[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2192-H2197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
CHARLIE W. NORWOOD LIVING ORGAN DONATION ACT
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 710) to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify
that kidney paired donation does not involve the transfer of a human
organ for valuable consideration, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 710
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Charlie W. Norwood Living
Organ Donation Act''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL ORGAN TRANSPLANT ACT; AMENDMENT REGARDING
PAIRED DONATION OF HUMAN KIDNEYS.
(a) In General.--Section 301(a) of the National Organ
Transplant Act (42 U.S.C. 274e(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The preceding sentence does not
apply with respect to the paired donation of human
kidneys.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 301(c) of the National Organ
Transplant Act (42 U.S.C. 274e(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) The term `paired donation of human kidneys' means the
donation and receipt of human kidneys under the following
circumstances:
``(A) An individual (referred to in this paragraph as the
`first donor') desires to make a living donation of a kidney
specifically to a particular patient (referred to in this
paragraph as the `first patient'), but such donor is
biologically incompatible as a donor for such patient.
``(B) A second individual (referred to in this paragraph as
the `second donor') desires to make a living donation of a
kidney specifically to a second particular patient (referred
to in this paragraph as the `second patient'), but such donor
is biologically incompatible as a donor for such patient.
``(C) Subject to subparagraph (D), the first donor is
biologically compatible as a donor of a kidney for the second
patient, and the second donor is biologically compatible as a
donor of a kidney for the first patient.
``(D) If there is any additional donor-patient pair as
described in subparagraph (A) or (B), each donor in the group
of donor-patient pairs is biologically compatible as a donor
of a kidney for a patient in such group.
``(E) All donors and patients in the group of donor-patient
pairs (whether two pairs or more than two pairs) enter into a
single agreement to donate and receive such kidneys,
respectively, according to such biological compatibility in
the group.
``(F) Other than as described in subparagraph (E), no
valuable consideration is knowingly acquired, received, or
otherwise transferred with respect to the kidneys referred to
in such subparagraph.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN
ASSISTANCE AND QUALITY INITIATIVE FUND.
Section 1848(l)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(l)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following: ``In addition, there shall be available to the
Fund for expenditures during 2009 an amount equal to
$30,000,000 and for expenditures during or after 2013 an
amount equal to $470,000,000.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``furnished during 2008'';
(B) by striking ``specified in subparagraph (A)'' and
inserting ``specified in the first sentence of subparagraph
(A)''; and
(C) by inserting after ``furnished during 2008'' the
following: ``and for the obligation of the entire first
amount specified in the second sentence of such subparagraph
for payment with respect to physicians' services furnished
during 2009 and of the entire second amount so specified for
payment with respect to physicians' services furnished on or
after January 1, 2013''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Permission for Member to Be Considered as First Sponsor of H.R. 710
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter
be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 710, a bill originally
introduced by Representative Norwood of Georgia, only for the purpose
of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of
rule XII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to pass the Charlie W. Norwood Living
Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. We do so both to honor Dr.
Norwood, who provided such great service to his district and to the
country for many years; of course, Dr. Norwood did so as the result of
being a recipient of lung transplants himself; but also to honor the
thousands of Americans who are today waiting for kidney transplants.
This bill, we believe, will be a great step forward to hasten the day
when those folks can potentially have kidney transplants.
It is a fitting tribute to Dr. Norwood for his tireless efforts to
improve our Nation's health and his great work in fighting as a
patient's advocate. I will submit for the record a statement from Dr.
Norwood in support of this legislation.
Second, I would like to thank the staff of both of the committees, as
well as Dr. Norwood's office and personal staff, for their work to make
this bill a reality.
This legislation would allow a procedure commonly known as paired
donation to be legal, to make that clear, and to provide hope to
patients waiting for kidney transplants. Paired organ donation will
make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to
a spouse, a family member or a friend but find that they are medically
incompatible to still become living kidney donors.
