Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to give America's seniors an up-to-date Medicare system that includes more choices and better benefits like prescription drug coverage. Health care is being transformed by new drug therapies and active prevention. Yet in the current system, Medicare must pay for those treatments out of their own pocket or go without them. One third of the seniors on Medicare have no drug coverage at all, and that is about 900,000 American seniors.

Our seniors should have choices so affordable health care plans compete for their business and at the same time give them the coverage that they need. Medicare recipients who are happy with their current benefits will be able to stay in the current system with an added prescription drug benefit. So our program is voluntary. Those who want enhanced services, like more coverage for preventative care, will have that choice; and seniors who like managed care plans will have that option as well. This is a plan we Republicans passed out of committee, and this is a plan we will pass very soon here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, lately there has been a stir, a desperate grasp for press attention, to form an inquiry into the Bush administration's knowledge of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, for 7 years following the Gulf War, Saddam claimed that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and for all 7 years, he was lying. Iraqis told inspectors they had no mustard agent and then they expressed profound shock when quantities of mustard gas were found. Iraq told inspectors they never had weaponized VX nerve agent and then feigned surprise when inspectors found weaponized VX nerve agent. We learned that Saddam Hussein had constructed elaborate concealment mechanisms. The Iraqi regime spent a decade working to ensure that prohibited weapons production was kept quiet. When the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, the regime had failed to account for vast quantities of its weapons of mass destruction stockpiles.

So here is a question for the dissenters: Why would a regime without weapons of mass destruction manufacture the mobile laboratories that our troops and the U.N. inspectors found to make such weapons? And why would the numerous defectors, many with recent, first-hand knowledge of Iraq's WMD programs, have detailed elaborate production and concealment efforts? Were they all lying?

Mr. Speaker, Iraq is the size of California and the dirt is deep. There are many places for these weapons to have been hidden. I urge the press and the American people to be patient and let our troops do their jobs. There are still soldiers at risk fighting off violence. We know that these weapons existed and we know that the Iraqi government has never accounted for their destruction. That is what we do know.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin our debate in our committees on reforming Medicare, one of the issues that will be highlighted is the waste, fraud and abuse that has plagued this program for decades. But this Federally-mandated managed program is not the only source of wasteful spending in waste, fraud and abuse. Frankly, the entire government endures this rampant problem also.

In March of this year, GAO submitted its report on the United States government's consolidated financial statement for fiscal year 2001 and 2002. Not surprisingly, GAO could not express its opinion on these statements due to ``material weaknesses in internal control and in accounting and reporting.''

It is the accounting and reporting that particularly appalls me. In the past 2 years, we have seen what happens with poor accounting and reporting in the corporate world, but it appears that the accounting irregularities continue to run rampant in the Federal Government as well. These irregularities and lack of internal controls result in ``hampering the Federal Government's ability to accurately report assets, liabilities and costs.''

In addition, such problems prevent accurate reporting of the cost and performance of certain Federal programs. That is, we cannot even determine what our government owns, what it accurately spends each year. GAO goes so far as to state that as a result of these material deficiencies, that the amounts reported in the consolidate financial statements ``may not be reliable.''

So if a person wanted to see what the consolidated financial statements of a particular agency that reported, they might as well take a scientific wild guess, because the agency charged with examining the accounting statements of the Federal Government cannot even express an opinion because recordkeeping and controls are so shoddy. Yet, we ask the private sector to keep accurate records, and if they do not, they are held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot even accurately state how much waste, fraud and abuse occurs in this Federal Government. Conservative estimates range at 20 billion plus. The government penalizes private companies for poor accounting, but when a Federal agency cannot account for billions that it has spent, what do we do? We give them an increased appropriations for the following year. We should not do this without strict accounting of these Federal agencies.

The President issued his Management Agenda designed to emphasize that clean financial records are key to a ``well managed organization.'' I applaud the President's efforts in this area as it is a daunting task to reform such a bureaucratic beast. The government requires its citizens every year to pay an ever-increasing burden in Federal taxes and users fees for expanding Federal programs. The least we could do is to accurately report how the money is spent.

