Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for his outstanding presentation on the floor today and for going over some of the most relevant and important topics of this extension of expiring tax provisions.

I want to call to the attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle some very, very important substantial pieces of legislative tax work that are here in the bill. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, a credit for employers equal to 40 percent of wages for hiring certain disadvantaged individuals. Targeted groups include TANF families, high- risk youth, certain ex-felons, summer youth, certain Veterans, and families on food stamps. This is a very important provision in this bill.

Welfare to work, again an experiment which has yielded tremendous results in Palm Beach County, the county in which I live, provides a tax credit for employers hiring targeted groups equal to 35 percent of wages.

These are interesting and important provisions to help people get back on their feet, to maintain a work ethic, and contribute to themselves, their families and our Nation.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and I authored an important provision relevant to elementary and secondary school teachers. My father is a retired teacher and principal, and that is a $250 above- the-line deduction for teachers purchasing classroom supplies. It was first enacted in the 2002 stimulus bill, and it continues today.

Qualified zone academy bonds. These are targeted tax credit bonds for school construction in economically targeted areas. This is very important for Florida with the rapid growth of the population and the need for school construction, once again a mechanism by which localities can seek tax credits for bonds to help with that opportunity.

Charitable contributions of computer technology used for educational purposes. We have seen a blossoming of computers in the classroom in educational settings, most due to the generosity of companies with excess equipment. This extends for 1 year the current law which encourages donation of computer technology and related equipment for educational purposes, providing donors with a higher basis and, therefore, larger deductions.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned the brownfields remediations cost. Again, those are in my district and districts throughout the country.

The Archer medical savings account, which will be a provision contained also in our Medicare bill which will be brought to the floor tomorrow or Saturday, all of these issues contained in this extension provide some great opportunities for constituents throughout all 50 States and the territories.

Finally, for D.C. residents, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has worked extensively in reviving the fortunes of the city, and extends for 1 year a range of tax incentives for activities in the District of Columbia, including an important $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. Anyone who lives on Capitol Hill has noticed a refurbishing, a reinvigoration of one of our most important cities. Visitors from around the world come to see where we work and where democracy flourishes.

Thanks to this provision, a $5,000 tax credit, we are starting to see the fruits of the labor of this bill, increasing homeownership and increasing opportunities: zero capital gains for D.C. on long-term capital gains held in the District, rental real estate buildings, things of that nature, getting people to reinvest in the capital city; and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for helping the Mayor of this city and bringing some of these opportunities forward.

I encourage passage of the expiring tax provisions and urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for recommending the Louisiana Purchase to Thomas Jefferson. It was a good deal then, and it remains a good deal today. I particularly thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter), and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley). My friend from Louisiana was very, very helpful in crafting amendments that have been incorporated in the bill to bring some fairness to policyholders that I believe were lacking in the original bill.

I represent Floridians at both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and we certainly see our fair share of hurricanes and tropical storms. The base bill would have punished people for choosing to live there. Does the Federal Government discriminate against people who choose to live in the areas that are prone to earthquakes or tornadoes? Of course not. Some people who live in coastal areas should not be punished either.

So reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program is extremely important. I would have preferred a cleaner reauthorization, but I am thrilled it is for 5 years. Of course, failure to reauthorize this program would have disastrous consequences to policyholders, as well as to the banking and real estate industry in my State. I thank all for their cooperation, and I look forward to passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what should be a celebratory week for America's seniors is turning into a partisan fight. In memory of my grandmother, I come to the floor today urging my colleagues to come together on this important change in Medicare to provide prescription drugs for the first time in our Nation's history for our seniors.

Let me ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in the memory of Claude Pepper, Franklin Roosevelt and others who cared so deeply for seniors, to put aside your partisan differences and walk with us in improving the most important fundamental health care program for seniors in our Nation's history. Discount drug cards, lower prices for prescription drugs, availability for new technology to help those who are ailing, preventive health care, diagnostic screening for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. This is a tremendously important bill for our Nation's seniors. Let us not fight about it. Let us move forward.

