have to reauthorize it by 2004 if we do not adopt a new system of taxation. I think it is important we repeal the complex and difficult code. Any of these efforts are in the right direction. I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for helping make this a reality.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I too want to commend Representative Morrison from the State of Texas for her leadership on this issue. We have read horrifying stories in the news about babies being abandoned at birth in public places. One child was found in a river, another in a garbage Dumpster. These are all sad, heartbreaking stories. But States and communities have been responding to this crisis both with new laws and new programs to ensure that these babies have a chance at life; programs that allow parents, with no questions asked, to deliver their children, their babies, to a hospital instead of hiding the baby away or leaving the child to die. What we lack is accurate data on how many babies are abandoned in public places. We have a pretty good handle on how many babies are left in hospitals. Almost 31,000 are abandoned in hospitals annually. But we can only guess at how many babies are abandoned in alleys or bathrooms or other public places. We think it is around 105, but we just do not know. This legislation today calls on government at every level to collect and publicize statistics in this area so we can respond with the right solution. One solution, a permanent and loving solution, is adoption. I and many Members of the Congress have continually worked on a bipartisan basis to make adoption easier. The Committee on Ways and Means, since 1994, has adopted a number of provisions, tax credits for adoption, ending discrimination in adoption, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which either says families should be reunited or a loving permanent family should be found to end languishing in foster care. We have a number of provisions to make a real choice for families. Stories of abandoned babies dying alone break everyone's heart, but it brings even more tears to the eyes of those couples in my hometown of Midland, Michigan or towns like Richmond, Virginia or Omaha, Nebraska families waiting and waiting to adopt a new baby. Let us get the data, let us work for a solution, and let us make sure not one baby is abandoned to die.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Representatives Johnson of Connecticut, Portman, Matsui, and Pallone to introduce the Organ Procurement Organization Certification Act. This important legislation will improve the process that the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) uses to certify organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Each day about 57 people receive an organ transplant, but another 13 people on the waiting list die because not enough organs are available. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, there are now 68,220 patients in the United States on the waiting list for a transplant. April 16 through 22 is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. Communities nationwide will be celebrating the critical importance of organ and tissue donation. First designated by Congress in 1983, this week is used to raise awareness of the critical need for organ and tissue donation and to encourage all Americans to share their decision to donate with their families so their wishes can be honored. This is especially important as the gap between the supply of organs and the growing number of transplant candidates continues to widen. Next week, it is expected that the House will consider legislation dealing with organ allocation--this issue has been very controversial and certainly deserves our attention. But one of the most critical aspects of the organ transplant system gets very little attention. Organ Procurement Organizations--or OPOs--play a critical role in procuring and placing organs and are therefore key to our efforts to increase the number and quality organs available for transplant. The OPOs' job is to provide all of the services, within a geographic region, for coordinating the identification of potential donors, requests for donation, and recovery and transplant of organs. The professionals in the OPOs evaluate potential donors, discuss donation with family members, and arrange for the surgical removal of donated organs. They are the people that are responsible for preserving the organs and making arrangements for distribution within the national organ sharing policies. Finally, the OPOs provide information and education to medical professionals and the I don't think that most people are aware of how significant these organizations are, or the impact they have on these recipients' lives. There are currently 60 organ procurement organizations in the United States. Unfortunately, OPOs are suffering from what many other health care providers deal with on a regular basis--excessive regulations from HCFA. Under current regulations, OPOs are subject to a recertification process every two years. Within that process, HCFA's current measures for certification are based on invalid assumptions. First, they assume that potential donors are equivalent per capita in each OPO service area. Harvard University and industry studies have demonstrated otherwise. Demographic and epidemiologic data have shown wide variations across the country in suicides, homicides, and gunshot wounds; in motor vehicle fatalities; and in HIV incidence and frequency. HCFA also assumes that potential donors die where they live. Recent data examining donors recovered with a home address outside of