Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Mother Teresa, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was born on August 27, 1910 and died in 1997 after a lifetime of devotion to the poor. Born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in 1910 in Skopje, Yugoslavia, she joined the Sisters of Loreto in 1928. She took the name ``Teresa'' after St. Teresa of Lesiux, patroness of the Missionaries.

In 1948, she encountered a half-dead woman lying in front of a Calcutta hospital. She stayed with the woman on the street until her death. From that point on, she dedicated the majority of her life to helping the poorest of the poor in India, thus gaining her the name ``Saint of the Gutters.'' She founded an order of nuns called the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India, dedicated to serving the poor. Almost 50 years later, the Missionaries of Charity have grown from 12 sisters in India to over 3,000 in 517 missions throughout 100 countries worldwide.

In 1952, she founded the Nirmal Hriday Home for the Dying in a former temple in Calcutta. It was there that she cared for the dying Indians that were found on the streets. Mother Teresa showed the love of Christ to all she met. Whether they were dying of AIDS or Leprosy, she wanted them to die in peace and with dignity. For over 50 years, she worked selflessly in service to the poor. That devotion to the needy won her respect throughout the world and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

For many years, Mother Teresa labored in loving dedication to the sick and dying in India. Her compassion for the suffering knew no boundaries and has served as an inspiration to the world. Mother Teresa was a living saint and since her death has been greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, good morning. I have got some good news. Perhaps a lot of the Members do not know about it. There has been a CBO update. The economy now seems poised for a more sustained recovery with CBO estimating growth of nearly 4 percent in the year 2004.

Because of that growth, moreover, the recent surge in Federal budget deficits will peak in the year 2004. That is right. If growth continues, even at the CBO estimated 3.3 percent a year from the year 2005 to 2008, Federal revenues will begin to rise again and deficits will fall through the rest of the decade just as they always do amid prosperity.

What this tells us, Mr. Speaker, is that President Bush's decision to use fiscal policy, tax cuts, to promote growth has been the right priority, and it seems to be paying off now in accelerating business purchases. This is crucial to restoring vibrant growth because the economy has to survive and has had so much trouble with the burst in the stock market. This is also one of the explicit goals of President Bush's dividend and marginal income tax rate cut proposals.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news. No guarantee but good news for today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a simple amendment, and I will not take long. It transfers 5 percent of the fiscal year 2004 funding from the Corporation for National and Community Service's AmeriCorps grants to the Veterans Health Administration, Medical and Prosthetic Research.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I would summarize my amendment basically as one of priorities. It is interesting on July 27 now, we are going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War armistice. Perhaps this is a perfect time for all of my colleagues to think about the priorities relative to this anniversary of the Korean War.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a history of producing beneficial research in medicine and prosthetics, the latter of which will be sadly in demand as amputated veterans return from Iraq. Arguing for the transfer of these funds is based upon, I think, the accomplishments of the VA research department. Perhaps many Members do not realize it has produced three Nobel Prize winners, developed the cardiac pacemaker, conducted the first successful drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia, is undergoing trials of a smallpox treatment in mice, and developed the technology that recently enabled paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve to regain the ability to breathe on his own temporarily. The money is going to go to this research. They have a history, Mr. Chairman, of success. The long-term consequences of helping these people is immense. But from our reading of this bill, their increase in this area is only 2.7 percent. So I thought, well, that is pretty low, why do we not transfer some money over there?

I might point out that when we are talking about volunteer organizations or people that volunteer, I would like to really tout an organized group of committed volunteer military veterans in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. They do not get paid, Mr. Chairman. It is called Vets Helping Vets. Vets Helping Vets lend assistance to their veteran brothers and sisters and volunteer for numerous activities, including helping the homeless. The program is administered by Hank Whittier from my hometown, Ocala, Florida. He has done a great job. I think it is a pilot program that could be done throughout this country.