This is very important, because, as of February 23, we had over
70,000 patients who are now on the waiting list for a kidney
transplant, and yet we performed only 16,500 kidney transplants in
2005, of which only 6,500 were living kidney donors. H.R. 710 will take
a significant step towards reducing the number of patients on the
waiting list and giving many more the hope that their wait will not be
endless.
Further, this bill is supported by numerous medical organizations,
including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of
Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the
National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric
Nephrology.
I have sort of a local person who gives me advise about this, Dr.
Connie Davis, who is a transplant expert, a physician, and she says
that this bill is a huge step forward for the transplant community as
clinical efforts in the direction of paired donation have been severely
hampered by concerns over the legal status of such activity.
I believe it is imperative that we make it clear that there is no
intent by Congress to bar this procedure. It is my hope that the Senate
will act quickly on this. Simply put, we want this legislation to save
lives immediately.
So, for the 70,000 patients waiting for lifesaving kidney
transplants, with time spent on costly and often arduous
[[Page H2193]]
dialysis treatment, their time on the waiting list can be significantly
shortened with passage and implementation of this bill.
It is an honor to stand here working for the name of Dr. Charlie
Norwood. I want to thank all those who have worked on this bill, and I
hope very shortly we can have this on the President's desk and help
those 70,000 people to a healthy future and great productive years,
just like Dr. Norwood had in the U.S. Congress.
Statement of the Honorable Charlie Norwood
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 710, the Living
Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act. This bill will
explicitly state that Americans in need of a kidney will have
a greater chance of receiving one through the process of
paired donation.
Over 70,000 Americans are currently in need of a kidney
transplant. As a result of significant demand and limited
supply, most transplantees wait for over four years before
receiving a kidney. Four years for their lives to be saved or
lost.
During this time, if their kidneys fail, End Stage Renal
Disease can set in. These patients must undergo dialysis.
While dialysis extends patients' lives, their condition often
prevents them from being fully engaged in their community and
career. Dialysis is life-extending, but not life-bettering.
Sadly, in many cases, this is where patients lose their
battle. In 2004 alone, 3,823 transplant candidates died
awaiting a kidney. As our population ages, that figure is
going to increase.
Mr. Speaker, medical science has enabled us to perform more
successful organ transplants than ever before. These
transplants give patients a new lease on life. Many Members
in this body or their loved ones have been touched by the
lifesaving gift of organ donation, myself included.
Kidney transplants from living donors tend to be highly
successful, but in many cases, those who want to give a
kidney to a loved one feel they cannot help because they are
not biologically compatible with the patient in need.
H.R. 710 is very simple. It clarifies that paired donation
is legal under the National Organ Transplant Act. As a
result, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate
and an incompatible living donor can be matched with another
such incompatible pair to enable two transplants that
otherwise would not occur.
Remember those 3,823 souls and ask yourself--could you
justify not allowing a process of simply cross-matching to
save their lives?
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation in memory of those who have died waiting for a
kidney as well as the thousands of Americans who are seeking
a transplant or trying to become a living donor to save a
loved ones' life.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman
Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Deal and
Congressman Inslee for expediting consideration of this specific piece
of legislation.
As I have pointed out earlier on the House floor after notification
of Congressman Norwood's passing, he wrote me a letter the last day he
was in Washington before he flew home to Georgia, and this particular
piece of legislation was the primary issue in that letter. It is very,
very heartwarming, and I am very grateful that the majority would move
this piece of legislation as quickly as they have done. I want to thank
them sincerely for doing that.
As has been pointed out, this piece of legislation will be called the
Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, and it
is in honor of Congressman Norwood, the late Congressman from the Tenth
District of Georgia.
There are over 78,000 Americans who need kidney transplants. The
average wait is over 4 years. Paired donation can create greater access
to kidney transplants. A paired donation consists of a transplant
candidate and an incompatible living donor who are matched with another
similar pair so as to enable two transplants that would otherwise not
occur.