AARP supports this bill. Yet the Democratic leadership is urging Members that if they vote for it, they should leave the caucus. One Member from California is actually resigning from AARP because she is so upset with their endorsement of the bill. AARP has long been known as the gold standard for keeping and caring for America's seniors. Let us not put their vision outside this building. Let us bring it in. Let us debate this bill but in behalf of millions of American seniors, let us pass this important landmark legislation this week before we go home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to be on the floor talking about Medicare tonight and certainly thrilled I have a chance to answer some of the comments made by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

In my district in Florida, I have the fifth largest Medicare eligible population of 435 congressional districts. This is not an issue I take lightly. I would suggest some of our colleagues read the actual bill because what they are asking us to do tonight in their amendment is exactly why we are focused on some of the reforms in the very Medicare package we are talking about.

A physician update, an increase in payment, is in the bill the House Republicans have authored and sent to this floor and now is in conference. There was a mention that there was a fee cut last year of 5.4 percent. I would like to correct the record. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who fought to increase physician reimbursement, not only did we eliminate the cut a year ago; we actually increased by 1.5 percent in this bill. In Oregon we have a 1.5 percent update in 2004 and in 2005. We have a 5 percent bonus for those working in rural Oregon to make certain that they are able to see the patients because of the limited access and limited number of physicians. So there is a 16 percent increase in the bill we are talking about today.

Let me also take some exception when it is discussed about this FEHBP competitive-style model for a minute. My district is typical of most districts in the country. In fact, in Florida I represent eight counties: Palm Beach County, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Glades, Hendry, Martin, and Charlotte. It goes from the east coast on the Atlantic to the west, ending at the Gulf of Mexico. There is almost every demographic mix one can imagine, people moving from the north and east coast; and what they have said to me in town hall after town hall, I want choices like Members of Congress have. They say they want choices like we have in our health care delivery system, and I reach for my wallet because I know somewhere in here is my Federal health benefit plan; and I get a range of options to choose from, whether I want a higher deductible, higher copayment, whether I want a fee-for-service or PPO or a managed care plan.

Seniors in my district are smart enough to know they are able to make choices. The Democrats have been down the street burning AARP cards this afternoon. Rather than engaging in constructive debate on how to fix the most important plan for seniors in this country, they are invoking memories of Jane Fonda burning things in city streets around our country and screaming that AARP has sold them out.

A month ago AARP was, as I was told by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gold standard of senior lobbying organizations, and I tend to agree. I meet with AARP in my district in order to have a dialogue to see if we can meet some common ground and common objective. So when AARP indicated that they were supporting our Medicare bill, it was not only refreshing that we were engaged in a bipartisan, constructive conversation, but we were actually modernizing Medicare.

So to eliminate the competitive model in the Medicare plan we are discussing undermines the very notion of what the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is debating on the floor today. The update for physicians is in the bill.

Let me also say another thing that is troubling me because I have been somewhat perplexed by this insistence by the other side of the aisle that the trouble with this bill is we do not get after those nasty drug companies.

We do not just let our citizens run across the border and buy drugs from Canada. I just finished a TV interview with one of my colleagues talking about the cost of drugs in America and the cost of drugs in Canada, but let me talk about a more critical concern of mine.

In my district in my county in Florida, the first case of anthrax poisoning occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida, the death of a man who worked for the National Inquirer because he contracted anthrax through the mail that was sent to the National Inquirer.

Why do I bring that up and why do I raise the anthrax attacks and the fear

it invoked in Florida? Because one of the concerns that we have all indicated is we want cheaper prescription drug prices for our seniors, but we wanted a protected chain of custody to make certain that the drugs we are getting for our seniors are not tainted.

Let me read this headline from the National Journal Group American Health Line. It says that Florida laws to prevent the sale of counterfeit or diluted prescription drugs in the State are too weak, according to a report issued Tuesday. The Miami Herald reports the report found that as many as 55 of the 1,458 prescription drug wholesalers licensed in Florida sell counterfeit or diluted medications or treatments illegally imported into the United States. The Office of the Attorney General said the questionable medicines for some wholesalers have reached pharmacies, but the extent of the problem is not known.

So I continue to hear these bottles of pills rattling on the other side of the aisle saying just let us have our chance to be in the debate, and we will get Americans cheaper drugs from Canada. Well, the first person that dies from an anthrax-laced medication or the first person that receives phony or altered cancer drugs and dies because they did not receive the proper dosage, the first person who has a catastrophic incident because somehow that cheaper drug that my colleagues have suggested they will bring to our States has harmed a citizen, I cannot wait to watch the rush for the exit by each of those who have been rattling these pill bottles saying that was not my idea, I certainly did not want any part of it.

