Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. While many States require parental notification or consent before an abortion procedure, others do not. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) introduced this bill to prohibit the transportation of a minor across State lines in order to obtain an abortion.

As we have all heard in the discussion today, there are no Federal parental notification laws and not every State operates under the same rules. There are some States that do not require a parental consent form or notification, or their laws may be tied up in a court challenge, as was the case in Florida; but the voters voted overwhelmingly to have parental notification. When a minor is transported across State lines to evade these State laws, the rights of parents have been violated.

I only have daughters. I have three daughters and certainly any parent realizes that their children cannot have such a minor thing as a tattoo or a body piercing or even receive vaccines in school without their consent. Is it asking too much that our children receive parental consent before they undergo an out-of-state and serious medical procedure, all without their parents' consent? Can you imagine learning that your daughter was transported across State lines because she thought it was her only option? That is just plain wrong.

Mr. Chairman, we must support the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act today. Certainly Congress does not want to condone nonparents transporting young women across State lines for the purpose of evading the parental involvement laws in the girl's home State. To me that is a dangerous and unconscionable precedent to set. Across the country, officials must obtain parental consent before performing even routine medical procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify a few points about strengthening and preserving Social Security.

Unfortunately, partisan opposition groups are playing word games with Social Security reform. Let me tell the Members what these words mean to the average American.

Privatization means taking Social Security completely out of the hands of government and turning the program over to a private entity. I will never vote to privatize Social Security.

Personal accounts means giving younger workers a choice to invest a portion of their tax dollars into safe and secure accounts. Most importantly, these accounts would be owned by the individuals and protected from the D.C. practice of using these funds for general spending. This is not privatization.

I would hope that instead of slinging half-truths and misrepresentations, those groups opposed to any sort of reform would instead present choices of their own and meet Republicans at the negotiating table in a productive, constructive manner.

Mr. Speaker, another day in the Fifth Congressional District means that again my seniors received calls trying to frighten them about Social Security. This is the sixth set of calls that have gone into my district. The majority of the responses I receive is stop, stop, stop those calls. We trust you; we know you will do what is right.

As the American public knows, the long-term future of Social Security is problematic at best. We have all heard the facts that in the year 2017 the Social Security trust fund will begin paying out more than what it takes in and that if Congress does nothing, the program will face at least a 25 percent guaranteed cut in benefits in 2041. So if we do nothing, there will be future cuts. These are the facts, and they are indisputable.

What I am here to share with Members this evening is about the dangerous double talk from the opponents of any kind of reform of Social Security. I would like to read some interesting quotes from Washington politicians about Social Security. The first one is: ``If you do not do anything, one of two things will happen: Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it. Or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children.''

Or how about the following: ``This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.''

Or how about this gem of a quote: ``This is the time to straighten Social Security for the future. We can and must accomplish this critical goal for the American people.''

Members may be asking themselves what right wing Member of Congress said that Social Security was in a crisis and which reformer said the program would go broke if we do nothing to fix the problem. Guess what, these are quotes from none other than former Democrat President Bill Clinton. Leaders of our country from both parties have known that Social Security needs reform. What bothers me today is when we finally have a President and a Congress that is brave enough to grab what is often termed the third rail of politics, partisan obstructionists are unwilling to even come to the table and debate reform honestly and with some substance.

I represent the congressional district with the most Social Security recipients, 47 percent of my voting age population receives Social Security, a quarter of a million people on Social Security. Politically the easiest thing for me to do is to throw up my hands and oppose reform. But instead of sticking my head in the sand like the Democrats are doing and refusing to admit we have a problem, even though their former President did, I am working to find a permanent solution.

If Democrats, the AARP, and the unaccountable 527 groups would be honest with themselves and with the American public, they would acknowledge the truth of President Clinton's statement that ``this fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.''

Instead, what do we hear? We hear scare tactics from the liberal left about Republican efforts to privatize the system, to force our parents to eat dog food, and take away the only future our seniors have.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for them to come to the table and do what President Clinton suggested. It is time to engage intellectually dishonest partisan politicians who refuse to debate the issue on its merits.

How, the American public should ask, can Congress expect to solve a substantive policy matter like Social Security when one side refuses to debate seriously.

If the Democrats want to have any relevance in the lives of our seniors, it clearly is time for them to come to the table. The discussion should begin with the simple question: Does Social Security face a problem?

I believe every American believes that Social Security does face a problem.