We must do this in Congress, put in place accounting procedures so we can determine what the government owns, what it spends; and then and only then can we determine where the waste, fraud and abuse is and save, ultimately, the hard-earned money of the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, as we return from recess to write and act on legislation for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, I am asking my colleagues and the American people to resist the temptation to succumb to

price controls. This is perennial around here. A lot of folks believe that price ceilings for pharmaceuticals to be a feasible solution to the high costs that we experience with pharmaceuticals, but they never work.

Against the advice of economic advisers, including Nobel Prize- winning economist Milton Friedman, one President instituted a broad range of price controls in August of 1971; but many of the Members saw the PBS series ``Commanding Heights'' last year in which the author, Daniel Yergin, recalled ``the public was convinced that food prices were going up,'' so the President ``opted for wage and price controls. Voters liked the price controls, and the President was reelected in a landslide.'' Owing to that we can control prices but we cannot control the laws of supply and demand, the economy did not respond as the President hoped it would. Mr. Yergin said, ``Right away, the economy went out of whack; people couldn't cover their costs. Ranchers stopped sending their cattle to market. Farmers started drowning their chickens. Instead of controlling inflation, they were controlling shortages.''

To those old enough to remember 1971, remember those price ceilings? Lines for gas were all over the place for our cars. Black markets were started. New work started for organized crime. Shortages on grocery shelves. And prices still continued to rise, while just as the public clamored about too expensive food, some begged for more price controls.

Why do price controls not work? According to even a basic-level college text dealing with macroeconomics by Byrns and Stone, ``price ceilings keep monetary prices from rising but not average opportunity costs . . . there will be excess demand (or shortages). But price ceilings keep prices down, do not they? Unfortunately, the answer is NO!'' This is from a basic text in all of our college economic courses.

The people who most value a good or service and are willing to pay an extra dollar in nonprice resources, such as waiting time, lobbying efforts, bribery, or black market premium, will do so. Have the Members noticed that more than a few Canadians who live under a price- controlled health care system, if they need health care beyond their primary care, what do they do? They travel to the United States to get it because it is the best in the world. So the Members do not have to trust what I am saying today. Just read some of the basic text in our college economic courses.

But why is it that a majority of pharmaceutical innovation occurs in the United States? Because the free market offers a reward to undertaking that risk. How many blockbuster drugs has Canada invented lately? The National Taxpayers Union warns lawmakers ``America is the world leader in the research and development that results in innovative lifesaving medications.'' For the United States to look to Canada for ``drugs at an artificial price set by some other country would be, quite simply, a way to rob the pharmaceutical companies of revenue needed to refund research. It is certainly cheap to manufacture pills if someone else supplies the research and development funding. On average, it costs the pharmaceutical companies over $800 million and takes 12 years to bring a new drug to market. While countries like Canada may beckon to us with their centrally controlled drug prices, none of those types of countries can begin to approach the United States in the development of new, innovative drugs that can save millions of lives.''

Citizens for a Sound Economy point out ``prescription drug prices differ between nations based on a variety of factors, including per capita income and type of health care system'' that is provided. Perhaps one of the reasons American seniors and disabled are looking at Canada's and Europe's ceiling-priced pharmaceuticals is because that is what they lack. We do not hear seniors asking for relief on the prices of outpatient visits or MRIs because they are not paying out of pocket themselves.

One more unique viewpoint, that of interfering with Americans' right to vote with their dollars: Americans for Tax Reform ponders how the ``impact of Canadian subsidies on the U.S. market will affect American taxpayers. Government subsidies of any kind interfere with market forces to drive competition and innovation. Foreign subsidies usurp taxpayers' ability to affect democratically the prices of necessary medicines.''

The solution is not for Congress to manipulate prices, but to expand coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, to expand private sector health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Price controls never work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 110, a resolution commending the completion of the sequencing of the human genome and the 50th anniversary of the description of the double helix which makes up the DNA.

