Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House medicare conferees to reject the provision in the House Medicare bill that I believe can be fairly characterized as leading to the privatization of Medicare. The House leadership has cleverly described this provision by calling it premium support. But how much support this premium support provision truly provides beneficiaries should be the subject of an open, honest and detailed debate tonight out of respect for the Nation's seniors who simply want to see us get something done. I also want to pause to point out that there are a number of Republicans and Democrats here in Congress who truly do want to find a middle ground, a compromise between the House and the Senate, between Democrats and Republicans, to achieve a long overdue Medicare prescription drug bill. Many of us have been very consistent in arguing that that is not achievable as long as the premium support issue, which is the subject of this motion, is part of a final bill. So the motion tonight is an attempt to remove a provision which many of us believe represents an obstacle to a compromise to a truly practical long overdue prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. Now, what the premium support provision does is to allow seniors in the year 2010 to have what is being described as a meaningful choice as to how to obtain their Medicare coverage. Not just for the drug benefit. This is for the entire Medicare program. And the concern I wish to express tonight on behalf of seniors throughout the United States, Democrats, Republicans, independents, seniors who really are not interested in politics but are simply interested in seeing a drug benefit that they can use, is that the premium support provision in the year 2010 forces seniors throughout the United States to make a choice as to how they are going to receive health care, and that this is going to be a problem for those seniors who have health issues. I think one of the many things that we can agree upon tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives is that there are a number of seniors who have health issues as they approach the age of 65, or long before then; and that is what this debate is about. I met with the incoming president of one of the major private insurance companies in Florida a few weeks ago, and it could have been any insurance company or any CO of an insurance company; and I said to him, if this were to become law in 2010 and my mom had some health issues and she went to you and tried to get insurance, would you offer her insurance? What he told me, and I respect his candor, is we really do not want people that have health issues in our policies. We are looking for healthy people. They are easier to insure, the risk is more certain, it is more affordable, it is easier to earn a reasonable profit; and so that is the type of beneficiary we are looking for. And if somebody is in the private sector, I understand his point of view. He is trying to earn a profit on behalf of his company. And if the government does not force him to choose to accept people like my mom or somebody else's mom with some health problems, he is not going to do it. So what this debate is about tonight is what happens to that individual, somebody over 65 who has some health problems or develops health problems. Now, Mr. Skully, who is the administrator of the Federal agency, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has a slightly different name now, said in 2001, in the fullest candor, which I respect, that there was a problem with private plans charging higher copayments for those people with health risks that they did not want to accept, and that we who are entrusted in the Federal Government to provide a Medicare program that truly works should be concerned that private plans will use higher copayments and other devices to discourage people from signing up for their plans. And that is exactly what I am talking about here tonight. Because under this premium support provision, which I would also refer to as a voucher, but it is whatever you choose to call it, in 2010 an individual with a health problem is going to have one of two choices: they can either try to get into a private plan, which again I would submit is not going to want them and is going to discourage them and is going to have the full ability under this bill to do that, and if that person with some health issues who is over 65, that Medicare beneficiary cannot get into the private plan, they are left with the crux, I would say the cruel result of the premium support plan. I will attempt to explain that. And in the debate tonight, I hope we can reach some agreement as to what the facts are, and then we can debate the differences as to how we interpret those facts and where the values of our country lie in terms of how we treat this beneficiary and in terms of how Congress designs this plan. The second choice that is available to that Medicare beneficiary, if the private plan rejects him, is they receive a voucher. Now, what that voucher represents in terms of value is a dollar figure that is based on the average cost of insuring a person who is in a private plan. Because in a private plan I think we can safely say those beneficiaries are going to be healthy, their health care bill, of course, is going to be less. It is going to be less expensive to insure them. So that individual who receives the voucher is going to receive a voucher that is equal in value to the average cost of a healthy beneficiary whose costs are lower. Now, what does that all translate into? What that means is that with this voucher, if you have some health issues and therefore your health care bills are higher, that voucher is not going to provide to you enough money to get you through the month or to get you through the year. I believe it is fair to say that we face a situation where these Medicare beneficiaries with health problems that have been rejected by these private plans are going to get enough money