So let us debate Medicare and let us debate it on the floor, not in the AARP lobby, not in the newspapers, and not on TV, but for seniors like my parents and in the memory of my grandmother, whose one wish was that Social Security and Medicare would sustain her for her life. The one check she would wait for was Social Security, and the one thing she wanted more than ever was not to be a burden on her children or grandchildren. She wanted to be self-sustaining. It is in her memory I have worked 9 years on Medicare and want to make certain this proposal works. So I reject this motion.

We will continue to have discussions on it, but the things that have been raised in this motion today on H.R. 1 are just not accurate. They just do not apply. If they read the bill, they will see that physicians are getting compensated properly. They will see the competitive model is not going to undermine Medicare. It has no effect on entitlement. There is continued entitlement to defined benefits under current law. There is continued access to traditional FFS Medicare through the fee- for-service Medicare throughout the country, and all payments to plans, including traditional fee-for-service Medicare based on the demographic and health risks of employees. We have provisions in this bill that deal with most of the problems raised.

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

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

It is indeed appropriate that there be a doctor in the House sitting in the well presiding as we discuss this important project, a doctor who happens to be a Republican. The notion that we want to destroy Medicare is patently false. It is interesting, I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, so this is something we deal with quite frequently, how many letters I get urging us to increase the fee payments to Medicare+Choice organizations, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. From my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who somehow find those Medicare+Choice, which are popular with their constituents, we should increase reimbursements to those plans. But if they listened to the argument they just made about privatization, then those Medicare+Choice panels would not even operate. They would not even exist.

So it seems like there is a number of Members here that seem to trust the private health insurance industry when it suits the political goals of allowing their constituents to have access to prescription drugs, to eyeglasses, to other remedial services, that is okay. That is not really privatization. That is kind of a sort of an experiment, I guess. But that is in fact what is happening today. There are managed care plans that President Clinton supported and endorsed and increased funding for, community health care organizations, a number of things that we have done in our communities to make certain health care is delivered.

We know they are losing the debate when they have to bring up Newt Gingrich on the floor and rather than talk about substantive debate here, many of us have read the bill numerous times because we had it on the floor, we all had a vote, I think nine Democrats joined us in supporting that bill. I know it was not in its entirety. I am sure there are some new additions, some new conference report language, some different things, but we are not talking about whole new territory here, we are not going over new ground. But I would caution when we start accusing the entirety of the Republican Party as being opposed to Medicare that that is somewhat of a hurtful statement to this Member because I take seriously the responsibility I have representing seniors, I take seriously the fact that my parents are on Medicare, enrolled in Medicare, my father is suffering today with cancer who is being treated by great physicians in Palm Beach County who are being reimbursed by Medicare, who seem to be not only caring for him, but obviously thrilled with their work and happy with the reimbursements being offered.

The current Medicare system is a sickness model. I am hopeful that the party on the other side of the aisle comes back to the roots of Claude Pepper from Florida and Lyndon Johnson who would have recognized a fabulous program but one that needs to reflect today's technologies.

In our bill we have wellness incentives to look for dietetic screenings to see if we can prolong the life of someone suffering from diabetes. Medicare today will reimburse to amputate your limb, they will watch you go blind, they will put you on dialysis, but we will not reimburse a dietician to come in and see if we can properly construct a diet to minimize the onset of the disease. That is a plan that they want to sit here and defend? New technologies that can indicate a cancer in the body early and detect it and cause, hopefully, the cure of that cancer. Cardiovascular screening that I have worked on with Senator Bob Graham from Florida.

This Medicare bill we are bringing to the floor has a lot more to offer than some of the criticism would indicate. But I still have to snicker when I see a group of people standing outside of AARP burning cards. It harkens back to an earlier day. I just somewhat humorously look at how quickly they turn on that organization whom they held in such high esteem up to 48 hours ago and now is being vilified here on the floor. We are happy AARP weighed in. They said it was a first step. They did not say this was a panacea, nor did any Member of this body ever suggest that this is the last thing we will ever do on Medicare. We will learn as we go along, we will add, we will try and increase the opportunities for preventive health care, we will increase reimbursement to hospitals in every Members' district, a bill that I authored. We are doing the drug discount card, another provision that I authored that will be in this bill. I think we are on the right track.