The legislation before us today clarifies the ability to perform
paired transplantations through the National Organ Transplant Act, or
NOTA. This legislation clarifies that paired donations are not
considered a valuable consideration.
This legislation has received the strong support of all the major
transplant organizations, including the United Network for Organ
Sharing, the American Society of Transplantation, the Association of
Organ Procurement Organizations, the National Kidney Foundation, the
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, the Cedars Sinai Health
Systems, Johns Hopkins, and the American Society of Transplant
Surgeons.
As a consequence of the legislation that Congressman Norwood and
Congressman Inslee have crafted, we assume that at least an additional
2,000 organ transplants a year will occur. That is truly a gift of
living that will keep on giving for many, many years to come.
This legislation, unfortunately, will be the last of many great
pieces of legislation that Congressman Norwood helped to pass when he
was a colleague of ours in this body. He was a true statesman and
sincerely a warm, personal friend of mine. I will miss him greatly.
Before I yield back, I want to tell a story about Charlie and then
read something into the Record.
Congressman Norwood always considered himself to be very prepared. He
was always ready for almost any contingency.
The night that we voted the Medicare Modernization Act part D
prescription drug benefit on this floor will be a time that will long
be remembered because it was such a close vote and it took so long to
get it passed. Charlie and myself and three other members of the Energy
and Commerce Committee on the Republican side had been a part of a
group to craft an alternative program for the part D prescription drug
benefit. Some of our alternative program was in the final legislation,
but not all of it. As a consequence, Charlie was listed as a ``lean
no.'' He was in reality a ``hard no,'' but he listed himself as a
``lean no.''
As we all know, when the climactic vote occurred, there weren't
enough yeses on the board to pass it. So I went to one of the senior
leaders of the majority party, I am not going to say which one, but I
went to one of the senior leaders and I said, ``I think we can get
Charlie Norwood to vote for this bill.'' They said, ``No, you're not
going to get Charlie to vote for the bill.'' I said, ``I think we can,
if you'll talk to him.''
So I went to Charlie and I said, ``Would you talk?'' Charlie said,
``I don't want to talk to anybody. I'm going to vote against the
bill.''
I went back and forth. I finally arranged a meeting back in the
Republican cloakroom where Charlie would discuss this particular piece
of legislation.
Now, he had been a no, no, no, no, no for the last 2 weeks. So when I
finally got the two parties together, Norwood immediately pulled out a
list from his pocket. Now, he is deceased, so whatever the statute of
limitations is has expired. And this Congressman, who had been a lean
no, lean no, lean no, had a list of 10 things, 10, that if the senior
leadership on the Republican side would consider, he would consider
voting for the bill. Ten.
Obviously, that discussion didn't go too far, so he ended up voting
no. But he was prepared, and he had a list of things.
Now, in that same sense of being prepared, Mr. Inslee has already put
into the Record Congressman Norwood's statement on this bill. Isn't
that amazing? I am going to read it into the Record. This is the floor
statement in support of this bill by the late Congressman Charlie
Norwood of the 10th District of Georgia.
``Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also offer a sincere thank you to Ranking
Member Barton, Chairman Dingell and Mr. Inslee for all of their help
moving this bill. Committee staff, including Katherine Martin, John
Ford and Peter Goodloe should be acknowledged for their aid as well. A
special thank you to Nick Shipley with Mr. Inslee's office who worked
with J.P. from my staff from day one as a tireless advocate to get this
bill into law.
``It has been said that common sense is the knack of seeing things as
they are and doing things as they ought to be done. Well, let me tell
you how things were being done. For years, people missed or were
delayed in an opportunity to have a life-saving kidney transplant
simply because a member of the executive branch couldn't grasp the
[[Page H2194]]
true intent of the National Organ Transplant Act's valuable
consideration clause. The valuable consideration clause was meant to
outlaw the buying and selling of organs, which everyone agrees is
proper.