Let us observe the 50th anniversary of the Korean War by reexamining our priorities, our policy. A vote for my amendment is in support of promising

beneficial medical and prosthetic research for deserving veterans.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I do not know. I think they are using the term paid volunteers. I think when you look at it, compared to those who have already served their country, maybe even the word ``paid volunteers'' is an area that we might talk further about. I think the point of my amendment is not to discredit any one government agency but just to set priorities here and say that the amount of research increase in dollars in the VA is very small. And so I am just in a very small way asking my colleagues to consider this amendment and moving it forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respect what my good colleague and classmate, the distinguished gentleman from New York, has said. I might just read from the committee's report itself:

``The committee is completely frustrated at the financial situation created by the lack of financial and grant program accountability at the corporation, even after years of providing funds specifically for the purpose of grant management and assurances made by the corporation during the conference that the corporation, AmeriCorps, was on the path to reform.'' Yet the committee gave it an 11.7 percent increase. When we look at the VA funding for research, it is 2.7 percent. I ask my colleagues to put that in perspective and also put it in the perspective, as the gentleman from New York said, this is a small amount of money but this has a symbolic value to veterans, people who need prosthetic support. To think that you are taking some of the money that is in a program like AmeriCorps and giving it to veterans research, I think, is saying, We're behind you.

I urge support for the Stearns amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, I support free trade. I believe it must be fair trade. I voted in the past for some of these agreements, but this one I think is very good with Singapore and Chile.

The free trade agreements under consideration today represent a significant step towards the goal of open and nondiscriminatory international markets for services and e-commerce. The agreements contain commitments from both Singapore and Chile for substantial market access across nearly all of their service sector including banking, insurance, telecommunication, computer and related services, energy, direct selling, tourism, professional services, and even express delivery services.

This is a significant departure from trade agreements in the past, as all our service sectors are open and the few exceptions are memorialized in what is called a ``negative list.'' Moreover, the market access and nondiscrimination commitment are bolstered by strong and detailed regulatory transparency requirements, a first in trade agreements. Regulatory transparency is very important to many service industries as they are subject to government regulation. Lack of such transparency and regulatory uncertainty are nontariff barriers that impede trade and services.

The Chile and Singapore agreements, in my mind, provide for commitments that have been missing in past agreements. In the area of services, the commitments are regarding telecommunications, intellectual property protection, and in electronic commerce and digital products. We have what I see as fair and nondiscriminatory treatment with regard to both cross-border trade in services and the right to invest in and establish local services.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that Singapore has been a staunch ally with the United States on our war on terrorism. In December 2001, Singapore authorities were successful in foiling a potential terrorist attack on Western targets by an organization linked to al Qaeda. And today Singapore civilian police are working with us in Iraq to train the new Iraqi police force. In fact, within this first week, Singapore police trained 90 new recruits to assist in bringing and maintaining security and order to the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, we already have a strong partnership with Singapore, and the agreement before us will further strengthen that partnership while providing excellent opportunities for U.S. businesses.

I rise in support of the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. As many of my colleagues know, while I support free trade, I believe it must be fair trade. I have voted, in the past, against those trade agreements that I felt were detrimental to our agriculture, textile, and manufacturing base and I stand behind those previous votes.

Though international trade is increasingly becoming an important component of our domestic economy, we must remain concerned with the consequences of some of these agreements. In a recent article, I spoke to the fact that over the past decade, the trade deficit of the United States has steadily risen. In 2002, the trade imbalance reached an all- time high of $435 billion--a $100 billion increase over the 2001 deficit.

Having said that, one area of trade in which the U.S. is, in fact, benefiting is the trade in services. America ran a record high surplus in services of $69.8 billion in 2001, although that surplus shrank to $44.7 billion in 2002. Another bright spot in our balance of trade calculus is the steadily increasing international e-commerce, which holds particular promise for U.S. companies. The Information Technology Industry Council projected that between 1999 and 2003 the market for electronically distributed software alone will grow from $0.5 billion to $15 billion.

The importance of the service industries to the U.S. economy today cannot be over stated. The U.S. economy is a service economy where better than \2/3\ of our GDP is composed of services output. Just over \3/4\ of our employment base is provided by the service industries. There is also little argument that many aspects of our Nation's economic life is now, to varying degrees, substantially reliant on e- commerce. Recent data shows that e-commerce growth is even outpacing the rosy predictions of the ``dot-com bubble'' period. In 1999, Forester Research Inc. estimated that U.S. e-commerce between businesses would reach a staggering $1.3 trillion by 2003. Today, Forester Research estimates that networked business-to-business transactions stand at $2.4 trillion.

Thus, the service industries and e-commerce are not only key components of our domestic economy, but increasingly trade in services and electronic commerce are becoming growth areas where U.S. firms have a comparative advantage, given open and non-discriminatory access to other markets.