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

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

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

Of course I respect very much my colleague from Florida, and I appreciate his words tonight. I do want to at least add that at the current program we have on Medicare, just to correct any record, there is zero prescription drug coverage in Medicare. So for the very seniors they are talking about tonight, the veterans they are talking about tonight, citizens watching us tonight, they have zero coverage from Medicare for prescription drugs. Yes, there is a $275 deductible, and there is a monthly premium. The average American spends about $2,000 on drug costs annually. Under our plan they will probably save anywhere from $900 to $1,100 that will now be provided through Medicare to them. So anyone who is spending money on drugs today with this bill will have a benefit.

The drug discount card that I authored along with Senator Hagel that is now part of this global bill includes for low-income families a $600 credit much like their ATM card that they can use at drug stores to not only achieve a discount off the retail price of the pharmaceutical but also have money to purchase and back up that purchase.

So, yes, I am pleased with the progress we are making. I am pleased that we have things in this bill to provide new remedies for situations for ailing seniors, and I am encouraged by the fact that we have been able to increase reimbursements to hospitals, increase reimbursements to physicians. We are able to do some of the diagnostic tests necessary to improve and enhance the quality of life. So I feel very comfortable, as we continue the debate, that more changes probably can be made if we deal in a constructive fashion.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, actually 6 months from enactment, we will start with a discount card that will provide an immediate $600 in the plan. A number of the wellness provisions we are talking about will become instantaneous, the increase to physicians, the increase to hospitals, the increase to managed care.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there will be a number of things that will take place up until 2006. The big fundamental prescription drug will be 2006, the gentleman is correct. Because we have to get plans up and running. We have to implement the delivery system. We have to get plans concurrent. We have to do the pharmacology. So there are a number of things that will require some time.

Maybe. That may be possible as we move forward. With some cooperation, we may be able to actually expedite the time frame. That is this gentleman's wish. The sooner, the better. But within 6 months of enactment, we will have the first phase of this. We will have a number of the components already implemented. As to the prescription drug plan, I think our leadership will move more quickly than 2006.

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

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

It is almost comical on the floor for people who claim they have never seen this bill, they know every aspect of it and can criticize it with great flourish and abundance.

We just heard about the rural health care network, and I absolutely represent a lot of rural communities. Mr. Speaker, $30 billion additionally to fund rural health. Standardized amount for payments. A labor share to help with the labor index in rural communities. The disproportionate share program is increased in our bill. Low-

volume hospitals receive additional payments based on their discharges. Critical-access hospitals have additional benefits. A wage index. Graduate medical education programs. Sole-community hospitals qualify based on some data.

These are all incorporated in this new Medicare reform proposal that will benefit constituents in the gentlewoman from California's district.

Bonus payments for physician, an increased 5 percent add-on if you are in the rural component. Clinics pay separately for professional services. Rural health care clinics, federally qualified. Low-volume rural ambulance, targets higher payments for ambulances in rural communities. Home health care adds an additional 5 percent.

So these are all funded by our program, including community health centers.

Now, it came up about the $2,200, the doughnut that they continue to describe. The median recipient on Medicare uses approximately $2,000 annually in drug utilization costs. That is why we came up with the $2,200 to cover the majority of Americans. After $3,600 of drug expenditures, we then pick up 95 percent of the tab for the catastrophically ill.

Now, what the Democrats fail to continue to mention, and I wish they would put their price tag alongside their lofty ideas, is to give drugs to every senior in an unlimited amount without payment, without copayment, without deductible, would be about $900 billion, almost $1 trillion. Please, somebody on the other side, advise me where that money comes from, and I will be willing to listen to their proposal.

But in the abstract and failing to offer concrete solutions, they criticize a bill that has been worked on by the Committee on Ways and Means. They should contact some of their Democratic colleagues who serve on the committee with me. They are probably not happy with every aspect of the bill, but they have seen it. We have debated it. We have discussed it. This bill has been around for about 4\1/2\ years, no shocks, no nuances, no changes. It has all been part of the debate. Yes, they may object to portions of it, but to claim that somehow we just popped this bill up in the middle of the night belies the 4\1/2\ years I have been on the committee working on this and shows little of the knowledge of the very important components that provide relief to a number of their constituents, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike.

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

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

I would just ask Members who are so comfortable with the insurance provided to them through Blue Cross Blue Shield, it is a PPO, it is made out to me, it is a government-wide benefit plan that has a retail pharmacy carrier; it has a mail order if I want; there is a customer service number; I can use it at most hospitals for admission and medical doctors. But surprisingly, it is not the Federal Government, it is Blue Cross and Blue Shield. So if this is so onerous and a disaster waiting to happen, then maybe my colleagues ought to turn in their card. I think they probably would not go without the coverage, and that is what my constituents have been asking for: give me what you have. Let me have choices. Let me have options. Let me decide for myself.