to almost get them through the month or to almost get them through the year. Matter of fact, the chief actuary who works for the CMS, the Federal health care agency, said in a piece of paper that under this premium support or voucher plan, that premiums could go up as much as 25 percent for this individual I am describing who could not get into a private plan and has to find another way to cover their health care costs. Twenty-five percent, that is a lot of money. And remember, when we are talking about a Medicare beneficiary who has some health problems, we are talking about somebody who probably is having difficulty paying their other bills. They are fighting for their health, and they are probably getting into some serious financial duress. And under this premium support voucher plan, we are going to add to that duress. Because what you are left with is a Medicare beneficiary with health problems who at the end of the month or the end of the year their Medicare runs out. And that is what we are debating tonight: Do we believe as a Congress that Medicare should ultimately leave that individual without the support they have always had when it gets to the end of the month or the end of the week? And I think the answer is clearly no. The basis for the premium support, and I salute my colleagues on the Republican side who have been very clear in explaining what the purpose of this premium support provision is, is to reduce the cost of Medicare. You can call that reducing the rate of growth in Medicare, you can call it cutting Medicare, but what you can fairly say is this is about reducing the cost of Medicare. And my colleagues, this is what it boils down to: Are we as a Congress going to reduce the cost of Medicare by saying to that Medicare beneficiary who is struggling to recover their health, that at the end of the week, at the end of the month, you are on your own? You are on your own; we wish you well. Medicare as we know it is no longer there to get you through the week. It is no longer there to get you through the month. We wish you well, and it is on your back that we are reducing the cost of Medicare. I would suggest that that is an indefensible proposition; that there are seniors throughout the United States, Democrats, Republicans, independents, people who simply want the drug benefit, want the Medicare program they have come to know and trust who think it is fundamentally unfair that the growing number of seniors in this country who struggle with health issues after the age of 65 are forced to try to find the funds at the end of the week or the end of the month to meet the health care bills that we will no longer be able to meet for them through the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. I would like to briefly point out some of the things that clearly are not a part of this debate and then focus on some of the things on which there is some agreement here. This is not about nationalizing the health care system. The statement was made earlier that I am against market-based competition. Speaking simply for myself, I am not. That is not the issue here tonight. The issue is how do we answer the question to a Medicare beneficiary who has some health issues, who has been rejected by a private plan, how is she or he going to find a way to pay their bills at the end of the week, at the end of the month when the Medicare dollars that they receive now run out. That is the question. The issue has been presented tonight as to whether we are against choice. I do not think it is whether we are against choice; it is whether what is being presented here is a false choice. I think we can agree that if you are a perfectly healthy Medicare beneficiary, this private plan may work for you. But if you are not, if you have reached 65 and you have had a history of some health problems or you are going to be experiencing them, I believe, as I stated earlier, that the insurance companies across this country will say that we do not choose to insure you; and this bill, and this point has not been refuted by the other side, does not force a private insurance company to accept somebody with health issues who is more expensive who they do not choose to insure because they do not think that person is sufficiently profitable. That private insurance company has a choice. They have a choice to say to that Medicare beneficiary, We do not want you. Instead, you take your voucher and you go off and you take care of your own health care. It is also important to point out, there has been no disagreement on the other side, no even attempted disagreement as to the fact that the chief actuarial for Medicare has stated that under this premium support provision, that a Medicare beneficiary's premium could increase by as much as 25 percent. This is a fact. This is not in dispute. So notwithstanding these arguments about risk adjusters and blended rates and the bill saying whether it is defined benefit or defined contribution, the fact remains at the end of the day that when a private insurance company turns away somebody with health issues and their premium goes up by as much as 25 percent, that person is left in the cold, that person is left in the dark at the end of the week or at the end of the month when their voucher runs out. The question remains whether we believe as a Congress, as Democrats, Republicans, as independents, as United States citizens, that it is humane to change Medicare as we know it and leave that person in the cold, in the dark when their voucher runs out. We can look at examples around the country of the Medicare+Choice plan that has been in effect, in my State, Florida, in many States where people who had no health problems enjoyed the benefits of the Medicare+Choice plan. But when as they got older they started to develop health problems and they were turned away by their private plan, thank goodness traditional Medicare was there as a fallback to provide to them the coverage that they had earned through paying a payroll tax, through