As past chairman of the Task Force on Health Care and Genetic Privacy, I think we need to commend the folks at NIH for their outpouring of work. As someone who studied science myself as a former electrical engineer, I stand in awe of the frontier that we are starting to move into with genetics.

As many of us know, genetics is the study of single genes and their effects on human health. Genomics is a relatively new field of scientific research that includes not only the study of single genes but also the functions and interaction of all genes that comprise a genome.

The human genome is a collection of about 35,000 genes that give rise to life. Each gene is made up of a series of base pairs, tiny DNA units denoted by A, C, T, and G. There are about 3.12 billion of these genetic letters. Spanning nearly two decades, the Human Genome Project is the international research effort to determine the sequencing of all these genetic letters or, as we like to call it, a genetic blueprint for humans.

Congress invested significant tax dollars, primarily at the National Institutes of Health, just to advance this project. And we did so here in Congress, because the human genome findings will pave the way for what we hope will be a breakthrough of information on the new ways to prevent and, of course, cure diseases.

I think we are just beginning to see the results of this investment. Just as scientists have decoded the genetic map that defines us as human beings, we will now need to decipher how well the Federal bureaucracy is working to advance this promising area of genomics research.

Genomics research transcends every institute and center at NIH. It has implications for how we study every disease. Two short weeks ago, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing to learn more about genomics research. At that time, members had the opportunity to hear from the leading scientists in the world about this research. We also learned that we are right on track with a new project underway to ensure that our investments at the National Institutes of Health are fully maximized.

As the authorizing committee at NIH, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is conducting an extensive review to determine how well NIH is advancing medical research. All of us have been touched by someone afflicted with a disease.

In my district of Jacksonville, Florida, a collaborative NIH study between the Mayo Clinic and Shands Hospital is leading the charge for screening for the gene that leads to strokes.

Just last year, NIH began its first phase of a clinical trial on a drug compound that has shown promise in addressing the most life- threatening symptoms of ataxia, a heart condition. Because of these answers in sequencing of the human genome, more progress has been made in understanding the underlying mechanism of this disorder than in the previous 133 years.

Research advances like this mean something real to patients. It is the hope that they are looking for when they need all the courage they can muster to fight a debilitating disease.

So today we pay tribute to a major scientific achievement. Let us keep working to speed forward more achievements like this to bring hope to all patients that are suffering from diseases throughout the world.

It is our responsibility to ensure that NIH is held accountable on behalf of our patients. It is our responsibility to remove barriers that unnecessarily delay the incredible progress we are making in improving human health.

We were just beginning. So I encourage all of my colleagues to assist our effort in this great task. I encourage my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 110. It is altogether appropriate for us to pay tribute today to the outstanding accomplishments of our Nation's scientists in this groundbreaking achievement of sequencing the human genome. These same scientists will lead the way with an even bigger project: determining how to translate the outline of the human genome into real public health solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Chen Shui-bian, president of Taiwan, on his third anniversary in office. On March 18, 2000, Mr. Chen Shui-bian and Ms. Annette Lu were elected as the 10th-term president and vice president of the Republic of China.

With their inauguration on May 20, 2000, the peaceful transfer of presidential power to another political party is a profound reminder to all of us that the democratic process is rapidly maturing in Taiwan. In fact, it is an outstanding example for developing democracies around the world, as well as in the Chinese mainland.

Mr. Chen's story is one that is often heard in America, but it is an extraordinary one considering the political climate in Taiwan at the time he was born. He was born in 1950, but because he was a sickly child and not expected to live, his family did not officially register his birth until 1951. He was born to a tenant farmer family in rural Taiwan; but despite serious poverty, his family encouraged their son to pursue a brighter future. So important was education to him and his family that the family borrowed money to help pay for his schooling. He excelled academically all through grade school and finally into law school where he first developed his deep passion for true democracy in Taiwan.