``Legislators whose answer to that problem is `no' should probably go ahead and cosponsor a bipartisan bill to do nothing in the 109th Congress and go on to other issues.'' Who said that? Well, how about former Democrat Congressmen Tim Penny and Charlie Stenholm. Congressmen Penny and Stenholm know something needs to be done. Why will they not bring their former colleagues to the table.

Let me tell a story about one of the town hall meetings I had in my district. Before I began a discussion with my constituents and listening to their suggestions, I held up a 10-page packet of questions and talking points that were sent out by MoveOn.org. I told my constituents that I was there to listen to their genuine concerns and questions, not to hear canned questions from a bussed in MoveOn.org member or to read off their cheat sheet. What do you know, about 2 minutes into the question and answer period, I got question number 3 right off the MoveOn.org cheat sheet. This is a perfect example of the left wing partisans stacking events at town hall meetings that are intended to benefit our constituents. I am sure other Members experienced the same phenomenon.

Getting back to the obstructionism of Washington politicians, here is another quote: ``Because of the retirement of the baby boomers by the year 2013, the surpluses built up in Social Security start to dwindle down, and sometime around the year 2032, Social Security faces a serious crisis.'' Guess who said that? It was actually former Vice President Al Gore.

So the American public clearly can see that Washington Democrats are very good about talking out of both sides of their mouth if it furthers their partisan goals.

Al Gore talked a good game, but where is he today when it comes to presenting a plan or encouraging his members to guarantee the solvency of Social Security for future generations?

We have all read news accounts where President Clinton proposed that government directly invest a portion of Social Security money in the financial markets to capture a higher rate of return, rather than the dismal rate that it receives now.

Where, the public has to ask, were the liberal opposition groups back then? They supported a Democrat President who proposed this, but they oppose a Republican one. President Bush has proposed allowing workers to invest 4 percent of their payroll taxes into personal, safe and secure accounts. To many, this is a safer route than putting our Social Security taxes straight into the stock market like President Clinton wanted.

Where is the AARP with a plan of their own? We met with them in our office; and, quite honestly, all they said was, no, no, no. They did not have a plan of their own. All I have seen from them so far is a statement that personal accounts are unacceptable to their leadership.

But if you think about it, Social Security is already somewhat personalized. When you get home, I challenge people to check their yearly statement from the Social Security Administration. Your future benefits are there

calculated for you, not for the general public but for you. It already is somewhat personalized. Why do you not ask AARP why their leadership promotes stock and bond investing by selling mutual funds to its members or why they offer risky investment choices like a Latin American stock fund and even a junk bond fund? I personally find it very appalling the AARP sponsors trips to casinos where seniors literally gamble away their retirement.

Why do we not change the subject slightly and talk about the unions that are opposed to any change? They also said, no, sir, no way, to personal accounts. But when you ask union leaders where they invest their union pension funds, once again we hear double talk. They invest them, guess where, in the stock market. Why is it good enough for union leadership but not their members? I guess so much for risky schemes. The unions, AARP and others on the liberal left already have them.

Tonight I hope that I have made clear that there is one side and one side only that is honestly engaged in the debate over the future of Social Security. All the other side has thus far is fear, fear, and another hearty helping of fear. Quit trying to scare our seniors. The 527s are the ones making the calls as well as the opposition party. I want to speak to any senior listening tonight and I want to make it perfectly clear, I will not change your Social Security benefits in any way. The President has clearly said those who are 55 and above will be under the traditional plan as we know it.

So I challenge the opposition to join us, and I challenge the people who may be watching this evening, help us save Social Security for your children and grandchildren. We have stepped up to the plate and made it clear that we are willing to work toward a permanent solution that benefits all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we continue to debate this issue on the floor, back in our districts and around the kitchen table, we will all remember that it is our constituency we are working for and it is not partisan political groups.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my concern regarding continued abuses by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA as we know it. As my colleagues know, Florida suffered devastating blows when an unprecedented four hurricanes struck down in our State last year.

My colleagues and I in the Florida delegation have been fighting with FEMA on its hurricane policies for the past few months. We have battled them about paying for debris removal in front of properties on a private road. These people pay taxes, too.

Now a new abuse has come to light. FEMA apparently paid funeral expenses for an estimated 315 deaths in Florida, although only 123 fatalities were actually recorded. Once again, it has a disregard for accuracy, efficiency, and its responsibility, I believe, to the citizens of Florida and the United States' taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in holding FEMA to the high standards that our citizens require.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Mr. James McDowell.