the copayments and the premiums they paid. Thank goodness traditional Medicare was there. But if this premium support plan is adopted, that person will no longer have that benefit. They will have the voucher instead. Finally, the gentleman, I think, credibly points out, where is the alternative? I wish I was in a position tonight to offer the alternative. I am forced only to offer a motion to instruct to remove parts of the bill, not to add them. This motion is offered in an attempt to take this very destructive issue off the table so we can get to what we are here today which is to create a reliable, affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we are getting closer to the facts here. This is about choice. This is about whether the beneficiary under current law can fall back on the traditional Medicare program. There has been no dispute that under this bill as the chief actuarial, the President's chief actuarial, has said, the premiums can increase by up to 25 percent. Nobody is disputing that. And nobody is trying to answer the question, what happens to that Medicare beneficiary whose premium increases by up to 25 percent who runs out of money under the voucher at the end of the week or at the end of the month. With respect to solutions, which are not within the scope of the motion to instruct tonight, I think the gentleman should respond to the point that has been made a couple of times here, which is one of the ways to develop a more affordable prescription drug benefit is to give to the Federal Government the authority to negotiate a discount. Just as Secretary Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, negotiates a discount when he buys a helmet or a hammer, just as Sam's Club negotiates discounts for the benefit of all the people we represent, why should the Federal Government not have the ability to negotiate a discount when it purchases prescription drugs for the benefit of our Medicare beneficiaries? The answer in this bill is that this bill specifically prohibits the Secretary of HHS from negotiating any discount in the price of prescription drugs, and that is an unforgivable travesty in terms of our obligations to defend the taxpayers and the Medicare beneficiaries of this country who are paying horrific prices. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he would care to defend the provision in this bill that specifically prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating any discount whatsoever in the price of prescription drugs.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman further believe the Secretary of Defense should not have the authority to negotiate any discounts when he is buying a helmet or a hammer, or is that a price control also? I am happy to yield further to the gentleman to respond to that.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I find it incredulous that the gentleman believes that the Federal Government should not take advantage of negotiating some discount, just as Sam's Club does to buy discounts on behalf of its customers, or just as the Secretary of Defense does. This is a disservice to the taxpayers of this country and the Medicare beneficiaries. This is the type of debate we should be having in this body, as to how to develop an affordable Medicare benefit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a civil, productive debate as well. The purpose of the premium support provision is to try to reduce the cost of the Medicare program to the benefit of Medicare beneficiaries and the taxpayers, and that goal is a worthy goal. We have heard debate tonight about one of the ways that can be achieved, by trying to negotiate discounts in terms of the price of prescription drugs. I think the argument on the other side is a philosophical argument, that somehow the government should not be involved in that, even though it works for the Secretary of Defense, it works for the VA, in a fashion that no one is questioning. So where the debate ultimately ends up tonight is should we reduce the cost of Medicare on the back of that Medicare beneficiary who has been rejected by a private health care plan, by giving them a voucher that will not get them through the end of the week or the end of the month? I think the answer is clearly no, and there has yet to be a single Member of Congress who has stood on the floor of this House and tried to squarely confront that question. And to say to that Medicare beneficiary, this is why you are on your own, this is why, as the chief actuarial of the Federal Government has said, your premium is going up 25 percent, you are on your own, there is not a humane acceptable answer to that. This is not a Democrat or Republican proposition. This is about humanity. This is about whether Medicare as we know it is going to continue to address that person at a very difficult time in their life. We owe our seniors a choice, but not a false choice. We should respect them by being honest about what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the motion to instruct to reject the premium support provision of this bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. DAVIS of Florida moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed to reject the provisions of subtitle C of title II of the House bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in honor of Martha Gibbons, who hand in hand with her husband, former Congressman Sam Gibbons, faithfully and selflessly served the Tampa Bay area. Sam and Martha were partners in all that they did. During Sam's 34 years in Congress, Martha was Sam's right hand. From her desk in his office, Martha helped Sam respond to letters from constituents, and she gave countless tours of the Capitol to visitors from Tampa. Martha served as Sam's campaign manager and joined him on all his travels, both in his congressional district and around the world. Sam served as chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade and, by his side, Martha played an important role in