Now, they may be outraged at AARP, but up until last week they were always throwing it in our faces that this was the legitimate group that negotiated for seniors, and now all of a sudden they have racked up this alleged racketeering, mob-style pharmaceutical alliance with big PhRMA. It is just interesting, when they change their viewpoint and decide to support something we are doing, this is evil incarnate. A week ago they were the gold standard of senior care and consideration; today we are going to burn our cards.

So I ask my colleagues to be the judge: is it politics, or is it process? Is it results, or is it claiming credit? As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, yes, there is a lot more I would like to do to this bill. But part of the process I have learned is compromise, negotiation, and meaningful steps forward to make results achievable for citizens, the people that pay our salary that send us to work.

When I go home after reviewing this bill and looking at its contents, I know in my heart I can look at seniors, whether they live in Lake Worth, Port St. Lucie, Punta Gorda, Okeechobee; whether they are wealthy or poor, whatever their ethnic background, whatever their family composition, that I will be able to look them in the eye and say, this is a better program than it was last month and last year.

Mr. Speaker, with that I know the hour is late, and I sincerely appreciate, as I have worked with the gentlewoman from Oregon on a number of issues, and we care deeply about health care; we share common objectives and common goals. But I think the characterization of this bill is overstated in its demagoguery. I think if we look at what is being provided and the full range of services, people should come

away from this bill knowing this is an important, critical first step to providing prescription drug coverage for our seniors. Today, at this hour, seniors have absolutely zero coverage by the Federal Government for prescription drugs.

If there is any indication that what we are about to embark on by those who suggest this is not a benefit, then they have not read the calculation. Just do the math along with me. From $3,600 to $5,000, the example used by the gentleman from California, if you spent $5,000, you are only paying $900; well, do the math. From $3,600 to $5,000 is $1,400. Your obligation is a 5 percent copay of that. So it does not take rocket science to figure out that is $70. That means you have $1,330 of a benefit there alone. If you take the front end, if you take the front end and you look at the deductible and the $2,200 amount, you are talking about roughly $900 to $1,100. So if you add those two together, there is about $2,430 of benefit for a person that spends $5,000, not counting the $600 and the discount card, plus the discounts achieved. So if we reflect on all of those numbers and you hear these numbers thrown around, get out a calculator, we will supply the numbers. It is not that difficult.

My final statement will be to those who say our seniors do not understand enough of what they are doing to be able to figure these new processes or new bills out. Well, do my colleagues know what? The generation I am talking about managed their way through the depression, they survived World War II, they taught us how to ride our bikes and drive our cars. They raised us. They fought wars. They have been able to succeed in life on their own without the Federal Government dumbing them down and acting like they cannot make choices.

The Medicare bill we are about to bring to this floor represents significant, important, fundamental change. It represents increasing opportunity to gain wellness care. It represents prescription drug coverage for the first time in this Nation's history.

The Congress was controlled by the Democrats in 1965, when Medicare was introduced, to 1995 when the Republicans took over and, in that span of time, no prescription drugs were added. So I ask the basic question. I have been working on it since I came to Congress in 1995. We finally have a product on the floor in 2003, a lot later than I would have liked to, but under our majority, with President Bush and the Senate majority in Republican hands, we are about to embark on a wellness Medicare program for the 21st century.

So I appreciate the time of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and I appreciate the House's indulgence.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Medicare conferees are about to wrap up their important work on providing a prescription drug coverage plan for America's seniors; and I am excited about the impact it will have on my district, the 16th Congressional District of Florida, which has the fifth largest population of Medicare-eligible seniors in America. Legislation I have worked on over 4 years with Senator Hagel includes the drug discount card which is part of this historic landmark legislation which will provide for over 40 million seniors the opportunity to receive up to a 25 percent discount on their prescription drug costs.

This is good news for seniors, welcomed good news for our seniors in the 16th Congressional District, and I am hopeful as we continue our bipartisan negotiations that when we conclude our work on Medicare, it will not only be reformed, it will become cost effective, and it will also contain the vital new programs necessary to modernize for the first time in over 35 years this vitally important safety net, a medical delivery system for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the drug discount card, I applaud the White House for their leadership in taking the idea of Senator Hagel and myself to make it permanent law, and we welcome the opportunity to reach out to seniors with this good plan.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for calling a hearing yesterday to examine the failure of our system to protect our children. It was a very, very difficult hearing for those of us who attended to listen to the traumatic and heartbreaking story of four young men in a family, the Jackson family of New Jersey.