Now, in 1980, there was an incident. It was called the ``Kaohsiung Incident,'' and what happened is it resulted in the arrests of many activists after a mass demonstration turned violent with hundreds injured. Now, the defendants were sent for trial under martial law. The arrests and trials clearly articulated a need for changes in the government and focused world attention on the political situation in Taiwan.

Mr. Chen used his legal skills to defend their right to protest an authoritarian government. For his service, he was imprisoned for 8 months.

President Chen has served as a Taipei city council member and, of course, as the mayor of Taipei and in the legislative Yuan. Now, all of these experiences helped him to govern Taiwan in a way in which I think will prioritize peace and security without relinquishing democratic principles.

He has continuously expressed his good will to the Chinese mainland and opened the possibility of holding a dialogue and conducting cooperation, under the premise of maintaining Taiwan's sovereignty, its dignity and security.

Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a close relationship with each other for almost 50 years. It is a politically, economically, and culturally rich association for both. In fact, despite its size, Taiwan is our eighth largest trading partner, and we are Taiwan's largest trading partner. For this and other reasons, the United States must unabashedly stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act, which will communicate our resolve for a peaceful resolution in Taiwan.

Taiwan also deserves our congratulations on the recent accession to the World Trade Organization, though that is only the first step. We must support Taiwan's movement to gain membership in the International Civil Aviation Organization and especially observer status in the World Health Organization. The recent outbreak of SARS is a good demonstration of what Secretary

of State Colin Powell said recently: ``Infectious disease knows no borders and requires an effective and coordinated response at local, national, and international levels.''

Taiwan is a part of the world that has been impacted by SARS and needs to play its proper role in preventing the spread of the disease.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Taiwan deserves active participation in the World Health Organization. We must lend Taiwan support of Taiwan's democracy at home in its campaign to join international organizations abroad.

Taiwan is a reliable ally of the United States. Taiwan stood with us shoulder to shoulder right after 9-11 and has given us support with our war in Iraq and promised humanitarian aid to support postwar Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with President Chen and was impressed with his vision and commitment to the continual democratization of Taiwan. I want to congratulate him on his past accomplishments and wish him continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share some good news about America's number one export: our ideals of democracy, freedom, and free enterprise.

This is from a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the people and the press. In contrast to harsh criticism often heard from U.S. bashers, both here and internationally, this survey of 66,000 people in 44 countries over 2 years reveals that the majority demonstrates strong preferences in seeing democratic governments formed in Muslim countries. Also majorities in 33 of the these 44 countries believe people live better in a free market, even if it leads to wealth and income disparities.

According to this survey: ``This is not to say that they accept democracy and capitalism without qualification, or that they are not concerned about many of the problems of modern life. By and large, however, the people of the world accept the concept and values that underlie the American approach to governance and business.'' This is also good news for the people of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 201) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that our Nation's businesses and business owners should be commended for their support of our troops and their families as they serve our country in many ways, especially in these days of increased engagement of our military in strategic locations around our Nation and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 201.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 201, authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). The resolution commends America's businesses and business owners for their support of our troops and their families, in particular their support for the Reservists and National Guardsmen called into active duty.

As of today, nearly 220,000 members of the Reserve component of our Armed Forces have been called to active duty, leaving their families, homes, and their jobs to serve their country. Over 5,300 of those brave, part-time soldiers are from my home State of Florida. These men and women have volunteered to lay down their lives in defense of our country and the principles for which it stands, and have done so in their capacity as ordinary citizens, not professional soldiers.

They are extraordinary citizens with ordinary jobs. They are cooks, teachers, mechanics, doctors, salesmen, truckers, secretaries, lawyers, technicians and so forth, that when called to serve their country, became extraordinary citizens and full-time warriors sacrificing greatly, both personally and, of course, financially.

Our military today is dependent on these extraordinary citizens and of course these part-time soldiers. The 1.2 million Guard and Reserve personnel now make up nearly 46 percent of all U.S. military forces. When activated, Reservists and National Guardsmen have to leave their jobs abruptly, forcing their employers to face the serious challenge of losing a very valuable employee.

