Statement by the Honorable Michael Burgess, MD

Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: A Review of the Department of Energy’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative

May 24, 2005

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing.

This hearing resumes a continuation of the committee’s oversight regarding nuclear materials and facilities. As I expressed in the last hearing, I am deeply concerned about the lack of safety and security surrounding some nuclear facilities. While this hearing focuses more on securing high-risk nuclear and radiological materials around the world rather than focusing on domestic facilities, the potential threat of terrorism remains the same and deserves Congress’ full attention; I support the Chairman’s investigation of this pressing issue.

In the post 9-11 world that we live in today, our national security has become the most important issue facing our nation. We must do everything within our power to ensure that we do not become victims of terrorisms again. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative aims to accomplish this mission by identifying, securing, recovering and facilitating the disposition of these materials around the world that pose a threat to the United States and the international community. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this program today.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this crucial hearing in which we can address some of these essential concerns regarding nuclear materials and the security of our nation.

Statement by the Honorable Michael Burgess, MD

Subversion of Drug Testing Programs

May 17, 2005

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this important hearing. Also, I would like to give a special welcome and thank you to two Texans who were gracious enough to travel to DC to testify before us: Ms. Susan Reed and Dr. Amitava Dasgupta. Ms. Reed is the DA from Bexar County while Dr. Dasgupta is a professor at my alma mater, UT-Houston. Thank you both for coming here today.

As a physician, I understand that one of the most important issues we face in this country is the war on drugs. The United States is fighting this costly war, both in terms of dollars and lives that are irrevocably changed by this serious problem. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to utilize effective oversight methods that will strengthen efforts by the drug enforcement community to curb this epidemic that has consumed so many Americans. Today’s hearing is just one example of methods that must be employed.

I was startled to learn that my home state of Texas is one of only 14 states that outlaw the defrauding of the administration of a drug test; therefore, prosecutors like Ms. Reed can go after the individual who possess the device, but may find it difficult to prosecute out-of-state manufacturers and sellers of these devices due to jurisdiction issues. While the federal drug paraphernalia law makes it unlawful to sell or market drug paraphernalia, it does not include the kind of explicit provisions found in state laws that would cover products used to subvert drug testing programs. More must be done to enable prosecutors like Ms. Reed to fully do their jobs.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing in which we can address some of these important concerns regarding the subversion of drug testing. I look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee to achieve real results of this crucial problem facing our drug enforcement community.

Statement by the Honorable Michael Burgess, MD

The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: Saddam Hussein’s Use of Oil Allocations to Undermine Sanctions and the United Nations Security Council

May 16, 2005

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing.

As we all know, the United Nations originally established the oil-for-food program for the noble cause of aiding and providing for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people trapped under Saddam Hussein’s regimen. This program was quickly warped into a financial scandal of epic proportions. I am extremely disappointed by the documents that we have in front of us today, and I sincerely hope that this committee will be able to provide further oversight into this international crisis.

Under the program, Iraq could sell limited quantities of its oil and use the funds only to buy humanitarian supplies for its people. We have since found out that billions of dollars in kickbacks went from corrupt contractors—mainly French and Russian companies—into the pockets of Saddam. Some of these funds even went to pay off the dictator’s foreign protectors.

The documents that we have in front of us today prove that Iraq specifically targeted French and Russian government officials, as well as private individuals, with connections to French President Chirac and Russian President Putin. Correspondence and transactional documents purportedly show that several prominent French and Russian politicians did, in fact, receive oil contracts from the Regime, including Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

To further perpetuate the scandal, and perhaps even more shocking is that the UN official in charge of the oil-for-food program, Benon Sevan, received oil allocations. While all three individuals have publicly denied any involvement with these scandals, these documents prove otherwise.

In a statement last November, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan actually praised the Iraq oil-for-food program stating that it “was the only humanitarian program ever to have been funded entirely from the resources belonging to the nation it was designed to help.” Especially in light of the allegations that Secretary General Annan’s own son has been implicated in the oil-for-food corruption, I respectfully disagree with the UN Secretary General. I am committed to examining this entire situation in more detail.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this crucial hearing in which we have the opportunity to examine and discuss the UN oil-for-food program.

Opening Statement

Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

Hearing on Specialty Hospitals

May 12, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening the panels before us today on specialty hospitals and the impact they have on the hospital market and patient care. Specialty hospitals have been part of the health care market since before the inception of Medicare. The rise of physician-owned specialty hospitals in recent years has injected a measure of much needed competition in the hospital market.

I think it is an appropriate question to ask why doctors placed their own resources at risk to start hospitals in direct competition with community hospitals? As stated in the March 2005 MedPAC report on specialty hospitals doctors are motivated by a variety of reasons-- gaining greater control over hospital operations, increasing productivity, and providing a more satisfaction for them and their patients. And because of the inadequacies of the Medicare payment system, they are also driven by the desire to compete financially with community hospitals.

The impact of Medicare payment levels is pervasive throughout the health care system. How Medicare pays for goods and services impacts even the private market, as insurers look to Medicare as a benchmark for provider payments. Because of the inflexibility of the current DRG-based system, many physicians have been placed at a competitive disadvantage to providing lower cost, higher quality care.

One of the key characteristics of this country is our drive and competitive spirit. Indeed, competition in other markets has created greater consumer satisfaction, higher quality goods and services, and lower prices. This principle should be no different in the health care market. If we are going to be truly honest with the American people and attempt to address the high cost of medical care, we must move past an over-regulated system of public payers into an arena were the market drives cost and quality innovation and not the federal government.

That said--this Committee must also be watchful of situations where competition may reduce access to hospital emergency departments or pediatric units. Some hospital services are not great revenue generators, but are critical services nonetheless and they should be available to the community. While the current data available to the committee does not indicate that this has occurred as a result of greater competition within the hospital marketplace, I believe that we must guard against that eventuality.

I support the steady growth of specialty hospitals and believe that the moratorium enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act undercut much needed competition in the hospital market. I also believe that this committee should take a serious look at refining current DRGs to improve payment accuracy to hospitals. I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and hope to learn something from the witnesses assembled before us today. Thank you and I yield back.