Mr. McDowell was a World War II B-17 pilot who flew 31 missions over Germany. On January 13, 1945, on his second mission over Mannheim, Germany, Mr. McDowell's aircraft was hit by enemy fire. The heavy flak hit the cockpit floor and sent a piece of schrapnel through his clothing into his right calf.

The severely damaged plane was unable to return to the base, and was forced to land at Manston England Air Base. Mr. McDowell was taken by the medics to the hospital, treated and released with a cane. The B-17 was so damaged that it never returned to action.

Last year, Mr. McDowell and his family approached me about getting his long overdue Purple Heart. Unfortunately, before I was able to present the Purple Heart to him, Mr. McDowell passed away.

Mr. Speaker, while it is unfortunate that Mr. McDowell is not alive to receive his Purple Heart, I know that his family will cherish the medal and his memory for the rest of their lives. Mr. McDowell's story is emblematic of many who served in World War II and surely places him as a member of the ``greatest generation.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.

You know, for most seniors Medicare is their only form of health care. Congress must make absolutely certain that not one penny of it is wasted and not one penny is given to those who only want to defraud the system. When Members of Congress voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act last year, we voted in favor of important measures to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.

Under the MMA, which I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania supported, the HHS Secretary was directed to conduct a demonstration of recovery audit contractors in at least two States for 3 years to identify under- or overpayments. This demonstration project allows HHS to identify more efficient ways of working with States on Medicare waste.

The MMA also opened the durable medical equipment industry to competitive bidding. And why did we do that? To ensure that Medicare, that our taxpayers, get the best prices on equipment that patients use. Additionally, the MMA ended overreimbursements for prescriptions and administering costs by replacing the average wholesale price system with a more accurate and verifiable average sales price system.

More importantly, for those of us who worked in favor of the Medicare Modernization Act, we voted in favor of making health care fraud a crime, a serious crime. We voted in favor of punishing those who defraud this precious program. Instead of just slapping them on the wrist, there will be serious penalties. These criminals are defrauding our most vulnerable and our elderly seniors, and they should be very strictly punished.

These measures were very important steps, but more are still needed. The most conservative estimates suggest that waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system is somewhere around $33 billion a year. That is billion with

a ``B.'' Scam artists, however, are using innovative and cunning ways to con Medicare every year. Many use computers to scour the Internet to find holes in Medicare and Medicaid payout systems.

The scam artists register also as providers and then file a slew of claims through the payment system to determine which claims would be automatically approved by Medicare and Medicaid computers. Once these claims are determined, the cons just sit back and they wait for the payments.

Others set up fake medical storefronts. In one case, actually in my home State of Florida, a ``provider office'' was found to be nothing more than a couple of post office boxes, cell phone, and a beeper. The owner vanished when he caught on that Medicare officials were onto him, but not before he collected $2.1 million in payments. They are still looking for him.

Today the Heritage Foundation released their study about waste in various Federal agencies, and guess what? They pointed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, CMS, because of their paying excessive prices for medical supplies and care. They pointed out that in so many instances they paid thousands, not just hundreds of times but thousands of a percent, more than what the VA pays for the very, very same service.

And my colleagues, I am sure, saw this in today's Congress Daily. There is a story in here about how the new chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations is settling in, and that the staff director of that committee is mandating that they go after agencies. And he said, ``The first rule is: There aren't any good government programs anyplace. They are chock-full of fraud, waste and abuse; frittering away millions in appropriated funds. Believe it, focus on it, find it and report on it.'' Obviously, Congress is getting very serious about waste, fraud and abuse in our system, and every Member of this body, I am sure, are very, very grateful for it.

Protecting Medicare against predators should be a bipartisan issue. The last time I checked, there were no Rs or Ds in the word ``solution.'' Guaranteeing the solvency of Medicare has to be a priority of Congress, and we have to begin by ensuring that every penny going to Medicare is being spent on legitimate Medicare benefits. If both sides of the aisle do not work together to protect Medicare, the legacy of this program diminishes with every penny that is lost.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and the other Members of Congress who are serious about making sure that the Medicare system is a sound system and one that provides necessary health care for our most vulnerable, our seniors.

I do not want to misquote. It is $33 billion. The most conservative estimates suggest that waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare is somewhere around $33 billion per year.

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1963, Theresa Marie Schindler was born in Pennsylvania. At the time, I was pregnant with my first child and my beautiful daughter, Danene, was born 5 days later on December 8. She is my best friend and today she, too, is a mom.