As someone who has worked on child protection for my career in the Congress and in the State legislature and as cochairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I was shocked to hear and to see the photos of these four young men who were suffering at the hands of their adoptive parents. What struck me even more, or at least made me more outrageous, was the fact that the Division of Youth and Family Services from New Jersey had visited the home of this family over 38 times in the past several years.

What did they fail to observe in these visits? For one, they failed to observe a 19-year-old boy who weighed just 45 pounds and was a mere 4 feet tall; a 14-year-old boy who was 3 feet in height and, I believe, less than 40 pounds. Where were they protecting these children?

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, most Americans treat their pets better than New Jersey cared for their children. We heard arguments, which we always do when there is a child tragedy, that, A, we lack resources and funding, we have too many caseloads. Those excuses and finger-pointing and blame-gaming must stop, because they are outrageous accusations suggesting money was at the root of the children's problems. The family received over $30,000 annually in a subsidy to care for these children from the Federal and State government. $30,000. There is no excuse that money, or shortage of money, was the reason these children were starved. Thirty-eight visits by a caseworker to this house indicates obviously that they had a routine appearance in the household.

What did they fail to observe? One thing they failed to observe is that there were locks on the doors to the kitchen, not allowing the children to come into this home, into their own kitchen to eat. When you look at the photos, and you have probably seen these photos if you have picked up any paper in this country because they have been blasted across the headlines of every newspaper in America, including both TV and print journalists.

We have to in this country get a handle on this problem because this is sickening to its core that children that would be in the hands of people would be allowed to be treated so miserably. And regrettably at yesterday's hearing a person, a man of the cloth from the church where the Jackson family attends, actually got up and defended the parents and started to blame the children, suggesting they had eating disorders, that they were violent children. We are talking about 19, 17 and younger than that. I would have accepted some of that argument from this reverend had the family sought medical attention or had the family chosen to return the children to foster care because they were too difficult to care for. But no, they did not do any of that. What they did was cash checks from the welfare system and then fail to feed the children.

Testimony from children's services indicate all of these boys have now had remarkable weight gain in the last several weeks. So the argument put forward by the reverend that these children were eating three square meals a day and they suffered from eating disorders is absolutely false and spurious when you look at the results of the care and feeding under Division of Youth Services of that State.

At the end of the day, and fortunately for the gentleman from California's leadership in calling this hearing, we may get to the bottom of some of these problems, but we must act quickly. We are not talking about overdue library books, we are talking about human life. We are talking about children who are allowed to starve, we are talking about a system that is run amuck, and we are talking about only getting a response when some politician's job is on the line.

It is time to get serious. It is time to get to the job of protecting our children. I only hope that there is never again an example like the Jackson family suffering at the hands of a State agency.

Mr. Speaker, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we will celebrate America's heroes and those are our veterans.

Since President Bush and Secretary Principi have taken office, one as President, one as the head of the VA, we have opened 194 new community clinics for a total of 676 clinics; 87 percent of the veterans now live within 30 minutes of a VA medical facility.

We have increased enrollment, increased outpatient visits. We have reduced waiting times for our veterans. We have increased prescription drugs coverage for our veterans. We lead for all veterans health clinic quality indicators throughout the entire scope of these facilities.

We have increased homeless veterans outreach with a $35 million collaborative program with HUD and HHS. We have reduced the inventory of related claims from over 432,000 to 253,000. We have reduced waiting times for claims answers. We have increased national cemeteries, now six new cemeteries: Atlanta, Detroit, South Florida, Fort Sill, Pittsburg, and Sacramento. We remain on course to complete our national shrine commitment to improve the appearance of our national cemeteries.

Veterans have received great response from this administration. We are proud of our record.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in Washington here on a Monday and obviously reflect on the past week, and hope that we have seen some brighter economic news emerging: The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the NASDAQ, unemployment numbers dropping slightly. Even though we are still concerned about unemployment, we are making progress.

Some of the other intrinsic things that we can judge the economy by are starting to show real signs of progress. Numbers of companies reporting record earnings, improved performance, back order of supplies in inventory diminishing, which is all pointing us in the right direction that this President and Congress has delivered an economic package, a tax incentive package that is starting to stimulate, albeit slowly, the economy back into a performing economic model.