``Now, there are two types of transplant donors, living and
cadaveric, or deceased. As a lung transplant recipient, I benefited
from the latter, but in the case of the first, a friend or a relative
wanting to spare their loved ones from death or dialysis graciously
offers to give up one of their kidneys. Regardless of the method, both
patient and donor must be biologically compatible.
``In recent years doctors discovered that by using the simple
database methods that we use in our everyday lives and business, a
paired donation could take place with these living donors.
``In the process of a kidney paired donor transplant, a pair
consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and an incompatible living
donor is matched with another such incompatible pair to enable two
transplants that otherwise would not occur.
``Now, I'm just an old country dentist, but isn't this just common
sense? I want to give to someone, but I'm not compatible, but I can
give to another patient. Their willing, yet also incompatible, friend
can give to my loved one. As a result, two people live; two more slots
are opened on the list for even more transplants to take place. Common
sense, Mr. Speaker.
``However, instead of every single transplant center undertaking this
commonsense approach, some folks were denied the chance to be cross-
matched and, instead, their loved one suffered and even died while
awaiting a transplant.
``73,652. That is roughly the number, Mr. Speaker, of people waiting
for a kidney transplant. I can't imagine looking at any of those people
and telling them `I am sorry, some bureaucrat 10 years ago inspired
fear around the simple process to save you today, so you will have to
languish on the list and hope for the best.'
``I will tell you what: That is hogwash. Times have changed. Paired
donation is saving lives today and will save even more once we get this
bill done. H.R. 710 has the support of every major transplant
organization, from the United Network for Organ Sharing, who will
manage the national list, to the surgeons who will perform the
transplants, to the patient advocates to the hospitals.
``In fact, a study published in the Journal of Transplantation
predicts a 14 percent increase in the live kidney donor transplants
performed each year if paired donation were allowed. Moreover, for each
patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save $220,000 in dialysis
costs.
``In fact, Johns Hopkins just did a five-way paired donation where
five people were saved instead of being put on the waiting list. Now
imagine the good a national list will do. Thousands will be saved
through simple common sense. Paired donation is the way things ought to
be done.
``How often can we stand in this well on this floor and know what we
are doing will save the government money, improve patient quality of
life and save lives? Not too often, Mr. Speaker. I can testify to that.
``What the bureaucracy has failed to correct, this Congress will now
step up and take care of, unfortunately for all of those who have not
been able to benefit, not a minute too soon.
``I yield back the balance of my time.''
That is the floor statement of the late Congressman Norwood on a bill
that, at the time he prepared this, he wasn't sure would get to the
floor.
{time} 1430
Yet because of his tenacity and preparedness and the willingness of
Mr. Dingell and Mr. Inslee and Mr. Pallone and Speaker Pelosi, the bill
is on the floor. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this
bill. I do intend to ask for a rollcall vote and let us leave a living
legacy of life for the late Congressman Charlie Norwood.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Barton for reading Dr.
Norwood's eloquent statement into the Record.
I want to note that kidney donation is not just for the recipients.
It is for their families and the places they work, and even the U.S.
Congress. The reason we had the benefit of Dr. Norwood's wisdom for
years in the U.S. Congress was because of a lung transplant. I want to
note that what we are doing today is not only helping those 70,000
people, but also their families and workplaces and the whole U.S.
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me this time.
I too wish to express appreciation to the sponsor and all of those
who have made it possible to bring this bill to the floor today. It is
certainly altogether fitting and proper that we name this bill after
the late Charlie Norwood.
This bill does two very important things that Charlie really believed
in. The first is he believed in organ transplant. As Mr. Inslee
alluded, he was the recipient of a lung transplant that extended his
life. He believed in organ transplants.
