Michael Bilirakis

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. I appreciate it so very much. I will not take the full 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from New York said, last fall, the President appointed Mr. Richard Beattie as special emissary to Cyprus to lend new impetus in resolving the Cyprus problem. Mr. Beattie, along with State Department Special Cyprus Coordinator, James Williams, have made several trips to Cyprus stressing U.S. resolve in achieving a lasting solution to the problems there. However, it is evident, Mr. Speaker, that a solution to the 21-year- old problem on Cyprus will not be found until tensions are lessened on the island and the Turkish side agrees to come to the table and negotiate. I am satisfied that the Government of Cyprus remains committed to seeking a peaceful, just, and viable solution. The acceptance by the Turkish side of U.N. Resolution 939 and of Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides' demilitarization proposal would substantially enhance the prospects of a negotiated settlement. This past weekend, in my home in Florida, a gentleman said to me that in all the history of the country of Turkey, voluntary negotiations and agreements based on those negotiations are absent. He said, ``they don't negotiate.'' I truly hope that he is wrong. Turkey has many internal problems. American taxpayer dollars are intended to help them with those problems, not to help them to wage invasions on their neighbors and to illegally occupy other lands. Common sense, a true caring for their own people, their domestic needs, and world opinion all would seem to dictate that Turkey would want to work things out on a problem that they just do not need. I feel that we in the Congress have a responsibility to use our influence to see that Cyprus is made whole again, to rescue the thousands of Greek-Cypriots who have become refugees in the land of their birth. Like those faithful Cypriots in my district and elsewhere, we must do our utmost in this cause.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this subject of my special order.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlewoman for her wonderful words. Very quickly, getting back to demilitarization. Demilitarization is crucial to a satisfactory resolution of the division of this island- nation. In fact, this couldn't have been made more clear than in a recent report submitted to the U.N. Security Council regarding its resolution renewing the U.N. peace-keeping force in Cyprus. In that report, U.N. Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, referred to occupied Cyprus as ``one of the most highly militarized areas in the world.'' Demilitarization would alleviate the security concerns of all parties and substantially enhance the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the problem. In addition to these efforts, the United States and the international community have undertaken numerous other endeavors to end the occupation, but again and again the Turkish side has resisted. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman and thank him for his interest during all the time you have been here in the Congress and on all of the other Hellenic issues, and we appreciate your concern and your caring, I say to the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will have another chance when the House International Relations Committee begins its mark-up of House Concurrent Resolution 42, introduced by my colleague from New York [Mr. Engel] and of which I am an original cosponsor. This important resolution calls for the demilitarization of Cyprus and insists that all parties to the dispute regarding Cyprus agree to seek a solution based upon relevant U.N. resolutions, including provisions of Security Council Resolution 939. Resolution 939 reaffirms that a solution to the Cyprus problem be based upon a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty, citizenship and international personality. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], who has truly been an inspiration on this issue.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Clearly exported to Cyprus.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also thank the gentleman and commend the gentleman and the others for basically sharing the facts and the truth regarding the Medicare picture with our viewers out there. Mr. Speaker, Thursday, July 20, marks the twenty-first anniversary of the illegal invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. I rise here today, as I have since I first came to the Congress in 1983, to remind us all of this sad day in the history of the Republic of Cyprus. We must all be reminded that the Green Line, separating the northern part of the island--some 40 percent and Turkish-occupied--from the free portion is the only wall remaining in the world dividing a country. We must be reminded that our conduct here in this Congress has played a major part in ensuring that wall continues to stand. On July 20, 1974, 6,000 Turkish troops and 40 tanks landed on the north coast of Cyprus. Turkish forces captured almost 40 percent of Cyprus, representing 70 percent of the country's economic health. As a result of Turkey's illegal invasion, 1,619 people have never been seen again. Among these 1,619 missing individuals, five are United States citizens. In addition, more than 200,000 Cypriots were forcibly driven from their homes. They are now refugees--a people without a home. Today, Turkey continues its occupation of the northern portion of Cyprus, maintaining more than 35,000 troops and some 65,000 settlers there. As I previously mentioned, a barbed wire fence, known as the Green Line, cuts across the island separating thousands of Greek Cypriots from the towns and communities in which they and their families had previously lived for generations. As you might guess, this has led to frequent incidents and disputes-- and in the near future, the settlers and occupying troops will outnumber the indigenous Turkish Cypriots. [[Page H 7164]] At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 483, legislation to extend and expand the Medicare Select Program. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 was established by a Democratic Congress, under which insurers could market an additional Medigap product, an additional Medigap choice, known as Medicare select. Medicare select policies are the same as other Medigap policies except that supplemental benefits are paid only if services are provided through designated providers. The demonstration was limited to 15 States and expired December 31, 1994. The demonstration was extended through June 30, 1995, in the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994. The conference report on Medicare select provides that: First, Medicare select is extended to all 50 States for a 3-year period. The Secretary is required to conduct a study comparing Medicare select policies with other Medigap policies in terms of cost, quality, and access. Further, it provides that Medicare select will remain in effect unless the Secretary determines, based on the results of the study, that Medicare select has: First, not resulted in savings of premium costs to beneficiaries compared to non-select Medigap policies; second, resulted in significant additional expenditures for the Medicare Program; or third, resulted in diminished access and quality of care. Second, GAO is required to conduct a study by June 30, 1996 to determine the extent to which individuals who are continuously covered under Medigap policies are subject to medical underwriting if they switch plans and to identify options, if necessary, for modifying the Medigap market to address this issue. Select policies do not affect the obligation of Medicare to pay its portion of the bill. Beneficiaries who obtain covered services through one of the network's preferred providers will generally have their benefits paid in full. Under OBRA 1990, the select plan is also required to pay full benefits for emergency and urgent-out-of-area care provided by non-network providers. Select policies do not remove a beneficiary's freedom to choose any fee-for-service provider. If a beneficiary is unhappy with a Medicare select provider for any reason, that person may opt out at any time to get off the plan and pick up any other Medigap policy, or he can remain in the plan and go to any provider, and Medicare will pay if it is a covered service. However, in that case, the beneficiary may be liable for a deductible and coinsurance. An insurer marketing a select policy is required under OBRA 1990 to demonstrate that its network of providers offers sufficient access to subscribers and that it has an ongoing quality assurance program. It must also provide full and documented disclosure, at the time of enrollment, of: network restrictions; provisions for out-of-area and emergency coverage and availability; and cost of Medigap policies without the network restrictions. In addition, Medicare select policies are governed by the same types of regulations imposed on Medigap policies concerning: limitations on preexisting conditions; loss ratios; portability; guaranteed renewal, and open enrollment. OBRA 1990 also included significant penalties for Select plans that: Restrict the use of medically necessary services; charge excessive premiums; expel an enrollee except for nonpayment of premiums; or withhold required explanations or fail to obtain required acknowledgements at the time of enrollment. The following are Medicare select demonstration States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of October 1994, approximately 450,000 beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare select; while the majority are covered through Blue Cross/ Blue Shield plans, approximately 50 companies offer Medicare select products. Current authority for the program expires in June 1995. Failure to extend the authority for the program would result in the inability of insurers to enroll new beneficiaries in Medicare Select Programs as of July 1995, although they could continue to serve current enrollees. This would lead to higher premiums for enrollees and the potential withdrawal of insurers from the market. Is that what we want? It seems to me that none of our people want that. The gentleman from California has stated that Medicare select plans are not adequately regulated and has told us how terrible the plans are. Well, that is his opinion. Here are the facts: The National Association of Insurance Commissioners [NAIC] has testified in favor of the program and stated that out of the 10 Medicare select States that report into the NAIC's Complaint Data System, there were only 9 Medicare select complaints last year. The program has been a very good one for senior citizens. In August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top Medigap insurers nationwide. Eight out of ten of the top-rated 15 Medigap plans were Medicare Select Plans. It is a very popular program in my home State of Florida where some 13,000 Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we may continue to provide older Americans with an often needed and in my opinion, necessary option.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the conference report on Medicare Select. I come to the floor with a strong feeling of deja vu. When I appeared on the floor to speak in favor of passage of H.R. 483 earlier this spring, I indicated how important the Medicare Select Program was and how the fate of half a million beneficiaries rested on the action taken by the House. The road to this point, in my view has been unnecessarily long. If it were not for the action on the other side of the aisle, we would not be here at the 11th hour seeking passage of a rule to bring this 2 page conference report to the House floor. We have delayed long enough. Medicare Select is a very simple program. It is a particular type of MediGap policy which allows seniors to choose a medicare benefits package modeled on a preferred provider delivery system of health care. The Medicare Select policy allows seniors to buy a less expensive MediGap insurance policy which wraps around the traditional medicare benefit. It represents the new wave of innovative managed care delivery options that the private sector is currently using to hold down the rise in health care costs. Let us remember that for those elderly who choose a MediGap policy, it is 1 of 11 options currently available. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so that we can enact this legislation swiftly. Our senior citizens deserve no less.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as an original cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 79, in strong support of this legislation to protect our flag from desecration. I congratulate my colleague and friend from New York for introducing this measure and for his persistence in bringing it to the floor today. Because of what America is, our flag should always be one of our most cherished and revered symbols. Therefore, I was astounded and gravely disappointed by the 1989 Supreme Court decision legitimizing desecration of our flag as protected conduct. I was one of those in Congress at the time who immediately afterward introduced legislation to reverse it. However, I must tell you that I took this step not at all lightly. I believed that to reverse this decision of the Supreme Court, one course and one course only was open to us: Amending the U.S. Constitution. Today we seek to do just that with this legislation authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States. My friends, I have to tell you that I never believed that the issue