American businesses have stood by their employees called to serve their country. H. Res. 201 aptly states American businesses ``have made sacrifices so that they might ensure observance of the letter and the spirit of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act in many ways including: restoring employment status after military service obligation has been fulfilled, providing continuation of health benefits to active duty employees and their dependents, and committing uninterrupted pension and retirement benefits.''

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, many American businesses, recognizing the hardship placed on the families of these servicemen due to the differential in their civilian and military incomes while on active duty, make up that difference for a period of between several days and a year or more. A recent survey by the Reserve Officers Association of the United States found that of the 154 Fortune 500 corporations that responded to the survey, 105 companies, or 68 percent, make up the difference in that pay. Last year, just 75 of the 132 responding companies, or 56 percent, did so. And in the year 2001, the number was 53 of 119, or 45 percent of the responding companies.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by wishing our men and women of the Armed Forces Godspeed and commending American businesses that have supported them, especially our Reservists and National Guardsmen, the extraordinary citizen. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, in my home congressional district, I have the headquarters for the National Guard at Camp Blanding in North Central Florida; so I am well aware of the sacrifices these folks make when they go off to war. Interestingly enough, a lot of Americans do not realize this, so I think it is altogether appropriate today that we recognize the businesses and National Guard, because prior to this we had the resolution honoring the military who participated over in the war in Iraq, and we mentioned the National Guard. But, of course, this resolution is concentrating on the businesses.

There are 216,931 members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. When you think about each one of these people leaving their families and jobs in service to their country to go off to the war in Iraq, of course they leave behind employment.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of employers that had these people employed. It might be a small business of five people, and it might be a business of 5,000 or 6,000 employees. But if you take a small business and you have one individual that leaves it, he represents 20 percent of the employees of the business. That is a major sacrifice.

So I think it is altogether fitting this afternoon that we take this time to recognize these businesses for their exceptional accommodation for these men and women and to honor them for what they are trying to do. Of course,

under the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, they have many responsibilities. Again, these responsibilities are mandated by Congress, but in many ways most of these businesses, almost all of them, are obligated through patriotism and a sense of resolve to the war in Iraq to take these people back, to care for them and, in many cases, give them their back pay. So I think it is altogether fitting that we this afternoon honor the businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 361) to designate certain conduct by sports agents relating to the signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair and deceptive acts or practices to be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 361, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 361, the Sports Agent Trust and Responsibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is sponsored by my friend and colleague on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for whom this has been a long-standing concern. Additionally, our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), also has firsthand experience in dealing with the problem in this bill in his prior career and is a major cosponsor.

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection held hearings on this legislation last year and heard from many experts regarding the problems facing promising student athletes in this country. My colleagues and I on the Committee on Energy and Commerce agree there is a problem and that this bill, H.R. 361, is a responsible and necessary legislative solution. We passed the legislation out of our committee unanimously in the 107th Congress.

For my colleagues who may be unaware of the nature of the problem, let me briefly explain this afternoon. I am sure the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) will also amplify my comments on how destructive this behavior can be to the student athletes, their families, and to the schools.

I share their concern that student athletes are often targeted by unscrupulous agents who suffer little or no consequence for their continued deception. In today's multibillion dollar professional sports industry, collegiate athletes with even the slightest potential of becoming a highly paid professional athlete often find themselves in the cross hairs of sports agents. Because the odds of an athlete making it to the professional ranks is very, very low, the financial reward for those who do make it can be extraordinary, and the financial windfall to an agent representing the athlete is highly significant.

For an agent who may not be an established name in the business, success for this agent may be dependent upon either signing a superstar or playing the simple percentages and representing multiple promising athletes in hopes of at least one making it to the professional leagues.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the agents looking to make a quick buck are often the same ones who do not have the athlete's best interest in mind. While the reputable agents respect the athletes, and, of course, they follow the rules, the unscrupulous agents have been reported to take extreme measures to sign the athlete with little regard for the consequences to the athlete. Why do they do this? For those agents lacking any integrity, the financial payout can be very, very large; and there are few, if any, consequences to dissuade them.