The second thing that it does is something that he really believed in
as well, and that is overcoming bureaucratic red tape that made no
common sense. And that is what this bill does. Pairing of donations for
kidneys makes all of the common sense in the world. It will save lives
and money. Certainly in the tradition of Charlie Norwood, it will
perpetuate the importance of organ donations and do so in the memory
and in the honor of a great Member of this body.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the dean of the House whose
leadership helped bring this bill to the floor today, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for such time as he may consume.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have said strongly why this
is a good piece of legislation and why it should be enacted. I strongly
support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 710, the Charlie
W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act. I am delighted that the Commerce
Committee could report this good piece of legislation to the House
floor, and I am pleased by the consequences of it because we will
achieve more help to those in need of organ donation, something which
is of great importance to the country and to those who are in such
grave and serious need.
Charlie Norwood wanted this bill very badly. It is a good bill. We
are delighted that we could bring to the House floor a good bill which
not only does good but which honors its author, Charlie Norwood, by
carrying forward his goals, his purposes, and his intentions with
regard to helping his fellow Americans. I am delighted we can do this
for Charlie Norwood who was a valuable member of the committee and who
will indeed be missed by his colleagues in Congress on both sides of
the aisle.
I have a longer statement which will appear in the Record which I
believe sets forth some of the things already said by my colleagues. I
thank my good friend, the manager of the bill on this side, and the
former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), my dear friend, for their leadership on this matter.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 710, the ``Charlie W. Norwood Living
Organ Donation Act.''
Representative Charlie Norwood was a dear friend and colleague of
mine. Beginning in 1995, Charlie served the people of the tenth
district of Georgia admirably and honorably in the House of
Representatives. Sadly, Charlie lost his long battle with cancer on
February 13, 2007, but he shall not be forgotten and we will pass this
legislation in his honor.
H.R. 710 would modify the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to
clarify that ``paired'' kidney donations do not violate a clause of the
act regarding ``valuable consideration,'' which outlaws the buying or
selling of kidneys and other organs.
A ``paired'' donation occurs when a donor who is willing to give a
kidney to a family member or friend, but is biologically incompatible,
donates to another patient, who also has an incompatible donor. By
cross-matching two
[[Page H2195]]
or more incompatible donor-recipient pairs, more patients can receive
kidneys and more donors can give them.
Currently, an estimated 6,000 individuals nationwide have offered
kidneys to family members and friends, only to have the donation
rejected because they are incompatible. Many providers will not perform
paired donations, however, for fear of violating NOTA. If paired
donations were allowed, a study published in the Journal of
Transplantation by Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology predicts that there would be a 14 percent
increase in the number of live kidney donor transplants performed each
year.
The controversy over paired organ donation began with an
interpretation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
stating that paired donation MAY be in violation of NOTA's valuable
consideration clause. The clause was intended to outlaw the buying or
selling of transplantable human organs. This stigma against paired
donation elicits concern within some areas of the transplant community,
which desperately wants clear legislative guidance on this issue.
This legislation is supported by leading organ donation and organ
transplant organizations such as the National Kidney Foundation, the
American Society of Transplantation, the American Society of Transplant
Surgeons, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the
Organization for Transplant Professionals, and the United Network for
Organ Sharing (UNOS).
Paired transplantation is a way to solve the dilemma faced by people
who want to become living organ donors for a family member or friend,
but are unable to do so because they are biologically incompatible. And
one of the added benefits of this bill is that it produces savings.
Since Dr. Norwood was dedicated to making sure that physicians were
treated right and paid properly, we will be using this savings to do
just that.
I would like to sincerely thank Representatives Norwood and Inslee
for their leadership, dedication, and diligent work on this important
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support
of H.R. 710, the ``Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I yield to Dr. Gingrey, I want to thank
the gentleman from Michigan for his excellent leadership and his
willingness to expedite this process. It is because of John Dingell
that this bill is on the floor this afternoon. We on the minority are
very appreciative of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for recognizing
me, and I have a longer speech that I want to submit for the Record. I
think my staff must have been looking over the ranking member's
shoulder when they wrote it. He has already said those nice things
about our good friend, Charlie Norwood.