The FTAs under consideration today, as I noted, represent a significant step forward towards the goal of open and non- discriminatory international markets for services and e-commerce. The Agreements contain commitments from both Singapore and Chile for substantial market access across nearly all their services sectors: including banking, insurance, telecommunications, computer and related services, energy, direct selling, tourism, professional services and even express delivery services. This is a significant departure from trade agreements in the past, as all service sectors are opened up and the few exceptions are memorialized in what is called a ``negative list.'' Moreover, the market access and non-discrimination commitments are bolstered by strong and detailed regulatory transparency requirements, a first in trade agreements. Regulatory transparency is very important to many service industries as they are subject to government regulation. Lack of such transparency and regulatory uncertainty are non-tariff barriers that impede trade in services.

In addition, the Agreements include significant commitments establishing that the principle of non-discrimination applies to products delivered electronically and prohibiting the levying of customs duties on digital products. Furthermore, the Agreements affirm that commitments made relating to services also extend to the provisioning of such services via electronic delivery.

The Chile and Singapore Agreements, in my mind, provide for commitments that have been missing in past agreements. In the area of services, the commitments regarding telecommunications, intellectual property protection, and in electronic commerce and digital products, we have what I see as fair and non-discriminatory treatment with respect to both cross-border trade in services and the right to invest in and establish local services.

Finally, I would like to mention that Singapore has been a staunch ally with the U.S. in our war on terrorism. In December 2001, Singapore authorities were successful in foiling a potential terrorist attack on western targets by an organization linked to Al-Qaeda. And today, Singapore civilian police are working with us in Iraq to train the new Iraq police force. In fact, within their first week, Singapore police trained 90 new recruits to assist in bringing and maintaining security and order to the Iraqi people.

We already have a strong partnership with Singapore and the agreement before us will further strengthen that partnership while providing excellent opportunities for U.S. businesses.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 436, I was inadvertantly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 10: In title I, in the item relating to

``Veterans Health Administration--medical and prosthetic

research'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

In title III, in the item relating to ``Corporation for

National and Community Service--national and community

service programs operating expenses'', after the first

(aggregate) and fourth (AmeriCorps grants) dollar amounts,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $12,217,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that a lot of our recent legislation will create even larger government programs. We face large deficits; yet we continue to spend, and I am concerned.

Recently we had several amendments here on the House floor to reduce spending by 1 percent across the board, yet they failed. We have increased spending on education, agricultural subsidies, and AIDS in Africa, and a tax rebate for those who do not pay taxes. Now, honest men will call this income redistribution. We also have a new prescription drug benefit close at hand.

If we continue to add new government programs, we will create even a bigger and bigger government. Instead, we should try to solve our problems with conservative and free market principles, that is, bring choice, competition, and personal responsibility to our legislative initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, as our forces persevere in Iraq, working to stabilize and rebuild this country which has been devastated by a violent, oppressive regime for 35 years, we continue to be flooded in the press by charges of America being an imperialist empire. Such a charge is wrong.

The United States is indeed the lone super power in the world. However, this was not our goal. We now have the job that most countries do not want, and a burden that most are not capable of shouldering. We are requested to intervene in disputes affecting other countries. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, is urging the U.S. to deploy troops to Liberia immediately.

The fact remains that when security and influence is needed, it is the United States that is called upon to act. Given this fact, I continue to find it difficult to understand the charges levied against the United States, particularly with our involvement in Iraq. When we are facing a world where the majority of nations do not have the capability or the desire to ensure the safety and basic freedoms of individuals is not lost, we are then faced with a choice of whether or not to act.

As stated recently in the Atlantic Monthly, ``The consequences of attack by weapons of mass destruction are so catastrophic the United States will have no choice but to act preemptively on limited evidence exposing our actions to challenge.''

It is precisely that opportunity, to challenge a government's actions, that Iraq lacked for so long. Of course we read stories of protests in Najaf or other areas of Iraq. However, these protests represent the kind of free speech in a country for which less than 6 months earlier a person would have been greeted with a gunshot to the head. The fact is that the United States freed people that other nations outside of our coalition refused to do. These nations were content to continue to allow Iraq to descend into a culture of violence.

Today, the people of Iraq have the ability to choose a future of their own. We are helping them to rebuild, teaching them to police their citizens without torture, and teaching them to govern and rebuild a destitute economy. Yet we continue to encounter criticism of our efforts and strategy in a post-war Iraq, and the length of time to return the governing of Iraq to its people.