involved is one of free speech--that burning the flag is a form of protest against government policies. The American flag does not stand for any particular government policy or decision or official. It stands for the United States of America, and to desecrate it means that America should not exist--that freedom and democracy should not exist-- that, in fact, right to peaceful protest should not exist. I cannot and will not support this idea. It has been said that allowing the desecration of the flag is the best way to prove we believe in equal freedom for those with whom we disagree. The late Senator from Illinois, Everett M. Dirksen, once answered this argument. He called it false and sour. ``A person can revile the flag to his evil heart's content,'' he said, but it is only if his contempt takes physical form--such as trampling, tearing, spitting on and burning the flag--that he can be punished. Only his violence is punished. I could not agree more. Let me repeat, I say that by protecting our flag we deny no one the right of free speech or of peaceful political protest. I will defend the right of anyone to get up and say whatever is on his mind. That is, in fact, the entire point: By defending the flag we ensure that this right never will be denied. All we ask is that the flag be accorded the same respect we offer to those who protest under its freedoms. If livings symbols of freedom and liberty mean nothing, if the ideals and not the evidence are all that matter, why don't we just open up the National Archives and tear up the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? They're just fading, old pieces of paper, aren't they? The fact of the matter is that they are much more than that. They have told generations and generations of immigrants seeking a better life--immigrants like my parents and some of yours--that here in America we believe it is an individual's right to choose, to control his own destiny. Senator Dirksen had it right--he said that: Reverence for our stars and stripes is but our simple tribute to the republic and to all of its hopes and dreams. In this country, we do not pledge allegiance to a king or a President or even a piece of old parchment. We pledge allegiance to a flag because its bright stars and bold stripes mean something that no other flag on Earth today means: Here in America, the people are the Government, and for that reason we will always be free. No, it is not lack of commitment to the flag and the great freedoms and ideals it symbolizes that make me uneasy. What disturbs me is that we as a Nation must go to these lengths--to the extreme of amending the document upon which all of our national history and heritage rests--to reconfirm these very national beliefs. We cannot hold ourselves apart, we cannot claim that we are Americans, and at the same time believe that this flag should be burned or otherwise desecrated. This flag means America, it means that we should be able to disagree. How can anyone believe otherwise? How could anyone not choose freedom over tyranny, justice over injustice, liberty over servitude? This flag--our flag--stands for these great ideals. It is hope, dreams, the very best man can offer the world and the future. Our cemeteries are filled with the bodies of those who had great dreams of productive lives with loving families--dreams that were forfeited in order that you and I and our children would be able to lead better lives. Our freedoms have been bought and paid for by their sacrifice, and we own it to them to ensure that this country can be all that it was meant to be. That does not include contempt and desecration--it requires determined, constructive effort every day. All of this and more is woven into those few yards of cloth. We need to remember that. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this valuable and needed legislation today. Protect our flag and ensure that it's protections will never be compromised.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct the conferees with regard to the conference on the Medicare Select Program. The instruction is virtually incomprehensible. It states that the conferees must resolve the differences between the two bills in light of changes in Medicare contemplated in this year's budget process. Medicare Select is a very simple program: It is simply a demonstration project for a preferred provider network under MediGap policies, the private insurance policies that are designed to fill in specific gaps in the Medicare benefits structure such as deductibles, copayments, and services not covered by the Medicare Program. It is just another MediGap option available to Medicare beneficiaries. The authority for the Medicare Select Program is due to expire at the end of June. The extension of this program has absolutely nothing to do with the budget process we are currently engaged in. In fact, the program is not designed to, nor has it, reduced Medicare costs to the Federal Government. It merely is of help to the seniors. This motion to instruct is asking the conferees to consider the Medicare Select Programs in light of this year's budget process. This effort makes no sense since: First, it is imperative that the conference on Medicare Select be completed before the end of June when the authority for the program expires; second, the budget resolution which [[Page H5581]] just passed the House has a September reporting date for the committees of jurisdiction to act on Medicare; and third, the budget resolution must be conferenced with the Senate budget resolution, which has not yet been passed. It seems that the real purpose of this motion to instruct is to once again try to steer us away from the seriousness of the task ahead of us: To ensure that the Medicare Program is preserved for current and future beneficiaries. I should not have to remind Members that the trustees for the Medicare hospital insurance and supplementary medical insurance trust funds are facing significant financial problems in both the short term and the long term. Under the best estimates of the trustees, the hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted by 2002. In short, the hospital insurance side of the program will not be able to pay its bills because of exploding part A expenditures. Part A is described by the trustees as a program ``severely out of financial balance.'' Not only is the HI trust fund financially out of balance, but spending growth by the supplementary medical insurance [SMI] trust fund is also a concern because the SMI rate of growth is unsustainable. SMI cost growth directly affects Medicare beneficiary part B premiums as well as general revenues from which the largest share of SMI costs are financed. In 1995, premiums paid by enrollees will finance only about 28 percent of annual costs, according to the 1995 trustees' report. Over the next