I was touched, though, in the letter that he received and read, the
phrases ``hogwash'' and an ``old country dentist.'' I was sitting here
thinking, I can see Charlie saying those things on this floor. That is
the way he was and that is the way we remember him. He wasn't an old
country dentist, let me assure you. He was a prosperous dentist in
Augusta, Georgia, a population of 130,000, the home of the Masters; but
that was Charlie.
Let me join Joe Barton, the ranking member, in thanking Chairman
Dingell. I mentioned this bill to the chairman last week, and he looked
at me and said, Doc, and he had a little mist of tear in his eye, he
said, Don't worry about this; we are going to do this. And I knew then
that the chairman and Representative Inslee and others were fully
supportive of what Charlie was trying to do.
If he was thinking just of himself, Mr. Speaker, this bill probably
would say the Living Lung Organ Donation Act, which also would be
possible; but that wasn't Charlie. He was thinking about those 70,000
other people who are waiting for a kidney.
Charlie himself had to wait a long time to get that lung. Too long,
we think. I don't know if it would have saved his life if he would have
had an opportunity for a paired living lung donor, but he was thinking
of others who were suffering, and as others have said, to bring a
commonsense solution to problem solving in a bipartisan way. They
described Charlie as a dog that has got ahold of a bone and won't let
it go. Well, we can say to Charlie today, as part of our legacy to him,
that he has succeeded.
Mr. Speaker, let's support this bill as a legacy and tribute to the
great Member, Charlie Norwood
Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a dear friend and former
colleague in this body, the late Congressman Charlie Norwood. Charlie
worked tirelessly as an advocate for patients across our Nation, and
this bill is a fitting tribute to the tremendous impact he's made on
healthcare in America.
Mr. Speaker, in this country, there are more than 74,000 men, women
and children on the waiting list for a kidney transplant.
Unfortunately, if the current trend of kidney transplants continues,
only about half of these candidates will ever receive a life-saving
transplant. Tragically, in 2004, nearly 4,000 listed patients died
while awaiting a kidney.
One way for individuals to avoid the kidney transplant waiting list
all together is to find a living donor, like a friend or family member
who is willing to selflessly donate a kidney to save a loved one. The
limitation on this compassion is that only compatible matches can
donate kidneys; if your friends and family are not a match, they can't
be your donor.
But those of us who knew Charlie know that he was an excellent
problem solver, always turning challenges into opportunities. With the
limited donor options individuals face within their community of family
and friends, patient advocates and healthcare providers have pushed for
living organ donors. Charlie was convinced of the unlimited potential
that could be realized when the pool of living donors would be expanded
beyond one's immediate family and friends. In fact, there have been
success stories of hospitals doing just this--finding pairs of living
kidney donors who aren't matches for their own loved ones, but are
matches for someone else's loved one.
Unfortunately, due to conflicting interpretations of the National
Organ Transplant Act, hospitals across the country are hesitant to make
this type of procedure a rule--and this where the Charlie Norwood
Living Kidney Organ Donation Act will create miracles.
H.R. 710 would clarify in statute that this type of paired living
kidney donation would be allowed under Federal law. This will alleviate
the concerns of hospitals and healthcare providers that want to give
all kidney patients the hope that transplants represent but ambiguity
in law currently prevents.
Mr. Speaker this is a win-win situation. More patients would benefit
from a kidney transplant, thereby reducing the number of individuals on
the waiting list. In turn, more Americans--both on the waiting list and
off--will have that miraculous second chance at life.
Mr. Speaker, passing this legislation will be a lasting tribute to
Charlie Norwood's selfless efforts to help those in need. While we all
wish our friend's lung transplant had saved his life, we can honor him
by giving Americans across our Nation greater access to the potential
miracle of an organ donation.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another
distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman John
Linder.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the underlying legislation, and in support of
the memory and legacy of its author, my friend and colleague, Charlie
Norwood.