While we do not currently have a Federal remedy to address these problems, many of our States do. They have recognized the problem and have varying State laws to address the behavior of these sports agents. Because the inconsistency of the State laws has prevented meaningful enforcement, the States recently approved a uniform State athlete agent act in the Year 2000. More than a dozen States have since enacted the law, and it is working its way through many other State legislatures.

As promising as this sounds, it is a long process that does not guarantee that all of the States will adopt it. While this may not sound significant to my colleagues, the law can only be completely effective if it is enforced uniformly in every State in this Nation.

The States deserve credit for addressing this problem. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there is still a gaping hole that this legislation will finally fill. Not only does this legislation provide the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to enforce the act, but it also provides the States with the authority to bring civil action against violators in the Federal courts. Additionally, the legislation requires a new disclosure to the student athlete, and, finally, places a measure of responsibility on the agent himself so that there should be no misunderstanding regarding the signing of a contract.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a Federal remedy to a problem that many of us did not know about, but it is no less deserving of a cure this afternoon. H.R. 361 provides a measured response. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who has actually run premier athletic programs and has run multiple national college football championships at the University of Nebraska. If anyone knows about this problem of unscrupulous sports agents, the gentleman from Nebraska would know that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

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

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, maybe just a quick history on this bill.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) dropped the bill in the 107th Congress. We had a hearing out of the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. We had the NCAA and we had lots of witnesses. Everybody endorsed this bill.

I think for those who are worried that this is a Federal mandate, it is basically a bill to give a little bit more support to the States, particularly those States, perhaps in Nebraska, where they do not have any law, and give those State attorneys general the opportunity to prosecute those unscrupulous sports agents.

I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) is to be commended for his hard work on this over a long period of time, and for pushing it forward.

Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for allowing a hearing on this. Eventually we are here this afternoon. I wish we could have passed this in the 107th Congress, but we are here in the 108th Congress, and hopefully we will get this bill passed.

Again, I commend all those who have been involved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today opponents of the proposed ban on partial birth abortion will levy a great deal of unfair derision against those of us who will stand today to speak on behalf of the unborn. These same opponents repeatedly deny the terrible facts regarding partial birth abortion despite overwhelming evidence. They fight against common sense efforts such as parental notification and demonstrate, through their actions, that the unborn are not worthy of protection in their eyes. I emphatically disagree.

The phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' describes the process employed in this late-term abortion procedure. It refers to any abortion in which the baby is delivered ``past the navel . . . outside the mother's body'' and then is killed by any means effective. This method is usually employed after 24 weeks gestation at which point these babies have eyebrows and eyelashes and have shown to be sensitive to pain.

It is difficult and painful for all of us to hear of the violence against these unborn children. It is mournful that any child has ever known such brutality and in this case with the permission of the law.

Opponents of the ban have a difficult task before them because the truth of the matter is so painfully clear. They attempt to rationalize that if the baby's head and shoulders are still inside of the mother that it is worthless tissue to be discarded without regret. Is the line between murder and medical procedure really only five inches!? Such an argument is baseless and preposterous.

I am hopeful that this year's debate will be our last and we will finally ban this abhorrent procedure.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 209 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of small businesses, owners and employees, in this time of economic downturn.

The key to President Bush's economic package is to provide jobs to Americans who desire to work. The plan will provide a great boost to small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs, or two out of every three jobs.

One of the most significant weaknesses in the present economy is the low level of business investment. The President's plan will triple write-offs for business equipment from $25,000 to $75,000, will reduce the cost of capital, and help these enterprises grow. There is a current phase-in schedule that will reduce the income tax paid by small businesses. This plan will speed these reductions up and make them immediately.

All of the components of the President's package put together are projected to return an average of over $2,000 to 23 million small business owners this year. The Council of Economic Advisors projects that the President's plan will create 10,000 new jobs in the second half of 2003, 890,000 jobs in 2004, and an increase of 1.4 million jobs in just 18 months. Private sector analyses reach similar conclusions.