Let us look at history for a moment. At the end of World War II, it was believed that the occupation of both Germany and Japan would be brief. However, the reality was that Japan's occupation lasted over 6 years, and a directly military government in Germany lasted 4 years. Both situations faced humanitarian crises as a result of the war. Each nation's wealth was severely weakened, and a large percentage of each country's population was homeless; but reconstruction efforts resulted in functional democratic institutions. Constitutions were drafted with civil liberties that did not exist prior to the war in these countries. And today, both Germany and Japan are integral to the world economy and representative of the success of properly administered civil reforms. The situation in Iraq is not dissimilar.

Our troops do face a continued threat by terrorists, and security situations are very tense. But looking at our history, what Americans have accomplished in the past, how much more vast are our resources, our ingenuity and our compassion, we are making progress in Iraq. The new governing council may soon be recognized by the United Nations, small provincial governments are operating in smaller Iraqi towns, mass media is available where only state-run news previously existed. We are giving the Iraqi people a chance.

Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke before us recently. He said, ``How hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm.'' He went on to say, ``Why America? The only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment of time, and the task is yours to do.''

The United States did not ask for the world role in which we find ourselves. The simple truth is we are the ones that are willing and capable to bring about a positive change in the world; and with help from our friends and patience from our citizens, we will do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The FCC issued its revised rules on media ownership, ending one of the most comprehensive and empirical reviews undertaken at the FCC, or by any other Federal agency, for that matter. Over a half a million public comments were received and numerous public hearings were conducted during this 20-month review. The Hinchey amendment will change all of that, all of that comprehensive work that the FCC did. As a result, we now have media ownership rules that reflect today's market: they balance competition and diversity with local community needs.

Mr. Chairman, there are two myths that I would like to dispel.

The first myth is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership adversely impacts competition in the local markets. There are 40-plus grandfathered combinations, and they provide the best evidence that competition, the concern that some of my colleagues have, bears no fruit.

Mr. Chairman, in the past 20 years there have been no formal complaints filed against any of the 40-plus grandfathered combinations at the FCC, nor have there been any antitrust actions initiated by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission or any States Attorneys General during that time. So there has been no concern of these 40 grandfathered combinations.

The second myth is, the public did not have an opportunity to participate in the FCC decision-making process. At least with respect to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, the public has had the opportunity to participate in four, not one, two, or three, but four separate FCC proceedings over a 6-year period. And furthermore, the Commission never published its rules in advance of their adoption; and, if so, it saw no reason to deviate from this practice in the media ownership proceedings.

Lastly, the FCC did not just remove the rules and move along, but they put in place cross-media limits that are designed particularly to protect viewpoints, diversity, by ensuring that no company, no group can control an inordinate share of media outlets in a local market.

So they have already put in place the cross-media limits. They provided due diligence. The FCC has done this. They put in cross-media limits, and I have given the two myths so that the people who are for the Hinchey amendment, to show that they are, indeed, myths.

So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the approval of the senior distinguished member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, obviously I rise in support of this bill. I am especially pleased that we are going to have a national cemetery in Jacksonville, Florida. This is in northeast-central Florida, where we have a lot of military presence, particularly with representation by three Members of Congress, myself, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown). All three of us service Jacksonville and north-central Florida, so we are all very pleased this is being done.

We have the Mayport Naval Station with an aircraft carrier stationed there, we also have Naval Air Station and Depot up there, and we've had a huge increase in the number of retirees that are locating into our area. So we are all very pleased about this. The VA Jacksonville cemetery has been the intent of a bill I dropped, H.R. 197, and also others I have offered in prior Congresses.

As the 2,000 U.S. census shows, the revised projections forecasting a population of about 189,000 by FY 2005 in the ``VA Future Burial Needs Report Sites'' I think demonstrates what all of us know: our veterans are flocking to relaxed, sunny north-central Florida to retire. They deserve a resting place with dignity and beauty, and I think that this cemetery will add a lot to that promise.

Mr. Speaker, Florida has our Nation's second largest veterans population and the number one in terms of age. Nearly 325,000 veterans call home somewhere in this northeast-central Florida area, Jacksonville vicinity. Moreover, an increasing number of current active duty armed services veterans are calling Florida their home and are moving into this area. This is because nearby Alachua County, Gainesville, where we have a VA hospital, and Derval County have sent a lot of reservists and National Guardsmen to Iraq; and this whole area sent so many people to Iraq in this northeast corridor that there is going to be a lot of people that are going to retire from active duty. So this cemetery will also be important for them.