Many people may remember the story of Nicholas Greene, the 17-year-
old boy who was killed during a family vacation in Italy. The tragic
and sudden loss of this young boy was turned into a story of hope and
love when his parents generously donated his organs. Out of his tragic
death sprang life, as seven people received Nicholas' heart, liver,
kidneys, corneas, and pancreatic cells.
If there is one lesson we can take from Nicholas' great gift to the
world and from the strong humanitarian legacy of Charlie Norwood, it is
that we must support life whenever we have that opportunity.
H.R. 710 specifically excludes kidney-paired donation from the
National Organ Transplant Act's valuable consideration clause. The
valuable consideration clause has a noble purpose, which is to keep
people from buying and selling human organs. In the case of kidney-
paired donation, which is held to the highest of medical ethical
standards, that purpose is obstructing the ability to save lives. By
supporting this bill, we can give countless people a better chance for
survival.
Let me be clear: paired-organ donation does not constitute the buying
or selling of organs. If we believe as much, then we accept the idea
that the gift of life has a monetary value. Charlie vehemently opposed
this concept, and so should we.
[[Page H2196]]
Thousands of people die each year waiting on a transplant list,
praying for the right match for a kidney. Paired donation will
significantly increase the number of available kidneys each year,
allowing even more people to live productive, healthy lives.
H.R. 710 honors the memory of our friend Charlie Norwood, it honors
the memory of Nicholas Greene and his family, and it honors all those
Americans who have lost their lives while waiting on a transplant list.
As such, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this
critically important vehicle for giving the gift of life to others.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to make a point. I think
this is a great bipartisan success, to try to improve organ donation
prospects for these 70,000 Americans. But we have more work to do. This
bill is not the end of our efforts. I worked for 2 years with Mike
Bilirakis, a great Republican, to try to have people in hospitals work
with families on transplant donation issues. We need to fund that bill,
and I hope we can have a bipartisan effort to do that.
We have work to do to fund immunosuppressant drugs. Right now, we are
not funding the drugs that donees need to suppress the immunological
response to donation.
So I hope we can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to help
these 70,000 Americans. We will remember Charlie Norwood's efforts in
this regard and on future successes
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another
distinguished member of the Georgia delegation, Jack Kingston from
Savannah.
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Barton, and I thank Dr. Burgess for
letting a noncommittee member go first. I appreciate the courtesy; and
I wanted to thank Mr. Inslee for his help on this bill and all of the
work and leadership by both parties on this.
If Charlie Norwood were here today, he would be sitting there and he
would be embarrassed. He would be deflecting all of these sweet things
that are being said about him. But if this bill was controversial and
was having a tough fight, Charlie Norwood would be right in the middle
of it and pushing it along and making sure it got done and standing up
for the folks outside the 70,000-plus folks who are in line for an
organ transplant right now. That is who he always answered to.
I remember the Norwood-Dingell bill on the Patients' Bill of Rights,
how he did not appreciate the leadership in our party's position on it,
so he went out and found alternative ways to get it done. And in that
case, he cobbled together a bipartisan group of Democrats and
Republicans to push his Patients' Bill of Rights because Charlie
Norwood was a fighter, and he was always a fighter for a good cause. So
it is fitting and proper for him to be recognized in this bill.
A couple of weeks ago I was at the University of Georgia, which is
located in Athens, my hometown and in Charlie Norwood's district. And I
met with Dr. Steve Stice. He told me he is doing a lot of work on stem
cell, and he casually mentioned that the University of Georgia had
cloned about 50 cattle and sheep. I could not believe they had cloned
that many.
But as I listened to him and all of the technological breakthroughs
that are happening in the world of science and medicine today, I think
what lies out there in organ transplant, we have not even scratched the
surface. There will be medical revolutions in the years to come because
of the technology that is out there.