representing the United States during international trips and meetings. While in Washington, Martha also served as president of the Congressional Club, the International Friends Club, and the Florida House Foundation; and throughout her life she was active in a host of civic and charitable organizations. Tampa Bay residents will always see Martha's legacy at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Martha worked with her husband to provide the legislative authority for the creation of the University of South Florida. The Sam and Martha Gibbons Alumni Center located on the USF campus in Tampa stands in honor of their efforts. Those who had the pleasure of getting to know Martha will remember her warmth and graciousness, her boundless energy, and the strength with which she supported all of her husband's endeavors in our community. Martha was and always will be a near-perfect model of grace and the best of Southern charm and hospitality. She represented our community in a manner that made us very proud. Tampa, Florida, and the entire Nation is a better place in countless ways thanks to Martha's work. Martha's recent passing, I know, is an enormous loss for Sam, their three very talented sons and seven grandchildren. On behalf of the Tampa Bay community and all of us here in Congress, I extend my deepest sympathies.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the late Tony Garcia, Jr., longtime community leader and executive director of the Tampa United Service Organization (USO). His dedication to America's service-men and -women and his hometown of Tampa is an inspiration to us all. A veteran of World War II and the Korean War, Tony worked for the Tampa USO for 35 years, ensuring that military personnel had a pleasant stay while in Tampa. In the 50's and 60's, he was known for bringing in celebrities to perform at Christmas shows for the men and women of our armed services that were unable to go home for the holidays. Tony was also known for his remarkably selfless and never ceasing service to the community. As a board member of the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce; he crusaded for improvements in the area, day after day. He was also active in the Tampa Urban League, the Optimist Club, the Sertoma Club, and the Hillsborough Education Foundation. Tony was continually organizing fundraisers and events. A friend referred to him as ``a unique blend of humility and charity,'' and his service to the Tampa Bay area was exactly that. He used his personal gifts to bring people together, making our community stronger. On behalf of the Tampa Bay community, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Tony's family--his wife of 58 years, Blanche, a son, two siblings, two grandchildren, and one great grandchild. They have been truly blessed by having such a caring person in their lives, as we all have. The Tampa community will always remember Tony's bountiful dedication and generosity.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, my trip to Iraq last week convinced me of the need to support this bill, to provide to our troops with the tools and protection they need to do their job. In addition, I am convinced if we do not adopt this bill, Iraq will descend into chaos and ultimately violence. However, while I support the bill, I want to take the opportunity to urge President Bush to abandon the unilateral approach we have taken over the last few months in Iraq and begin to share more of the burden with our allies. For months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been urging the President to do exactly that. In my trip to Iraq, I was remarkably struck by the resistance in the office of the CPA, the authority running Iraq, to bring our allies in. The stakes are too high, the challenges are too great, for us to try to do this by ourselves. We need to bring in allies, particularly from some of the Muslim countries, to help our soldiers work on a side-by- side basis. I understand we have had a coalition in Iraq. That includes our good friends, the Canadians. How many troops do the Canadians have in Iraq? One troop. We need to get beyond symbolism. We need people on the ground that speak Arabic, that are equipped to work side-by-side with our soldiers. The CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, is overwhelmed. I talked to soldiers who told me they have been counting on the Iraqi people to help them deal with the threats they face every day. They cannot even communicate with them, so few of our soldiers speak Arabic, so few of the Iraqis speak English. Many of our troops are involved in jobs they were not trained to do. We have troops that are being policemen, that are training police. We need to call upon allies like the Germans and the Italians to train our police. We are not in Iraq to do business. We are in Iraq to help the Iraqi people take control of their country. We need to bring our allies in to help us succeed in this monumental task.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Florida's white sand, clear waters and gorgeous sunsets have truly become not only a treasure for our State, but a treasure for our Nation and the millions of tourists who visit Florida's beaches every year. Today, Floridians, Californians, the people of the Great Lakes and the Eastern Seaboard are asking for your help to preserve these treasures for our children and grandchildren. Florida's beaches are again being threatened by plans to commence with an inventory of all lease sale areas, including those that are currently under moratorium until 2012. As our colleagues will recall, the House unanimously removed language calling for an inventory of all OCS lease sale areas from the final version of the House Energy bill this past April. However, despite our clear and strong position in the House and omission of the provision in the Senate version, the OCS inventory provision has reemerged in the current draft of the conference report. I believe it is important to send a unified