The closest VA cemetery is at least a 3-hour drive from Jacksonville, and as the subcommittee chairman mentioned the requirement is to have VA cemetery within 75 miles of the vicinity of these veterans. We need to have a VA cemetery now. So this will is going to meet this requirement.

The next closest in proximity lies in Marietta, Georgia, which is just north of Atlanta. A new national VA cemetery in Jacksonville will answer this unmet need for north Floridians and southern Georgians.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased. I offered this type of legislation in the 107th Congress and 106th Congress to locate a cemetery in Jacksonville, so I am grateful that we finally will pass this bill. I might add that there has been great support within the community, and they look forward to this construction.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, you might be thinking why are a lot of people are supporting a cemetery in Florida. They may think this is a very parochial bill.

But for my colleagues from Michigan and New York, there is a high likelihood that your constituents are contemplating retiring to north- central Florida, so we welcome your veterans' and their commitment to our north Florida area. I hope all the people here in the House will support H.R. 1516.

Let us provide the dignified, hallowed grounds for our veterans. They deserve it.

I thank my distinguished colleague from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, as the author of H. Con. Res. 6, supporting the goals and ideals of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness Month, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who was a cosponsor of this legislation in the 107th Congress and has been my cosponsor in the 108th Congress.

I am, finally, very pleased that the committee of jurisdiction has recognized this and it is on the floor today, because, as my colleagues have pointed out earlier, awareness of COPD is very important. If unchecked, it will continue to kill.

A lot of people, perhaps my colleagues, are wondering what COPD is. It was mentioned that it is a debilitating lung disease. Many of us who serve in Congress are going to be affected by it. It causes severe breathing limitations when you run up those steps. It is characterized by airway inflammation. It simply affects everyday tasks that you do, women and men, whether it is obviously on the golf course or whether it is walking up stairs or just running to the bus.

A lot of us take breathing freely for granted, but, frighteningly, the CDC estimates that COPD is currently the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. Of course, as was mentioned earlier, it is going to be moving up in the year 2020 to be the third largest killer in the United States.

While the exact prevalence in the United States is unknown, CDC estimates that there are 10 million diagnosed COPD sufferers and possibly as many as 24 million Americans undiagnosed who are suffering these symptoms today and have no idea what it is. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is there is no cure. Medical treatments exist to address the symptom relief and perhaps slow the progression of this disease. Besides the treatment of the symptoms of COPD, the sufferer actually is afflicted with anxiety. Their mental condition is affected through this anxiety and this stress. This also in many cases must be treated.

I would be remiss not to warn that the number-one step that one can take to prevent COPD, or at least minimize its symptoms, is simply to stop smoking, which is the primary cause of COPD, this long-term smoking by Americans. As you may know, we were pleased that President George Bush declared November, 2001, COPD Awareness Month and recognized the contribution of the COPD Coalition in November of that year. So, obviously, we would like to pass this resolution and continue the momentum of awareness for all Americans on this important problem.

It is likely that we all know somebody who has this affliction, whether we live with them personally or have a family member or friend or staff member, he or she has COPD. An awareness month would create an opportunity for all of us to familiarize ourselves with this so that we could attempt to alleviate the suffering and hopefully eventually reduce the death rate associated with this affliction.

Research is being performed on this, and we believe we are getting closer to solving some of the problem.

Let me make a plug for the University of Florida, which is in my congressional district. It has been found that individuals suffering from a genetic deficiency called Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency are more likely to develop COPD later in life. In response to this finding, researchers at the University of Florida, a top-notch university and medical institution in my congressional district, have teamed up with the Alpha-1 Foundation and the State of Florida Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a multiyear screening and detection program for Alpha-1 deficiency. It is their hope that this program will serve to not only detect potential Alpha-1 deficient individuals but also to impress upon health care professionals the importance of simply screening for this Alpha-1 deficiency.

In fact, once an individual is identified with Alpha-1 deficiency, much can be done to help prevent the individual from developing COPD, that is very exciting, not only just through exercise, but a modification of your diet. If this is not enough, further steps can be taken in the form of augmentation therapy by which the Alpha-1 antitrypsin protein is actually administered to arrest one's decreasing lung function. That is very good news.