the OPO service area, however, show wide variations. None of these variations are adjusted by HCFA. HCFA also assumes that populations are accurately determined and assigned. We know, however, that there exist differential growth rates across the country with lags in reporting, and we know that census undercounts vary across the nation. HCFA frequently splits populations arbitrarily across counties as part of OPO service area assignments. None of these variations are adjusted for in the current measures. These are just a few of the problems. I'm not a statistician, but even I can see the inefficiencies in these measures. For example, while Michigan ranks below the national average in its rate of recovery of vital organs, it is the single largest supplier in the country of human bone for transplantation. The processes for identifying potential donors and obtaining consent is virtually identical for human organs and for bone. Therefore, it cannot be an organization performance issue that causes Michigan to appear to be a poor performer in recovering vital organs. To compound matters, every two years, these OPOs face decertification, and unlike other HCFA certification programs, there is no provision for corrective action plans to remedy a deficient performance and there is no appeals process for resolving conflicts. The current system forces OPOs to compete on the basis of an imperfect grading system, with no guarantee of an opportunity for a fair hearing based on their actual performance. This situation pressures many OPOs to focus on the certification process itself rather than on activities and methods to increase donation, undermining what should be the ultimate goal of the program. In addition, the two year cycle--which is shorter than any other certification program administered by HCFA-- provides little opportunity to examine trends and even less incentive for OPOs to mount long term interventions. The General Accounting Office, the Institute of Medicine, the Harvard School of Public Health and a host of others have criticized HCFA's use of the population based standard. HCFA has updated certification processes and increased the cycle of accreditation for Medicare Hospitals, Home Health Services, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, Long Term Care Organizations and Methadone Clinics--but they have done nothing to change the certification process for OPOs, despite Congressional urging these changes. We are introducing legislation that will accomplish three major objectives. First of all, it will impose a moratorium on the current recertification process for OPOs and the use of the population-based performance measurements. Under this bill, the certification of qualified OPOs will remain in place through January 1, 2000, for those OPOs that are certified as of January 1, 2000. Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate new rules governing OPO recertification by January 1, 2002. These new rules are to rely on outcome and process performance measures based on evidence of organ donor potential. Finally, the bill provides for the filing and approval of a corrective action plan by an OPO that fails to meet the standards, a grace period to permit corrective action, an opportunity to appeal a decertification to the Secretary on substantive and procedural grounds and a four-year certification cycle. It is my hope that through enacting this legislation, we can improve a system that touches hundreds of thousands of lives every year. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michigan's new girl's highschool volleyball State Champions, the New Lothrop Hornets. At the start of a long and challenging season, New Lothrop's girl's volleyball team set out to achieve their goal of being the best. They believed in themselves and knew that with their heart, drive and tremendous teamwork the state championship was within their grasp. With the support of their fans and the community these athletes fought a hard battle, never once doubting their amazing ability. With their motto ``Together we can,'' the women exemplified teamwork. Their combining passion for victory made them unstoppable. At the recent championship match, the Hornets proved victorious and their coach Sheri Warner hoisted the championship trophy for their fans. This tremendous victory was well deserved. They have lead their community to new athletic heights and have become wonderful examples of good sportsman. They may now pride themselves not only with the spectacular honor of being Michigan's top women's volleyball team, but also carrying the title of New Lothrop's first prep volleyball champions. Mr. Speaker, please join me and the New Lothrop community in congratulating these women on their excellent talents and leadership skills.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. Mr. Chairman, bovine tuberculosis has been identified in free-range deer in Michigan. The deer are quickly transferring this disease to cattle herds throughout the State. Currently, the State is in danger of losing its bovine TB-free status. If that were to happen, Michigan farmers stand to lose $156 million over the next 10 years. The State of Michigan has been working in conjunction with USDA to solve this problem. However, further assistance from the Federal Government is needed. We have a bipartisan request for $7.5 million to the State of Michigan to combat that disease. I seek the assurance of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that the committee will assist with funding for the bovine TB crisis, and that will be addressed when this bill is considered in the conference committee.