I certainly can relate to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's love for their daughter and

their passionate fight to keep her alive. Mothers have a precious bond with their daughters. The issues that we are discussing tonight are not because those who may speak on one side or the other are right or wrong or pro-life or pro-choice. The issue here is what Terri would have wanted. It is not what we would want for ourselves or even our loved ones. We should not be second-guessing a patient's wishes. That is not what we were elected to Congress to do, nor do I believe that our forefathers would have ever wanted us to be involved. Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to make the decision she felt comfortable with is being usurped by her parents and now this Congress by means of this private bill.

Jay Wolfson was appointed guardian ad litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo. I know Jay Wolfson and often called upon him when I was a State senator chairing the health care committee, because I knew that he could always give me an impartial review of controversial matters relating to health care. Jay Wolfson's report to Governor Bush and the Sixth Judicial Circuit dated December 1, 2003, reviewed the court testimony and statements made by all family members. It is important to know that the Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult time, these same family members acknowledged that Terri was in an irreversible, persistent vegetative state.

Today, I burned up the phone calling health care professionals that I know back in Florida. These are people who make life-and-death decisions and realize that the 5-year-old video we see on TV of the eye blinking and apparent movements are an involuntary reflexive action known as part of the autonomic nervous system.

Almost everybody in the health care profession that I spoke to are avid pro-life people, but they know the sad facts. Their comments were almost to a person, something to the effect of 15 years of being in a persistent vegetative state is far too long to suffer. To second guess the Florida legislature, Florida courts, and Terri's choice is just plain wrong. We should not be engaged in second guessing many neurologists and on-site health care profession always who have seen the patient, performed tests, and attested to the courts that Terri is not going to recover.

This is a very difficult decision that I know does not come easily for any Member of this body. It is gut wrenching and reaches deep into our hearts. My daughter, who was born 5 days after Terri Schiavo, is a health care professional, who, when I asked if she would want me to battle to keep a feeding tube in if she had not signed a living will, said to me, and I want the Members to bear in mind that she is a health care professional who deals day in and day out with patients with feeding tubes, but the difference is that they are not in a vegetative state, her response to me was sufficient to help me make up my mind. She said to me, No, Mom. If you really loved me, you would want me to have rest and meet the Lord.''

Mr. Speaker, I was out on Monday, March 14, and as a result, missed three votes. Had I been present:

For Roll Call No. 66--H.Res. 135, I would have voted ``yea.''

For Roll Call No. 67--H. Res. 101, I would have voted ``yea.''

For Roll Call No. 68--H. Res. 151, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share some good news about what happened in my district this past weekend.

A gentleman by the name of Fred Glass organized a welcome home to Hernando County's National Guard unit. I was there, State elected officials were there, and local commissioners and locally elected folks were there; but most important, the citizens, family members, and businesses were there to sponsor and to welcome home the National Guard unit that was deployed for a year.

Our National Guard unit served in Iraq and Afghanistan and served with a great deal of dignity. The story was told about how at Christmastime the National Guard unit organized an ability to raise money and to give gifts to the children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truly, this Member of Congress is very proud of the National Guard unit.

They presented me with a flag that was flown during one of their missions. It is a helicopter unit, and let me tell my colleagues that the pride that they had in their duty as National Guard members certainly was very evident.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support including the REAL ID Act in the supplemental spending bill on the floor today.

As we saw post-9/11, Congress must protect our Nation's borders against the threat of terrorism. Just last week, my district saw the unfortunate confluence of illegal immigration, Social Security fraud and potential terrorist threats meeting together.

In my hometown of Crystal River, Florida, the nuclear power plant was found to have contracted with illegal immigrant day laborers through a contract who had used fake or stolen ID and Social Security numbers to obtain government-issued driver's licenses. Thankfully, these men have been arrested by the FBI and fully interviewed by Customs enforcement agents.

Who is to say that the seemingly harmless workers could not have really

been agents of a terrorist group that is intent on blowing up or hijacking a nuclear power plant? As we saw with flight schools before 9/11, it is often the little things that are overlooked in our constant fight against terrorism that lead to the biggest problems.

As President Bush has said time and time again, we have to be right hundreds of times each and every day in our fight against terrorism, and they only have to be right once.

I voted against the 9/11 intelligence reform bill primarily because it omitted the ID standard reforms that the 9/11 Commission called for and that America needed. Had the REAL ID Act been in place, the Department of Motor Vehicles would have been required to verify the Social Security numbers used by these workers. This check would have shown that the numbers were really issued to men that had been deceased for 40 years and would have disallowed the men from gaining access to a supposedly secure nuclear power facility.