message that this House will not fall to the will of a few behind the scenes and we will not allow the OCS moratorium to be weakened by the inventory language in the draft of the Energy bill Conference Report. Once again, the coasts are being threatened and the House must state its will to the Conferees by voting for the Capps Motion to Instruct. It is my hope that both the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources and the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will abide by their promises made on the floor during debate on the House Energy bill. I urge my colleagues to support the Capps Motion to Instruct once again to remove the inventory language from the Energy bill. One of the stated purposes of the OCS inventory is to ``lead to additional Outer Continental Shelf leasing and development.'' The estimated cost for the inventory exceeds $49 billion, not to mention that a single offshore rig emits the same quantity of air pollution was 7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day. Floridians have continually fought to keep these activities off of their shores and we are appalled by the amount of government waste attributed to these inventory activities. The inventory language is a blatant attempt to sneak these rigs into our economy and way of life. Recently, I was joined by 100 of our colleagues in sending a letter to the House and Senate Conferees opposing the inclusion of this language. Soon afterwards, both Senators from Florida and 24 of the 25 Floridians in the House signed onto a letter to the Leadership expressing our unified opposition to this language. I hope that today you will join us in this fight and vote to instruct the conferees to withdraw this language.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Hugh Lee ``H.L.'' Culbreath Jr., one of Tampa Bay's most influential and charitable business leaders. H.L.'s passing last weekend is a tremendous loss for our entire community. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, H.L. served our country in the Navy for 10 years. His final assignment was as a staff member to President Dwight Eisenhower at the White House and as officer in charge of Camp David. In 1957, H.L. returned to his native Tampa to begin working for TECO Energy. Over the course of his 40 years of dedicated service to TECO, H.L. worked his way up the ladder to become chief executive officer and chairman of the board. Along the way, H.L. instilled in TECO the idea that giving back to the community is good for business. H.L.'s contributions, civic activities and honors are countless, but his life long endeavor to improve the quality of life for Tampa Bay residents and bolster our city's reputation is clear. In an effort to enrich downtown Tampa, he fought to establish the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center and served as its inaugural chairman and trustee. H.L. fought to bring a National Football League franchise to Tampa, and our Buccaneers justifiably rewarded him for his efforts by winning the Super Bowl this year. H.L. served as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce and the Committee of One Hundred, a member of the Mayor's Downtown Advisory Committee, a board member and chairman of the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, a member of the Florida Council of 100, which gave him the Hall of Fame award. He was active in the United Way and honored for his contributions to Boy Scouting by the Explorers of the Boy Scouts of America, Gulf Ridge Council. The Tampa Civitan Club named H.L. Citizen of the Year in 1979 and the Hillsborough County Bar Association gave him a Liberty Bell award, in recognition of his community service. H.L. personified the attributes of leadership and service to an exemplary level, rarely seen in our community. For members of the Tampa Bay community, H.L.'s impact is as far as the eye can see and will endure for countless generations. On behalf of our community, I extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think first it is important to put into context the motion to instruct. The motion is an attempt to try to remove the voucher provision which many of us believe is an obstacle to finding a middle ground to developing a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And the second part of the motion inserts the fallback provision that has been developed by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate that many of us think is critical to having a middle ground. I want to go back to the voucher debate and again try to be as factual as possible as to why that is so highly objectionable to Democrats in the House, and I believe to many Republicans in the Senate. Under the House bill that is being defended tonight, in 2010 seniors are forced to choose between private plans and a voucher. Private plans have made it perfectly clear that they do not want to insure people that are not an attractive risk, people that tend to have health problems after they are 65. So, instead, what those people are left with is a voucher whose value is equal to the average cost of beneficiaries in private plans. Those would be healthy people. The chief actuarial for Medicare at HCFA has said that people who are over 65 that are not accepted by private plans could experience as much as a 25 percent increase in the cost of Medicare. Nobody yet has tried to defend or answer the question as to what happens to that Medicare beneficiary who has health problems who is not accepted by the private plan and who cannot afford to make up that huge difference in cost. And the reason nobody wants to answer that is because there is no answer. That person is left on their own. They are cut loose from Medicare. Now, the second point about the fallback is this: it continues to be the case that private insurance companies in Washington say to Congress, we do not want your money. We do not want to get in the business of writing policies for drug coverage. And so unless we put the fallback provision the Senate is providing in this bill, we are relegating seniors to a false promise, and that is giving money to private plans to offer insurance they say they do not want to provide for seniors. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the motion to instruct.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, the Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, proposed a regulation which would end licenses for travel to Cuba for educational purposes unless the travel consisted exclusively of students taking formal case work. This amendment blocks that proposed regulation from taking effect by blocking any funding to enforce it. Earlier this year I traveled to Cuba with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). We met with governmental officials, the Bishop of the Methodist Church, leading dissidents, including Vladimir Roca, Espinosa Chepe, and others. I left there struck by the horrific plight of the Cuban people who are living of abject poverty deprived of any freedom or liberty we tend to take for granted here. I left there struck by the enormous talent and potential of the Cuban people; and finally, I left there struck by how much we have in common, folks in my home, the Tampa Bay area and Florida, with the Cuban people. I also left there with the resolve that because of the miserable relationship between the two countries, it is more important than ever that we as United States citizens reach out to the Cuban people to help them deal with this very horrific plight they are living in today. Shortly after I returned, the relationship between the two governments deteriorated even further with an unprecedented really horrific crackdown by Fidel Castro of some of the people I met with. Three of the people I met with have been sentenced to prison, perhaps for the rest of their lives, and countless others were sentenced to prison simply because of their fight for freedom. I believe today what we need to do as the House of Representatives is to preserve the ability of United States citizens to travel to Cuba for purposeful contact with the Cuban people to help them help themselves. Educational institutions, churches, not-for-profits have been engaged in this type of travel for years under the educational license that OFAC provides. The proposed regulation was proposed to punish Fidel Castro for the horrific things he has done. I think the House of Representatives should block that regulation because it, in effect, punishes the Cuban people. Let me cite some examples why: There are universities that are taking teachers down to meet with teachers in Cuba to have an exchange. That could be potentially blocked if this new regulation is not stopped. There are cultural exchanges where people in my community are trying to encourage artists and other creative people from Cuba to travel to the United States and people from the United States to travel to Cuba to build bridges. There are doctor-to-doctor exchanges focused on women health that have been taking place, and lawyer-to-lawyer exchanges focused on helping improve the civil justice system. All these exchanges which clearly benefit the Cuban people could effectively be brought to an end if this regulation is not blocked. These are the type of exchanges and the purposeful type of travel to Cuba we should be encouraging at this time when Fidel Castro is engaged in a horrific crackdown of his own people. We should not be afraid to export democracy to Cuba, and I urge the House to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear this is not a debate about tourism, and it is not a debate about illicit activity. It is about whether certain kinds of educational activities can occur. It is fair to point out that there is abuse as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) noticed. I think both sides can agree that OFAC is perfectly willing to deny applications for licenses where they see fit. That is painfully clear. And where there is abuse and fraud, OFAC can do its job and deny a license. OFAC has the authority conferred upon it by Congress to impose both civil and criminal penalties in cases of fraud. That is not the issue. The question is whether the types of examples I have cited, the exchanges where universities are taking teachers down there who do not happen to be students engaged in formal case work, instances where doctors or lawyers are going down there on a peer-to-peer basis should be allowed to continue. There can be no basis to deny that does benefit the Cuban people, and should be something that ought to be allowed to continue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think it is perfectly clear this is not a debate about the types of illicit activity that have been mentioned on the other side. It is not a debate about terrorism. It is a debate about whether certain types of educational activities should be allowed to continue which I believe benefit the Cuban people, and there has been no suggestion to the contrary, a peer-type relationship. We need to begin to help the Cuban people plant the seeds of democracy in their country. Goodness knows, it is a terrific task for them to undertake given how repressive this regime is. I saw firsthand the plight of the Cuban people. My heart went out to them. We cannot ignore that. We need to reach out and use United States citizens to help build democracy, the same way democracy was built in this country. Ultimately, people are the bridges between countries. It is those relationships that will once again, once Fidel Castro is gone, bring us closer to Cuba and help us grow together as democracies. We cannot build those relationships, we cannot see them grow unless we continue to have the type of purposeful travel, the type of contact that I have described today. And I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, so we can continue, at a minimum, to allow people who are trying to help the Cuban people travel to Cuba to do so. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.