The sooner Congress acts, the better it is for small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about a program called cash and counseling which allows flexibility for Medicaid, people who are poor, people who are disabled, gives them an opportunity to be involved and get more resources, and it is good for the Federal Government, too.

In February of this year, I spoke on the floor about this Cash and Counseling program. It was demonstrated in Florida, Arkansas and New Jersey. In these demonstrations, disabled and elderly beneficiaries were given great latitude to direct their own support services; that is, they were involved themselves, and it was not just the government giving them a check or services.

The national project has conducted its first evaluation of this program in Arkansas, and the results are in. It was reported favorably through the Journal of Health Affairs on March 26, 2003.

In summary, the author concluded that, our survey of roughly 1,800 elderly and non-elderly adults showed that relative to agency-directed services, as a government directing it, State directing it, Cash and Counseling greatly improves satisfaction and reduced most unmet needs. Moreover, contrary to some concerns, it did not adversely affect participants' health and safety, always a complaint that these elderly people will not get served.

Dr. Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, says, ``The Cash and Counseling program offers Medicaid consumers flexibility and a sense of control over their care.'' In The Robert Wood Foundation's recently released Annual Report 2002, they said, ``Cash and Counseling enables Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and disabilities to purchase needed personal assistance services with cash allowances in lieu of receiving traditional agency- delivered services. The result,'' of course, ``is greater choice and autonomy in obtaining the required help. Early evaluation results show increased access and improved satisfaction for Cash and Counseling clients.''

Secretary Thompson of Health and Human Services shared, ``This approach gives people with disabilities more freedom and responsibility, in the same way that all of us want to be in charge of our lives and'' of course, ``our choices. It lets the individuals themselves decide how best to use the Medicaid dollars they are already entitled to. The study confirms that these Medicaid recipients make good choices that maintain their health and safety, even as they improve their convenience, satisfaction and quality of life.''

So think about it. This program, Cash and Counseling, is part of an experiment that has proved successful, bringing in the actual beneficiaries and opportunities for choice and participation.

We now have Consumer Directed Care which is a larger demonstration program. What does this mean? According to the National Association of State Units on Aging and the National Council on Aging, ``Consumer direction describes programs and services where people are given maximum choice and control over their care. Consumer direction may also be called self-determination or independent living. When people say they want to be independent or they want to have autonomy or self- direction, they are talking about consumer direction. In consumer- directed programs, consumers can choose to select, manage and dismiss their workers. They can decide which services to use, which workers to hire, and what time of day they will come. Consumer direction assumes that informed consumers are able to make decisions about the services they receive.'' Sounds good.

Consumer-directed care has already taken off among the aging populations. Last Friday, the Senate's Special Committee on Aging had a briefing on Consumer Direction in Aging Services. State elder affairs leaders from Vermont and Pennsylvania and Dr. Kevin Mahoney of Boston College, the national director of Cash and Counseling, championed its success in providing an infusion of choice and freedom and independence to the disabled and elderly nationwide. Most States report waiting lists of individuals waiting to enroll in this demonstration.

Besides in public health, many private plans are beginning to offer consumer-directed products. For example, in our Federal employee health benefit program, one group of Federal workers, the American Postal Workers Union, is the first to offer a consumer-directed option this year. On their Web site describing the option, the American Postal Workers Union say, We believe that people who have more control over how their health care dollars are spent are more satisfied customers, and their health plan's consumer-directed option plan is designed to give our employees that control.

Besides the now-documented satisfaction, Consumer-Directed Care is serving to reduce costs and fraud. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very clear case where giving choice and independence for the consumer, whether it is Medicaid for the poor or we should do for Medicare for the elderly or even in the private sector, it works much better.