decade, the contribution from general revenues to the SMI trust fund will increase from $46 billion in 1995 to $151 billion in 2004, for an average annual growth rate of over 14 percent. We are deeply concerned about the future of the Medicare Program. We strongly believe any solution to this crisis must be addressed in a bipartisan manner and we are disappointed by the administration's repeated refusal to join this effort. We are particularly alarmed that the President is ignoring the strongest possible warnings from the very individuals he appointed to safeguard the Medicare Program since 4 of 6 trustees are administration officials. The end result of this instruction will be to put in jeopardy the MediGap policies of the 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled in Medicare Select plans. This program is very popular among senior citizens with good reason. In August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top MediGap insurers nationwide. Eight out of ten of the top rated 15 MediGap plans were Medicare Select plans. During our Health Subcommittee hearing on Medicare Select, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners testified in favor of the program and stated that out of the 10 Medicare Select States that report into the NAIC's complaint data system, there were only 9 Medicare Select complaints last year. This instruction is simply a dilatory tactic and should be rejected. Members should think seriously before they cast a vote eliminating the Medicare Select Program.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. As a Member of Congress who represents one of the largest concentrations of older Americans in the United States, I am quite troubled by the 1995 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. In their 1995 report, as has already been reported here many times. The trustees urged Congress to examine the Medicare Program because both trust funds are facing serious financial problems in both the short-term and the long-term. The trustees expressed deep concern about the growth of the program's costs, especially given the past and projected costs of the program. The trustees also urged Congress to control the costs of the Medicare Program through legislation as part of ``broad-based health care reform'' because they indicated that ``prompt, effective, and decisive action is necessary,'' using their words. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is financially out of balance, but spending growth by the supplementary medical insurance [SMI] part B trust fund also is a concern because the rate of growth is unsustainable. The cost growth directly affects Medicare beneficiary part B premiums as well as general revenues from which the largest share of SMI costs are financed. Mr. Speaker, I think we all have to maybe look in the mirror and ask ourselves a question. Are we all truly concerned about saving Medicare or will we continue to use it as political demagogery as is done by some election after election. Maybe the fear is that if we solve the Medicare problem, it will not any longer be available for demagogery. Considering the serious nature of this matter, the Congress in a bipartisan way, and I have not heard much bipartisanship here this morning, in a bipartisan way, and the White House must work together. We must protect current and future Medicare beneficiaries from the looming financial crisis. The trustees have evaluated very carefully the Medicare program in great detail. They now must follow through. We have to basically mandate that they follow through with their recommendations to the Congress for legislative reform, and that is what this legislation is all about. It is a step in the right direction and will enable us to find solutions to the Medicare crisis. For this important reason, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its ladies auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This year more than 126,000 secondary school students participated in the contest, competing for the 54 national scholarships totaling more than $109,000. The contest theme for this year was ``My Vision For America.'' I am proud to announce that one of my constituents, Stephen Jensen, won fourth place honors and a $6,000 scholarship in the Voice of Democracy contest. Stephen is a junior at Tarpon Springs High School and hopes to pursue a career in entertainment or public relations. In his speech, Stephen reminds us all of what can be accomplished when people are united by a common objective. I would like to share Stephen's speech with you. What a vision we must have been. Drenched in sweat, caked with mud, and surrounded by the foul stench of rotting vegetation and debris, over six thousand volunteers toiled in Albany, Georgia this past summer under the blazing July sun to help the people whose lives were devastated by the worst floods in recent history. Side by side we gutted out homes and churches sodden by the floods and stripped the buildings down to their foundations. Sharing in this service gave me a vision of what an American community can accomplish when people are united by a common purpose. There are those in this country who are overwhelmed by another flood sweeping through the streets of our land. The surge of violence and crime, drug abuse, loss of private and public virtue and the erosion of the family are but some of the storm-waters surging over the banks in our country today. Our first reaction is to view these problems with bitterness and despair, but if we can truly hold on to a positive vision, we will not lose hope. Let us share in the view expressed by American poet, Carl Sandburg when he wrote, ``I see America not in the setting sun of a black night of despair ahead of us. I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun, fresh from the burning, creative hand of God. I see great days ahead, great days possible to men and women of will and vision.'' Experiencing great opposition is not unique to Americans today. Are the challenges we face any more difficult than those faced by previous generations? Early colonists struggled with disease, famine, and the [[Page E1012]] rigors of an untamed wilderness. Later, our inexperienced forefathers fought the superior military and economic might of Great Britain to claim their freedom from oppression. In the nineteenth century, America was literally torn apart by Civil War yet a people was freed from slavery. Pioneers of that day endured tragic hardships in settling the West, yet prevailed and helped this country grow to its present dimensions. In this century, Americans have faced World War I and the devastation of the Great Depression, followed almost immediately after by the exhausting conflicts of the second World War. America's foundation was created and strengthened through overcoming all of these trials. My vision for America