We have more to do, and the Committee on Ways and Means will start debating next week opportunities to create jobs here in this country by providing the economic and tax incentives for corporations to remain here in the United States, producing jobs, providing incomes and hopefully financial stability for Americans everywhere. So we will be reporting that bill out next week, bringing it to the floor hopefully with the cooperation of both the Democrats and Republicans to assure that we have the kind of economic job producing model that will create the incentives for our citizens to once again return to the active workforce and create the kind of economies that are so vitally important to this Nation.

So I want to salute our committee, particularly the Committee on Ways and Means, for undertaking what will be a very difficult task. There are a lot of people who would be opposed to any tax relief whatsoever, but if they look at the significance and substance of this bill, they will see this is, in fact, earmarking to create jobs, manufacturing jobs to States like North Carolina and Georgia and Pennsylvania and, of course, the high-tech corridor in California.

So all of these things are important, the debate is important, and so I join with my colleagues in saluting in particular this President, saluting our efforts in Iraq. Our prayers are with our troops there as we continue to liberate Iraqis from the grips of Saddam Hussein. It has been difficult. We have had loss of lives, but at the same time, if we look at the progress we have made, we will see that we are starting to find great solutions to the problem in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) for introducing and honoring Pope John Paul II. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I am grateful we are discussing it today, the 25th anniversary of his papacy.

As a Roman Catholic whose grandmother came to America from Poland, nothing has made me or my family more proud of our heritage than has Pope John Paul II. For the last 25 years, he has been a constant reminder that everything is obtainable if you pour your heart and soul into the work and trust in God's guidance.

Faced with adversity since his own childhood, Pope John Paul II has always persevered and uplifted those cast aside by society, giving them hope through his compassion and through his example. Whether it was surviving the Nazi reign in Poland, or helping heroes like Ronald Reagan end the grip of communism on the world, Pope John Paul II never met a fight that was bigger or more powerful than his vision and his faith.

And while past religious beliefs were often barriers, Pope John II accomplished a mission to bridge those divides no matter how daunting the task or how deep the divide. He has elected the first non-Italian pontiff in 455 years. He was the first pontiff from Poland, and the first pontiff from a country headed by a Marxist and atheist government, all circumstances that would pose huge challenges for anyone. My Polish grandmother, who came to America, knew some of those same entrenched barriers and stereotypes that this great man had to overcome at the start of his election. But in the 25 years since that election, Pope John Paul II has long surmounted those challenges and has become the world's leading voice against oppression, tyranny and injustice.

Cardinal Ratzinger said, ``You turn to young and old, rich and poor, powerful and humble, and always showed according to the example of Jesus Christ, a particular love for the poor and the defenseless.'' In his prayer this weekend in St. Peter's Square, ``I renew in the hands of Mary, beloved Mother, the gift of myself, of the present and the future, everything will be done according to your will. Supreme Pastor, stay among us so that we can proceed with you securely to the house of the Father.''

Mr. Speaker, he is a real-life hero and a role model in a world that has far too few, and I join my colleagues in honoring Pope John Paul II in commemorating his 25th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and high honor to have Bishop Wenski visiting with us today. The Bishop was born in West Palm Beach, Florida, and grew up in Lake Worth, my hometown, where he attended Catholic school at his home parish, Sacred Heart.

Bishop Wenski has provided for the pastoral and spiritual needs of the Haitian communities of south Florida. Through the 1980s, he conducted a circuit-riding ministry that led him to help establish Haitian-Catholic communities from Homestead in the south to Fort Pierce to the north, Immokalee to the west and Fort Lauderdale to the east.

In late 1996, he spearheaded a relief operation that delivered over 150,000 pounds of food to Caritas Cuba, the social service arm of the Catholic Church in Cuba, for distribution to people left homeless by Hurricane Lilly. This was the first time that Cubans in Miami participated in a humanitarian relief effort directed to their native land of Cuba.

In 2001, Governor Jeb Bush appointed him to the Florida Council on Homelessness.

Bishop Wenski speaks Haitian, Creole and Spanish fluently and preaches and celebrates mass regularly in both languages. He also has knowledge of Polish, the language of his immigrant father and Polish- American mother, as is my family of Polish-American descent.

Pope John Paul II appointed Bishop Wenski as coadjutor bishop of the Dioceses of Orlando on July 1, and I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), among others, join me in welcoming their new bishop of Orlando. He is the only native Floridian serving as bishop in our great State of Florida, and Bishop Wenski's motto is: All things to all men, Corinthians 9:22.