I would hate to see a future terrorist attack that Congress could have prevented by tightening our access to driver's licenses. We need the Senate to pass the REAL ID bill, and I am delighted it was added onto this supplemental budget.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these much-needed reforms and to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act included in the supplemental bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Record, I was present voting this afternoon for all recorded votes except for H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act. Unfortunately my card did not register when I cast my vote for that bill. If it had, it would have read that I voted in favor of H.R. 841.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, last year, I received hundreds of calls from angered constituents after the obscene display at the Super Bowl.

What was most frustrating was that I had to explain that the FCC's hands were tied; the FCC wanted to punish the broadcasters who allowed this material to be displayed before our children during prime time, but they could not.

A $27,500 fine does nothing to deter networks that generate billions of dollars in revenue.

Today, however, I can tell my constituents that I voted in favor of the Broadcast Decency Act.

Introduced by my colleague, Representative Upton, this bill increases the slap on the wrist in penalties to a fair punishment of $500,000 for broadcasters who break the rules.

Freedom of speech should be protected but not at the cost of our children who simply want to catch a football game.

I look forward to voting in favor of this bill and thank Representative Upton for his efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the bill, H.R. 418, and also the very fine amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I spoke on the floor last December in opposition to the conference report on the intelligence bill because it lacked the provisions that we are actually debating here today. I commend the leadership of, certainly, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for bringing this amendment to our attention and adding it to the bill. I am very pleased that they made good on their promise that we would be here today providing for the provisions that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) had.

No issue is more important to this Congress than securing our borders and protecting our homeland, and I guarantee it is very important to our constituents.

When I was in the Florida senate, I headed up the Homeland Security Committee shortly after 9/11, and many of the provisions that are in this bill we actually included when we took on the driver's license issue, making the driver's licenses only last as long as the person was legally in the country. I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the House leadership for making good on their promise and enacting the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill and certainly for the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), which just quite honestly makes common sense in that Members' constituents back home will very easily understand and say, Why was this not done a long time ago?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George A. Neukom, Jr. of Zephyrhills, Florida.

George A. Neukom, Jr. is a fifth generation Floridian from Pasco County, a lifetime resident of Zephyrhills, a 1959 graduate of Stetson University and a great fifth district constituent.

I would like to recognize George for his outstanding lifetime of work in Pasco County, Florida. As recognition for his efforts, George will be honored as the recipient of the 2nd annual Lincoln Heritage Award held by the East Pasco Republican Club.

This prestigious award was established by the East Pasco Republican Club to recognize an outstanding community member for his or her commitment to the principles practiced and espoused by the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln, and for humanitarian services to his or her community and to Pasco County.

Beginning in 1921 when his grandmother opened Neukom's Drug Store in Zephyrhills, the Neukom family has been a positive influence in the community. The store included a coffee shop where the traditional game of ``scratch'' provided a forum for local, county, State and Federal candidates of all parties to discuss current topics. In later years, George continued this practice until the store closed.

An accomplished businessman in Pasco County, George is also the president and chairman of the board of Neukom Properties, Inc., a citrus and cattle company. He also founded the George A. Neukom, Jr. Insurance Agency and serves as a consultant to both Precise Power Corporation in Bradenton, FL and Neukom Groves.

An active member of the First Baptist Church in Zephyrhills, George was appointed to the Florida Citrus Commission by former Governor Bob Martinez and served from 1989 to 1992. He is a member of Zephyr Lodge 198 F & AM, Scottish Rite--Shrine and Rotary Club. George serves on the hospital advisory board at East Pasco Medical Center in Zephyrhills and is also on the advisory board at the Zephyrhills City Library.

George married the former Ann Brooke in 1962, and together they raised two children, Tamara and George III. They have been blessed with four loving grandchildren, Ashley and Hannah Oakley and Victoria and George Neukom IV.

Mr. Speaker, George Neukom is a model Pasco County citizen and is truly deserving of the 2nd Annual Lincoln Heritage Award.

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly stated I will oppose any cut in Social Security benefits to retirees or near retirees. However, many groups are using this debate to once again bully Americans. The most recent examples are the telephone scare calls that were made anonymously throughout Florida that began actually in my congressional district. Why my district? Because I have the highest number of people on Social Security. These people who hide behind anonymity have no courage. It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz and hiding behind the great curtain.

The bottom line is, under the bill that I introduced, H.R. 266, it will stop any proposal to reduce benefits dead in its track. I recommit my promise in that bill that I introduced, H.R. 266, the Social Security Protection Act. Congress would not even be able to consider a bill that reduces benefits to retirees.