calls for renewal of the ideals and faith in this country that made our forefathers victorious and America great. It was their commitment to these beliefs that gave them the determination to sacrifice and surmount tremendous obstacles. We as Americans must uphold and heritage of freedom. We must reaffirm respect for the dignity of the individual and respect for our laws and those who work to carry them out. We must acknowledge a higher power and adhere to the principles of honesty, hard work, cooperation with others and loyalty to our country. As President John F. Kennedy declared, ``No nation can remain free unless its people cherish their freedoms, understand the responsibilities they entail, and nurture the will to preserve them.'' Working side by side with fellow American in Albany, I experienced first hand the vision of mankind which has give us strength and hope and courage in ages past as we have faced adversity and challenges. I felt the spirit of brotherhood of putting aside personal differences and working together for the common good. This is the vision which calls out through the Pledge of Allegiance, for us to be--``. . . one nation, under God, indivisible.'' My vision for America is the one bequeathed to each of us, the legacy of our forbearers who sacrificed their lives in every age for all our freedoms. I see an America at peace through the renewed commitment of her people, an America that is still the hope of the world. To this vision I pledge, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, `my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.'

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard Authorization Act. When the House considered similar legislation in the previous Congress, I offered an amendment directing the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report to the relevant House Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation no later than April 1. This report was to have described in detail the status of implementation of the vessel traffic service [VTS] in all ports ranked in the port needs study issued by the Coast Guard in 1991. However, the Coast Guard authorization was not enacted in the 103d Congress. While the VTS system has yet to be implemented in Tampa, after a number of meetings with Coast Guard officials, I am satisfied that the Coast Guard is committed to implementation of this important service as soon as is practicable. For this reason, I am not offering my amendment today. My interest in the VTS began when on August 10, 1993, a collision occurred in a navigation channel outside the entrance to Tampa Bay in Florida, between two tug/barges and a 357-foot freighter. This accident resulted in a thunderous explosion that shot a fireball hundreds of feet into the air. In addition, approximately 380,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the clean-up of this spill was enormous--several million dollars at least. Mr. Chairman, this was not the first accident to occur at the mouth of Tampa Bay. Many of us remember the disaster that occurred in May 1980, when a freighter ran into the Sunshine Skyway Bridge causing one of its spans to collapse. Some 40 people were killed. In fact, the Tampa Bay area has been prominently listed by the Coast Guard as a danger area for cargo ships carrying hazardous materials. As I mentioned earlier, in 1991, the Coast Guard conducted a port needs study on 23 ports across the United States. The goal of this study was to recognize the ports that are most prone to accidents. The study ranked Tampa Bay as one of the top 10 most dangerous ports. The Coast Guard VTS is designed to prevent these types of accidents, and the VTS has been successfully implemented by the Coast Guard in several major port areas. The VTS functions like an air traffic control system. It tracks vessels by radar and assists them in navigating through hazardous areas. Unfortunately, however, under the fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriation bill, further implementation of the VTS was pushed back yet another year because, and I quote from that bill's report language: ``Subsequent to the transmittal of the budget, the committee was advised by the Coast Guard that the schedule for the VTS 2000 program had slipped.'' The report goes on further to say: ``Review of the program's operational requirements and associated cost estimates took the Coast Guard much longer than anticipated.'' Mr. Chairman, the VTS is a vital program that can potentially save lives and save money. Therefore, we cannot afford vague promises and further delays due to undetermined slippage--and I believe we have moved beyond this state of affairs. However, I will be working closely with the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation to ensure that the VTS is implemented as soon as possible. This was the purpose of my amendment in the last Congress and I was pleased that it was adopted by this Chamber without dissent. VTS is a cost-effective answer to environmental disasters, such as the one that took place in Tampa Bay in 1993. Nationally, the cost to clean up these types of accidents far exceeds the funding requested by the Department of Transportation to operate the VTS program. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear that I believe the Coast Guard must speed up its implementation of the VTS in all the ports listed in the port needs study. Likewise, I believe it is imperative that this Congress work with the Coast Guard in making sure that this fiscally responsible program is put into place. I express this desire, not only in memory of the lives that have been lost in accidents such as those that I have described, but for the

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues Representative John Edward Porter and Representative Frank Pallone to commemorate and remember the victims of the Armenian genocide, a sad chapter of world history that remains unrecognized by our Government to this day. As many of my colleagues have already stated, between the years of 1915 and 1923, a systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide by the Ottoman Turkish Government resulted in the deaths of more than 1\1/2\ million Armenians and the exile of a Nation from its historic homeland. One witness noted the ferocity of the attack by stating that the streets ran with blood. The United States Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry Morgenthau, a witness to the genocide, noted that ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is long past time for the Congress to officially recognize the fact that such a terrible crime against humanity took place. To do less would be irresponsible and wrong. The United States Archives contain extensive documentation regarding the Ottomon Turkish Government's premeditated attack on the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923. The Archives also document American interventions to prevent the full realization of Ottoman Turkey's genocidal plan and provide humanitarian assistance to those who survived. Mr. Speaker, how long will we as a Nation turn our backs on this vicious crime? How long can we let it escape official documentation? It is time that America of today take its rightful place alongside of America of that day, the America of Henry Morgenthau, the America that stood up to the Ottoman depredations and offered what assistance it could. Surely, this is the least we can do.