Until research yields new treatments or a cure for COPD, the best approach to stemming the growth is through prevention and early detection. Prevention and early detection can only happen with increased awareness.

I would conclude by just mentioning some facts. In 2000, COPD accounted for 8 million physician office and hospital outpatient visits; 726,000 hospitalizations; over 1.5 million emergency room visits; and over 122,000 deaths. It costs the U.S. economy almost $15 billion a year in direct medical costs. All of this, we believe, is caused by environmental exposure, including tobacco smoke and, as I mentioned earlier, genetic defects.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this. I am very pleased that it is on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order that I might take this opportunity to lend the support of Congress to the Office of Children's Issues who will now act as the central authority on the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. This office will act in the best interest of the child and the families by facilitating the placement of children in permanent homes while making certain that the strictest protection guidelines are in place throughout the process.

There are too many children in this country and abroad who are growing up without a family. Tonight, around the world, no one knows how many children will go to bed in orphanages. There is no United State agency or international organization that counts the number of children who are warehoused in institutions. The U.S. has proven that it has an interest in and the ability to adopt children that would otherwise grow up without a family in their own country. This year the State Department expects that 21-25 thousand children will be brought to this country and placed in permanent, loving homes. That number speaks of a huge victory in the fight for abandoned children throughout the world. The numbers prove that the office of Children's Issues could be a powerful ally in the fight against the harmful institutionalization of children worldwide. Unfortunately, some powerful international organizations believe that, with respect to the child, even institutionalization is better than adoption outside a child's home country. While everyone would hope that a child could find a loving, permanent family within their home country, we recognize that intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her country of origin.

The office of Children's Issues will soon assume their new responsibility as the central authority for the Hague Convention. In this capacity, they will act to assist in the placement of children into families of this country while working to protect those children who are at risk for exploitation in vulnerable regions of the world. This office will also increase our nation's ability to protect children by establishing a system by which agencies may be accredited to ensure a transparent placement process. As such, understanding that it must take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interest of the child, the office will not only work to ensure that all of these adoptions are conducted with respect to the fundamental rights of the child, they will also work to prevent the abduction of, sale of, or trafficking in children.

In this new role, the office will find their duties greatly expanded and we hope that this amendment will express the support of Congress not only to the efforts of the State Department on behalf of intercountry adoption, but also to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Committee whose job it will be to ensure that the Office of Children's Issues has sufficient resources to continue their work on behalf of the millions of children in orphanages throughout the world.

I am thankful to the Chairman for his support of the amendment and would urge Members who wish to support the State Department's role in intercountry adoptions to also support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, 227 years ago 56 men put their lives, their families and fortunes on the line as they defied the most powerful country in the world, England. These men declared independence and our country was born by a swift stroke of a pen. This weekend we celebrated our country's 227th birthday. This country, of course, has survived many conflicts, both foreign and domestic, and we have survived due to the fact that American men and women always have answered the call should our rights and our freedoms come under attack. In the last couple of years, terror has taken on a new meaning to this country and its citizens. We have been threatened like never before. With an amazing outpouring of patriotism, we refused to allow the mantle of freedom to be taken from our shoulders.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, with the end of Operation Sidewinder in Iraq, our Armed Forces have experienced tremendous success. Yet we remain confronted with the sad truth that this success has come at a cost of American lives. Over the weekend, a Florida National Guard soldier from my congressional district was killed. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends and I also mourn his loss. I had the opportunity to meet this young man at the community college he attended while serving in the National Guard. His presence, enthusiasm and dedication exemplifies the men and women of our Armed Forces that continue to serve in Iraq.

From Afghanistan to Iraq and possibly Liberia, our troops face life- threatening situations. But they fight for those who yearn for freedom, who cannot fight for themselves. All who wish for democracy know that America can be the source of the freedoms that have so long eluded them. Our troops liberated 24 million Iraqis and gave them the opportunity for freedom that had been denied them for so long. As such, rebuilding a country neglected for decades by a worthless tyrant takes time, it takes patience, it takes perseverance. Iraq is showing signs that the efforts of our troops are yielding large gains. We have over half of the Iraqis most wanted in custody. We are training Iraqis to police and govern themselves as a free nation. Iraqis have access to a growing number of publications, newspapers and magazines replacing the propaganda of the state-run news that previously existed. Electricity is running 24 hours a day in Basra and improvements are being made in Baghdad. According to reports now, Hussein would black out parts of Baghdad simply because there was not sufficient generation of power for the entire city. Our people are working to change that and they are working very, very hard.