I look forward to the continued evaluation of these programs, and of course, I continue to see on the Federal and State level the championing of the Consumer-Directed Care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a problem that has been below the Federal radar screen for far too long. Every year tens of billions of dollars are lost to cargo theft. This epidemic has plagued the United States for over 30 years, with little being done to stem its spread. With the prevalence of cargo theft today, insurance companies have placed a heavy burden on the trucking industry. The costs associated with investigation and insurance payments are only exacerbating what is already an industry crisis.

Typical targets for cargo theft often include shipments of clothing, prescription drugs, computers and jewelry. A truckload of computer and microprocessors can be worth millions. A truckload of cigarettes, another common target, can be worth up to $2 million. The high value to volume ratio of high-tech goods has encouraged criminals previously involved in drug dealing to move into this area of activity where they run less risk of detection and suffer less severe penalties if caught.

The National Cargo Security Council wants to see an increase in criminal penalties for cargo theft as well as employment of more trained cargo theft task forces. The Council reported that cargo worth $12 billion is stolen in the United States every year, and yet the penalties for cargo theft are lower than that for selling drugs.

Cargo thieves employ creative means to prey upon cargo carriers and have managed to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Thieves know what they want and where they can find it. Striking cargo containers at ports, at trains and 18-wheelers, hijackers pry open the doors, remove the goods and replace them with bags of sand so that there is no change in weight. They will then proceed to put new pins in the hinges so the crime is not noticed until the containers are opened upon arrival.

This manner of theft is known as ``leakage,'' in that thieves attack intermodal containers by defeating the integrity of the security seal. This practice often confounds investigators, since they have no idea at what point the cargo was stolen.

Eighteen-wheeler cargo carriers now experience approximately 85 percent of theft. Thieves will either roll the dice, stealing containers with unknown contents, or they will go as far as camping outside of distribution centers. This method, called ``full-load truck theft,'' involves monitoring shipments out of distribution centers that are known for putting out expensive goods. The thieves will then follow the trucks in rental cars, waiting for the right time to pounce. This will often occur at truck rest stops where the driver leaves the vehicle. The process can amazingly take but a few minutes. These professional criminals are usually licensed truck drivers who can hotwire a truck quickly and efficiently.

Once goods are successfully stolen, they will be moved to port warehouses where they will wait to be exported. Depending upon where the goods are to be shipped, they will most likely be shipped to ports in Miami, Los Angeles or New York. The stolen cargo changes hands several times in what is a form of cargo laundering. By the time the cargo is ready for export, it is most likely to be seen as a legal shipment. Authorities have found it difficult to track outgoing cargo since outbound shipments are not checked, due to the fact that they are not subject to U.S. tariff laws.

Mr. Speaker, Members in this Chamber need to be aware of this problem. It is time that we got aggressive and made our highways again safe for commerce. This country is in dire need of harsher criminal penalties, and this need can be proven by the fact that criminals are turning to cargo theft in hordes. Many criminals are abandoning

the drug trade for a crime just as lucrative but with lenient penalties.

This body must make an example out of cargo thieves. We must let them know that they will not get away with just merely a slap on the hand. As sheriff's departments begin integrating special cargo theft task forces, we must arm them with the ability to prosecute criminals with stiffer penalties. Until we strengthen these laws, this 30-year-old crime wave will persist, threatening our ports, our roads and raping our economy of billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the accomplishments of a man from my hometown in Marion County, Florida, the Sixth Congressional District, because Tony Everard has been training horses in Marion County for over 35 years.

He purchased a remarkable horse, a gelding, in 2001 in Saratoga, New York, and he trained it, but on May 3, this horse became champion at the pinnacle of horse racing, the Kentucky Derby.

His horse, Funny Cide, beat the odds with a stunning victory over favored Empire Maker and Peace Rules before more than 140,000 people at Churchill Downs, and none could be cheering louder than Tony and Beth, who named the champion gelding.

Funny Cide became the fourth Derby winner since 1997 to emerge from the Marion County breeding and training industry. I am proud of the long-standing heritage of horse training in my district. Tony and his wife Beth deserve many accolades for their work with Funny Cide and many champions to come.