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, a very special event will be taking place in my district later this month. The Hillsborough County Friends of the Parks and the Veterans Memorial Museum Committee are hosting the Second Annual Salute to Vietnam Veterans at Edward Medard Park. This week-long salute is to honor all Vietnam veterans and will include the moving wall. This event is dedicated to Vietnam veterans and their families. The moving wall is a one-half scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. It is 250 feet long and contains the names of 58,191 Americans killed during the Vietnam war. The wall also includes the names of American servicemembers still unaccounted for. Eight women are listed among the names listed on the Wall. Seven of them were Army nurses and one was an Air Force nurse. There are also 16 chaplains listed on the Memorial. Two of these men were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The moving wall is a powerful symbol. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have visited it in or near their communities. I am proud to say that on the previous occasions when it has been displayed in Florida, approximately 300,000 Floridians have visited the moving wall. As of January 1, 1993, the memorial has been displayed in 315 communities throughout the United States and Canada. In addition, it has been displayed in Puerto Rico and Guam. Requests to have the wall have come from as far away as Australia, Ireland, and Germany. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the organizers of this great event. It is a stirring reminder of just how blessed we are in the modern world to live in a free society, and will not allow us to forget that this blessing is due to the sacrifices of our friends, relatives, neighbors, and countrymen who served us all when duty called. For as long as the American soldier stands ready to support his country and its allies, the forces of oppression and injustice will be held in check. For this, the American serviceman--the veteran--must never be forgotten.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of legislation to extend the current Medicare Select Program which is scheduled to expire in June. On January 11, 1995, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] introduced H.R. 483, a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security Act to permit Medicare select policies to be offered in all States, and for other purposes. That bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, the principal committee of jurisdiction and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. On February 15, 1995, the Health and Environment Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Medicare select and issues related to Medicare managed care. On March 22, 1995, the subcommittee met and marked up H.R. 483 and approved the bill for full committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On Monday, April 3, 1995, the full Commerce Committee met and ordered H.R. 483 reported to the House. as amended, by a voice vote. As ordered reported by the Commerce Committee, H.R. 483 would extend the Medicare Select Program for an additional 5 years and expand the coverage to include all 50 States and this provides for a more true analyses as a demonstration project. The Committee on Ways and Means also completed action on H.R. 483, and reported a different version of the legislation to the House. The Ways and Means Committee version of the bill extends the Medicare Select Program to all 50 States on a permanent basis. Since the time that both committees completed action on H.R. 483, the committees have met and have developed a consensus bill, H.R. 1391, which was introduced in the House on April 4. The rule the House just passed makes in order the text of H.R. 1391. The bill the House is considering would extend the Medicare Select Program for a 5 year period and expands the coverage to all 50 States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study comparing the health care costs, quality of care, and access to services under Medicare select policies with other MediGap policies. This study must be completed by the end of 1998. Based on the results of this study. The Secretary must make a determination that the Medicare Select Program is permanent unless the study finds that: (1) Medicare select has not resulted in savings to Medicare select enrollees. (2) it has or (3) it has significantly diminished access to and quality of care. Congress needs to enact legislation to extend this program now. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners [NAIC] has testified in favor of the program and stated that out of the 10 Medicare select States that report into the NAIC's Complaint Data System, there were only 9 Medicare select complaints last year. The program has been a very good one for senior citizens. In August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top Medigap insurers nationwide. Eight out of 10 of the top-rated 15 MediGap plans were Medicare select plans. It is a very popular program in my home State of Florida where some 13,000 Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we may continue to provide older Americans with an often needed and in my opinion, necessary option.