Mr. Speaker, many in some parts of the media seem not only content but resolute in reporting only those stories that portray bad news. Remember, some of these same people called our initial military strategy a failure after less than a week of combat. But I find it perplexing that all we hear from some reporters are stories describing an Iraq that is a viper's nest of Saddam loyalists and full of an angry civilian population who want us to leave. However, unlike some of our media reporting, I believe normal, everyday people in this country realize that it will take time to foster democracy and to quell attempts to destabilize fledgling new, free governments. Today's copy of The Hill magazine touched on this issue and quoted dozens of soldiers who seem to be baffled by the endless wave of negative press. One helicopter pilot is quoted as saying, ``The media has misrepresented Iraqi resistance. For the most part, people here are extremely friendly to us.'' He goes on to say that, quote, crime in Baghdad is one-tenth of what it is in Los Angeles. Finally, according to a poll taken by the Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies, it was found that 65 percent of Baghdadis want U.S. troops to stay for how. Only 17 percent wanted them to pull out immediately.

Let us look at what the U.S. has accomplished. For that, of course, we need look no further than the words of General Tommy Franks in his recent retirement speech when he said, ``When we arrived, the Taliban and al Qaeda controlled Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron hand. What a difference 22 months makes. Twenty-two months ago, the United States of America and the free world looked into the face of evil and defeated it.'' Now we are moving closer to freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done but the peace is not lost. With where we are today, the glass for continued democracy in these countries is over half full.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Democrats that this is a plan that will not work and is a fraud. We had 2 days of hearing, and I never heard a plan from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). We had 64 amendments.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a plan that the Republicans have been on their knees trying to come up with to try and solve this problem. It is voluntary. It brings choice, everything that the Federal employees health benefit plan has, the same program that all these folks have.

Joshua Hammond wrote a book called ``The 7 Cultural Forces,'' which defines who we are as Americans; and one of those cultural forces is we are ready, fire, aim. That is, sometimes we do not get it perfect. We do the best we can, and that has been our history for 230 years. Is this bill perfect? No. In fact, the people on this side will argue back and forth, but all of us know this bill is not perfect. However, we have carefully balanced the needs and resources from home health to physical therapy.

This bill contains the long-overdue addition of a prescription drug benefit. Our seniors and disabled beneficiaries have waited many years, particularly true in Florida; and I am pleased to be part of the solution and part of that markup that we did for 2 days.

Now the folks on this side of the aisle say they have a bill. Their bill is for $1 trillion. Ours meets the budget demands of $400 billion. If we could spend all we want in the world, that would be the Democrat's plan.

But at long last Medicare beneficiaries will have available the same options that the President of the United States has, the Senate and the House and the staff here in Congress, a choice to choose the plan that best meets their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that part of this plan that we have here has a demonstration project in consumer directed care for chronic conditions such as folks with diabetes. It is analogous to the successful consumer-directed care demonstration and evaluation projects, known as cash and counseling in Florida, Arkansas and New Jersey. It is consumer-directed, and in fact this type of plan is part of the American Postal Workers Union. It has a consumer-directed option. So what we have with Medicaid, we are going to have with Medicare. I am glad that is part of the solution we have.

So I would conclude by saying to my colleagues who are wondering what to do on this side of the aisle, come along with us. It is a start. It is not perfect. We can move it to the Senate, have a conference on it, and improve it. In fact, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) in the markup amended the bill with a GAO study of the impact of this new cost regime. It is my hope that this will provide an objective, balanced approach and give us a proper understanding of how much this whole thing is going to cost. I commend the chairman every step of the way trying to be balanced, listening to the Democrats' amendments, many of which were accepted, many we defeated.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing this package of Medicare additions, updates and reforms here to the Floor today. There is much here to applaud. We have carefully balanced needs and resources varying from home health to the physical therapy cap. Most significantly, this bill contains the long-overdue addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Our seniors and disabled beneficiaries have waited for this for many years now, and I am pleased to be part of the solution. At long last, Medicare's beneficiaries will have available to them the same options that we, and the Senators, and all of our staff and employees have: a choice of selections from which to choose the plan that best meets their needs.