Mr. Speaker, in picking up the USA Today's money section: ``Economy: Good News, Prices Tame, Jobless Claims Down.'' Coca-Cola's earnings up 12 percent. IBM earnings rise 3 percent, will add jobs. Apple swings to a quarterly profit based on back-to-school sales. Intel sees quarterly profits soar. Harley Davidson cruises to record profits.

These are as a result of this administration and this Congress's passing tax relief for American families. The Committee on Ways and Means will be considering additional tax relief for corporations to keep domestic employment higher than it is currently to save jobs in America.

Now, despite the pessimism you have heard from the nine Presidential candidates on the other side of the aisle, we are winning the war both in the economy and we are winning the war in Iraq. I wish the nine people running for the high office of President would be more supportive of this administration, more supportive of our troops in Iraq, and more supportive of the economy.

America's best days are yet ahead, not behind us; but the other side would lead you to believe the worst is yet to come. Let us be positive. Let us be optimistic. This is a great Nation. We have great opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Gary Carter on his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. On Sunday, July 27, 2003 Gary became the 14th catcher to be enshrined into the 256-member club.

Mr. Speaker, Gary brings with his induction a phenomenal record of talent and service.

After being selected in the third round of the 1972 free agent draft by the Montreal Expos, Gary made the Major League Baseball (MLB) club in 1974. A year later, he was selected as an All-Star and named the Sporting News National League Rookie of the Year. From there, ``The Kid''--the nickname he acquired because of his ever-present smile and youthful passion for the game--led the Expos to their first, and so far only, playoff appearance in 1981.

In 1985, he was traded to the New York Mets. That year, he proved a steady hand in leading a young Mets team to a second-place finish. However, it was the following year--1986--that proved to be the crowning achievement in Gary Carter's illustrious career. That was the year the Mets rocketed to the top of the National League East, capturing the division title and eventually the World Series Championship over the Boston Red Sox.

Gary remained the Mets' catcher through 1989. After single-seasons with the San Francisco Giants and then the Los Angeles Dodgers, he returned in 1992 to the team that gave him his first shot in the majors--the Expos--where he finished his star-studded, 19-year career.

After retirement, Gary continued to work in the game as a broadcaster for the Florida Marlins and the Montreal Expos. In 2002, he was named a minor league catching instructor for the New York Mets.

What has always impressed me the most about Gary is not only his on- field accomplishments, but his steadfast commitment to his community in Florida. Gary has been a key player in helping to raise more than $6 million for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society by hosting golf tournaments at various Palm Beach County courses. The Gary Carter Foundation based in West Palm Beach has been instrumental in having thousands of dollars in computers, software and books donated to Palm Beach County schools as well as gifts to local children who make strides in the ``Reading Counts'' program.

For all of his wonderful contributions both to baseball and to our community, I want to offer this tribute in the Congressional Record to our friend, a community leader and Hall of Famer--Gary Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great enthusiasm to honor and congratulate the East Boynton Beach Little League team and their tremendous accomplishment of competing in the Little League World Series. Their 9-to-2 victory over New England on August 23, 2003 earned them the eighth National Title for the State of Florida and the first for Palm Beach County. This amazing feat earned them a spot in the World Series Title Game against Japan.

In 1939 Carl Stotz founded Little League Baseball in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Since the inception of the Little League World Series in 1947, the tournament has grown to encompass not only national teams, but teams from all around the globe. It has become the culmination of the world's largest tournament in any sport. East Boynton and Japan were the remaining two teams that survived from 7,000 Little League all-star teams that began play in July.

The East Boynton Beach Little League team was extremely impressive in the way they displayed their extraordinary skills on the field. Their ever-present smiles and the joy they expressed reminded every baseball fan of what the game is all about. Their skills and attitudes both on and off the field are a direct correlation to the teaching and dedication showed by their coaches and parents. My hat is off to coaches Ken Emerson, Joe Irene and Tony Travis; and players Patrick Mullen, Matt Overton, Devon Travis, Richie DeJesus, Jordan Irene, Andrew Weaver, Ricky Sabatino, R.J. Neal, Michael Broad, Cody Emerson and Benny Townend.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the East Boynton Beach Little League team. They made Palm Beach County, the State of Florida, and our nation very proud.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 53 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, July 18, 2003, at 9 a.m.