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Olders Persons Act, legislation of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am delighted to tell my colleagues that this legislation creates no new programs, expands no bureaucracies, helps our seniors--and will cost us virtually nothing. It merely clears up some of the tortured ``logic'' of federal regulation touched off when the Congress sought to amend the Fair Housing Act in 1988. It was a classic example of the law of unintended effects. In a good-faith effort to prohibit housing discrimination, the Federal Government managed to virtually prohibit senior citizen retirement communities. The more loopholes the Congress sought to open to allow these communities to safety slip through this vague and ill- written law. The more bureaucratic hurdles and hoops were created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These communities were forced to supply ``significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons.'' Unfortunately, HUD chose not to define what these services or facilities should be. Seniors communities often sunk hundreds of dollars into service improvements only to be denied HUD certification anyway. Last year, under pressure from citizens across the country, HUD attempted to clarify this requirement. Instead, it merely added 59 more pages of proposed rules and regulations. HUD suggestions for costly congregate dinning facilities, daily meal delivery and other services regardless of whether they were needed or already available elsewhere led to even more confusion and frustration. Last month, HUD tried again to clear the bureaucratic swamp it had created following another round of citizen complaints. Again, no suggested facilities were advanced--including, as was reported in the Wall Street Journal, ``Bingo clubs, bowling trips and TAI-CHI classes.'' It is obvious to me that the only way we are going to drain this swamp is by wiping this outlandish requirement for significant facilities and services off the books entirely--which is what the bill before us does. I urge my colleagues to strike a blow for fairness and against mind- numbing, bureaucratic nonsense by voting for this legislation today.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, since 1987, Congress has approved legislation declaring April 9 as ``Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day.'' These men and women are among our greatest patriots and I cannot think of a group more deserving of remembrance and special recognition than our former prisoners of war. Under the new rules adopted at the start of this session, Congress will not enact commemorative legislation this year. That being the case, we should take the time now to honor the Americans held captive in past conflicts and wars. All those who have been prisoners of war know the true meaning of freedom and have paid a tremendous price for the liberty we all cherish. Their service and sacrifice, and that of their fellow veterans, make possible our way of life. Some of you may wonder why April 9 was chosen as a day for recognition for former prisoners of war. It was on April 9, 1942, that the largest contingent of American forces ever were taken prisoner with the fall of Bataan in the Philippines during World War II. Many of those taken prisoner did not survive the infamous Bataan Death March that followed or the nearly 4 years of captivity in deplorable prisoner of war camps throughout the Far East. Many of those that did survive were left with permanent disabilities from the brutalities that they endured. The 9th of April is also the day on which Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appatomax, VA, to end the Civil War between the North and South. On that day, prisoners from both sides were released and allowed to return home. While April 9 commemorates the fall of Bataan and the release of prisoners at the end of the Civil War, the significance of this day extends to all Americans who were ever held prisoner by enemy forces. The brutal treatment and torture to which these POW's were subjected by their captors in violation of fundamental standards of morality and international law ensured that many did not survive. Yet, despite the suffering inflicted upon them, American POW's have demonstrated an unfailing devotion to duty, honor, and country. Their service helped preserve our freedom through two world wars, regional conflicts of the cold war era, and since. They have given more than most Americans will be called upon to give for their country. Today, the American Ex-Prisoners of War, an organization comprised of former POW's--both military and civilian--is raising funds to build the National Prisoner of War Museum. This museum will be located at the site of the Civil War prison camp in Andersonville, GA. It will be a legacy for all generations that follow and will contain historic accounts and memorabilia that pertain to former American prisoners from all wars. Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day serves as a poignant reminder of the sacrifice and commitment of all the American men and women whose patriotism has been tested by the chains of enemy captivity. Their experiences underscore our debt to those who place their lives in harm's way and stand willing to trade their liberty for ours. As a Nation, we must always remember the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in paying special tribute to former prisoners of war. There is little we can do to repay these men and women, but we can recognize their invaluable contribution.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for the consideration of legislation to extend the current Medicare Select Program which is scheduled to expire in June. On January 11, 1995, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, introduced H.R. 483, a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security Act to permit Medicare Select policies to be offered in all States, and for other purposes. That bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce as the committee of primary jurisdiction and in addition, to the Committee on Ways and Means. On February 15, 1995, our Health and Environment Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Medicare Select and issues related to Medicare managed care. On March 22, 1995, the subcommittee met and marked up H.R. 483 and approved the bill for full committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On Monday, April 3, 1995, the full Commerce Committee met and ordered H.R. 483 reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. As ordered reported by the Commerce Committee, H.R. 483 would extend the Medicare Select Program for an additional 5 years and expand the coverage to include all 50 States in order to continue in an improved way the demonstration project, which is really what we are trying to do. The Committee on Ways and Means also completed action on H.R. 483, and reported a different version of the legislation to the House. The Ways and Means Committee version of the bill extends the Medicare Select Program to all 50 States on a permanent basis. Since the time that both committees completed action on H.R. 483, the committees have met and have developed a consensus bill, H.R. 1391, which was introduced in the House on April 4. This rule makes in order the text of H.R. 1391. The bill to be considered would extend the Medicare Select Program for a 5-year period and expands the coverage to all 50 States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study comparing the health care costs, quality of care, and access to services under Medicare select policies with other Medigap policies. This study must be completed by the end of 1998. Based on the results of this study, the Secretary must make a determination that the Medicare Select Program is permanent unless the study finds that, first, Medicare select has not resulted in savings to Medicare select enrollees, second, it has led to significant expenditures in the Medicare Program, or third, it has significantly diminished access to and quality of care. I think this bill provides for a reasonable balance that will permit a valuable and innovative program for our senior citizens to be continued while permitting a more informed evaluation of the program. We must remember that Medicare select is a Medigap insurance policy which provides seniors with another option to receive medical care. By giving the elderly more choices within Medigap, we give them the option to pick plans which meet their individual needs. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule that will provide for consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use my time to address three of the provisions of this legislation that are of particular importance to my constituents: the increase in the Social Security earnings test, the repeal of the Clinton administration's tax increases on Social Security benefits, and tax incentives for private long-term care insurance. In 1980, Florida had in excess of 1\1/2\ million individuals aged 65 or older. In 2000, more than 3 million Florida residents will be 65 or older. Florida is first in the Nation in percentage of the population 65 years and older--and by this measure, my district is one of the oldest in the country. Thus, the three provisions of this bill that I am emphasizing today are very important to my constituents. First, as a long-time supporter of eliminating--not just increasing, but eliminating--the earnings test; as a cosponsor of H.R. 300, the Older Americans Freedom to Work Act, in the previous Congress and as a signatory of the Contract With America, I am delighted that we are finally taking action on these matters today. I simply do not understand why--through the current Social Security law--we want to penalize retired individuals willing to work by forcing them to lose a portion of their Social Security benefits if they have income above a certain level. The current earnings test amounts to an additional 33 percent marginal tax rate--on top of existing income taxes--and punishes seniors who choose to remain productive beyond age 64. This makes no sense. We should be encouraging rather than penalizing productive, experienced people who want to work. In fact, our work force benefits greatly from the expertise of older workers--and our young workers can gain much from the experience of their older counterparts. Second, this legislation provides further tax relief to middle-income seniors by repealing the tax increase on Social Security benefits enacted by the previous Congress. I just do not believe that this type of tax burden should be borne by our older Americans, and by reducing the taxable portion of benefits from 85 percent back to just 50 percent--the level prior to enactment of the 1993 Clinton tax law--we can make a bold statement in affirmation of this belief. Finally, let me touch briefly on one final component of this bill, tax incentives for private long-term care insurance and for families caring for a dependent elderly parent or grandparent in the home. As the author of bipartisan consensus health reform and other legislation in the previous Congress that sought to establish similar incentives, I am particularly proud of these provisions. Everyone is concerned with the high cost of long-term care insurance, and with more than 7 million elderly Americans in need of long-term care today, these incentives certainly belong in this package. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage all of my colleagues in the House to reach out to America's seniors today by voting for and passing this legislation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to express my strong support for increasing the Social Security earnings test and eliminating taxes on Social Security recipients. With regard to the Social Security earnings test, currently, older Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 lose, $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,160. I have consistently cosponsored legislation to repeal the limitation placed on the outside earnings of Social Security benefit recipients. Current law, in my opinion, punishes seniors who choose to remain productive beyond age 64. The Senior Citizen's Equity Act, which I strongly support, raises to $30,000 the amount which seniors can earn before losing Social Security benefits. I believe this is a necessary step--we should be encouraging rather than penalizing productive, experienced people who want to work. I also strongly support repealing President Clinton's Social Security benefits tax--in fact, one of the primary reasons I voted against President Clinton's 1993 tax package was due to the additional tax burden it placed on Social Security beneficiaries. I am pleased that the Contract With American includes provisions to repeal this unfair benefits tax. Since I was first elected to Congress, I have always fought to protect the social contract represented by Federal retirement programs, including Social Security. As a Member of Congress who represents one of the largest concentrations of older Americans in the Nation, I am committed to continue this battle to protect the benefits of our seniors. Therefore, I will be supporting the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 when it is voted upon by the House of Representatives this week.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on May 28, 1994, a provocation by Moslem militants in Istanbul, Turkey, took place against the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I, the spiritual leader of 250 million orthodox Christians worldwide including, 5 million residing in the United States. Three bombs were placed in the attic of the building where the patriarch lives and were found shortly before they were set to explode. This episode is ominous, but is only one in a series of provocations against the patriarchate and the orthodox Christian community in Turkey. Yesterday, I introduced legislation expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should use its influence with the Turkish Government, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to suggest that the Turkish Government ensure the proper protection for the patriarchate and all orthodox faithful residing in Turkey. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues who believe in freedom of religion to cosponsor my legislation House Concurrent Resolution 50. The time has come for this Congress to speak out once and for all against Turkey's oppressive human rights record. Please sign on to House Concurrent Resolution 50, thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of this, my special order.