Leading off with ``choice,'' I am pleased that my provision for a voluntary, small-scale, controlled demonstration project in consumer- directed care for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions, my particular interest is diabetes, is included in H.R. 1 as Section 736.

This would be an analog to the successful Consumer-Directed Care Demonstration and Evaluation Projects, known nationally as ``Cash and Counseling,'' in Medicaid in Florida, Arkansas, and New Jersey. the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing June 5 on Consumer- Directed Care, and every single Member praised that demonstration's progress, but many cautioned not to overreach expanding its application. I agree. To that end, at markup I agreed to language from my friend, the ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman of Michigan, Mr. Dingell, tightening some boundaries for the demonstration project. The Consumer-Directed Care demo is working, let's expand the elements of Consumer-Directed Care that have been successful in a voluntary, incremental fashion and see how the demonstration in Medicare might be evaluated down the road.

Section 736 will direct the Secretary to design a demonstration project allowing for participating Medicare beneficiaries to cash out the value of certain services. They then, with the assistance of a designated ``counselor'' of their choosing, and government-provided fiscal intermediary, would have some flexibility in making decisions directing care for their condition.

Furthermore, Consumer-Directed Care type models are now offered in major health plans in the private sector: in 2003, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU-AFL-CIO) are the very first Federal employee group with a Consumer-Directed Care plan available to them. Do our Medicare beneficiaries deserve any less choice?

At the June 5 hearing, the National Director of Cash and Counseling, Dr. Kevin Mahoney, outlined that there are generally three characteristics of a condition that make it a good fit for the consumer-directed care model. Disabilities fit these three, and I believe diabetes does, too: (1) It is chronic, and one of the most self-managed diseases; (2) it follows a relatively predictable course of treatment; and (3) there is room for choice, in tailoring a treatment plan to the individual.

I remind my colleagues that under the Medicaid demonstration, satisfaction has been in the high 90 percentage, no adverse health outcomes have occurred (in some measures it has improved), and fraud has been virtually zero.

From that, I must turn to other provisions of the bill. I do not stand here without some reservations. For example, the reform of reimbursement for oncologists. No one, no Member, no oncologist, and no patient wishes for the accounting mismatch of Average Wholesale Price (AWP), to perpetuate, and we should never let dialogue about AWP degrade into accusations about gaming the system. It is true that H.R. 1 eliminates the current overpayment on Medicare-covered drugs, while concurrently increasing the practice expense reimbursement to appropriate levels that reflect their costs. But my understanding is that this is still a net decrease for the practice. I ask that the negotiations continue in good faith. In Energy and Commerce, Chairman Tauzin amended the bill with a GAO study of the impact of this new cost regime, and it is my hope that this will provide an objective, accepted arbiter on true proper costs of administering total community-based cancer care.

Further, I harbor concerns that this bill not become a runaway money train. We have budgeted $400 billion over 10 years: is that a ceiling, or a floor? It is a logical modernization to add prescription drug coverage to the Medicare program; none of us would choose a health plan in FEHBP (Federal Employee Health Benefits Program) that lacked drug coverage. And, through economies of scale, both the traditional fee- for-service program and the participating private sector plans will have the purchasing power to contain costs. However, there always runs the risk of this exploding beyond our control. We have a responsibility for the fiscal health of this nation, and it is essential that proper cost containment be addressed in conference, as I understand the Speaker has assured.

Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats' plan is for $1 trillion and our is for $400 billion, we cannot say they offered a plan that met the budget requirements. I would like to ask the Democrats tonight: Do you have a plan that is under $400 billion like the Republicans?

The National Teachers Hall of Fame is an organization, which recognizes and honors exceptional teachers and the teaching profession. The Hall of Fame annually honors five teachers whom have demonstrated commitment and dedication to teaching our Nation's children. This year, I am fortunate to have one of my constituents, Kathleen McGrath, elected as a member of the Class of 2003.

Kathleen is a fifth grade teacher at Saddlewood Elementary School in Ocala, FL and has been teaching for 22 years at various schools throughout Marion County. Kathleen creates a learning environment in her class where students feel safe to take risks and

strive to do their personal best each day. Her classroom is a safe haven, where learning is natural and anything is attainable.

I would like to congratulate Ms. Kathleen McGrath on her election into the National Teachers Hall of Fame, and for continuing to provide the children of Marion County with a fun and inspiring learning environment.