So our laws and what we are doing today is keeping the law current
with the technology and with the science. That is why it is a good
thing to do this. Think about Floyd Spence, our colleague from South
Carolina, who had a lung transplant for 12 years, and our brave Charlie
Norwood. Think about what they do; they educate the rest of us.
Our day in office for all of us will end. Either politically or
biologically or for whatever reason, but what a great thing it is to
have that service time in the House be used to hold a baton high that
you can pass on to the next generation and have true national impact.
That is what we are doing here today.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I, unfortunately, can only yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Barton for the time, and I
thank Chairman Dingell for bringing this bill to the floor. This is a
wonderful legacy for Charlie Norwood. Charlie was all about
clarification and common sense. We miss him on the committee.
Personally, he was my mentor and had seen me through many issues on the
committee. But I can think of no more fitting way to close out the
legacy of Charlie Norwood than with this act that brings clarification
to Federal law and allows paired donations to proceed apace.
Charlie Norwood, from life hereafter, has reached back to this House
and delivered one last dose of common sense. Thank you, Charlie.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent for 3
additional minutes to tell one last Charlie Norwood story.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1445
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I close, since we have
painted Charlie Norwood to be such a saint today, I have got to kind of
get a little bit truer picture of him.
In the Energy Policy Act debate of 2005, there was a provision in the
bill that was not controversial in the overall part of the bill, but it
was very controversial in certain areas of the country. One of those
areas was in Charlie's area of the southeast.
I had been working with him all through the debate to try to get him
to help me forge a compromise on this particular issue, and he agreed
that the compromise was the best public policy, but it wasn't the
policy that his region supported. So he was in a difficult position of
agreeing with me, the chairman, on what the good public policy was, but
knowing that that was not a vote that he would be supported in taking
for his region.
I went round and round with him about how to convince him to support
this particular item in the bill, and he just flat couldn't do it. But
I finally got him to agree that, at the critical moment, he would not
be there to vote against it. In other words, he would be absent,
meeting a constituent or something, and he just couldn't be there. He
and I agreed on this, and our staffs had worked it out so that when the
time came to vote, Mr. Norwood would not vote ``no,'' which would make
me happy, but he wouldn't vote ``yes'' either, which would have made me
even happier. He just wouldn't vote.
So, sure enough, the critical moment came, and the vote occurred.
True to his word, Charlie Norwood was not around, but as soon as I
gaveled the vote, he burst into the room, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman,
could I be recorded. I said, no, the vote has already expired. He said,
what kind of hogwash is this and just raised holy cane, purely for
theatrical purposes, but you know, the point had been made.
So his constituency felt justified in his support, and I felt
justified in he didn't vote against me, and yet he had upstaged his
chairman, but in some cases, that was Charlie Norwood.
We rise in support of this bill. It does save money. It saves $30
million or $40 million the first year and I think $400 million to $500
million over the 10-year scoring period. So we are going to work with
the majority to find a way to put these savings to use so, once again,
Congressman Norwood not only is doing a good thing, providing a gift to
the living, but this piece of legislation, if it becomes law, will also
save the taxpayers money.
I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support legislation by
Congressman Jack Inslee that will save thousands of lives by speeding
the kidney donation process.
By making paired kidney donation legal, this bill will facilitate the
identification of kidney donors and speed the process by which donors
are matched with patients. In fact, this bill could increase the number
of live kidney donor transplants performed each year by 14
[[Page H2197]]
percent according to a study by the Journal of Transplantation.
In addition to the positive effects for kidney transplant patients,
speeding the donation process will also help reduce federal spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will reduce
Medicare spending for dialysis by $500 million over 10 years.
This legislation has a wide base of support from the medical
community, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American
Society of Transplantation, the Kidney Fund, the Transplant Surgeons,
and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. I am proud to
add my vote of support to this list.
This bill will give much needed hope to the more than 95,000 people
who are waiting for a life-saving organ donation. I commend Congressman
Inslee for introducing this important bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 710, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed
____________________