Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Eighty-nine billion.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate it because I have asked four times for my colleagues on the other side to yield for a specific question. In response to statements that were made from four different of my Republican colleagues, I think it is symptomatic that they refuse to yield, that they refuse to engage in a dialog on this issue because the truth is, the truth is on our side. It is the old maxim: When the truth is on your side and you have the facts, that is what you argue. When the law is on your side, that is what you argue. And when you have nothing, all you do is argue. [[Page H 10298]]

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue where I think we really get to the heart of Government. We can talk as much as we want about reducing the size of government; government, over the last several years, getting involved in issues that it should not be involved in. The Government's branch and its breadth has taken too much of the private sector in this country. However, this is an issue that if there is anything that the Federal Government should be doing, is it should be providing a quality weather service for the hundreds of millions of people that live in this country. Every one of our districts are affected by quality weather service. The standard that presently exists is that through change of service, there has to be a finding that there is no degrading of service to the region. The language in the bill would take that out. It is real simple. What it would allow is that an area of the country, any area of the country, could have a degradation of service. Let us think about what that means on the practical level, what it means around the country. Let us also talk about Florida, first and then my district, second. Within the last several weeks, as unfortunately happens, and statistically it is going to continue to happen, we had a devastating, deadly hurricane that came on to the shores of Florida. This particular one landed in the north Florida region, the panhandle of the State. Florida is a large State. That is a less populated area than most of the State of Florida. Several million people evacuated their homes knowing up-to-the-minute reports of the change in that particular storm, again, although it happened the same day as the O.J. verdict, all of us knowing that, it changed very quickly. It changed to a category three storm very quickly. Without really cutting-edge ability, we would have seen probably thousands of lives lost. The Weather Service did its job in that instance. My district goes from Palm Beach County in Florida to Key West. The Florida Keys is a chain of islands 110 miles long. When you are sitting in Key West, which is a city of 40,000 people where there happens to be a Weather Service station, which provides into the Caribbean weather analysis in terms of potential hurricanes and potential storms that on a day-to-day basis are incredibly valuable to commerce in the keys in terms of fishermen. But really, the ultimate time comes in terms of a hurricane situation. [[Page H 9934]] In the Florida Keys in terms of transmission issues, in terms of being able to acquire information, the Weather Service is actually going through the debate, or going through the analysis right now in terms of trying to close the station in Key West. It is in a very rigorous analysis that they are being forced to go through now, that there will not be a degradation of service, and there is a great deal of debate about that. Mr. Chairman, as a person who represents those people, 40,000 people in Key West and the 80,000 people who live in the Florida Keys, and the 2.5 million people that live in south Florida, that if something is going to happen to that particular station, that it become an automated station, at least that at a very objective, critical, analytical level, that that station will be evaluated. To say well, we just do not have enough money to do that analysis, we just do not have enough money, that we have to close that station, is beyond me. I mean just absolutely beyond me, that as a society, as a government, as a country, we would be saying that. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the most basic, literally the most basic governmental function. I ask my colleagues who are opposed to this amendment to speak up and say, government should not be involved in the Weather Service. Maybe what we ought to do is privatize the Weather Service. You know, have a 900 number that will privatize the Weather Service and maybe the private industry will get into this and they will be out there predicting hurricanes. If you think that there might be a hurricane, you will dial the 900 number or something and get a weather report from this new agency. I urge my colleagues, because this is critical, not just for Florida, but to every person that lives in this country, to adopt the Cramer amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement for the Record that I missed rollcall vote No. 699 and No. 700 in order to be home to fulfill religious and personal obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' to recommit with instructions and ``nay'' against the conference report on H.R. 2126, Defense appropriation for fiscal year 1996. I wish this statement to be placed in the Record immediately following the recorded vote.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for about 2\1/2\ hours listening to a variety of debate about Cuba and free trade and about the cold war and what I would point out to my colleagues is that all of that is wonderfully interesting debate, but it just did not have a heck of a lot to do with this resolution that is in front of us. This resolution deals with some very specific things. It does not deal with global cold war policy. What it does specifically is it deals with non-U.S. companies that have purchased illegally seized property and gives them a right to seek justice in American courts. That is what this legislation does. That is what it does. Mr. Chairman, it does not deal, again, with the cold war, with big picture stuff. And there are plenty of issues that we can debate, and there may very well be other bills to debate those on. But I tell my colleagues, it is kind of hard to argue against what this bill does. Think about it. Just simple justice for Americans who might have owned property in Cuba, or Cubans who left Cuba and became Americans, who are American citizens now. They owned a factory in Cuba, and they left because of the repressive regime. It could have been in the 50s or the 60s, or it could have been in the 80s for that matter, and then a non-U.S. company bought that factory or bought that refinery that was illegally seized from the government that illegally took that factory and is making money off of that factory. Mr. Chairman, what this bill then says, if it is adopted into law, is that that U.S. citizen, or for that matter that U.S. company, has a right to seek justice, to seek compensation for what occurred. Yes, there are sanctions for those companies that bought illegally seized property and those sanctions are really somewhat severe. They deal with visa restrictions and a variety of other things. But for this to work, that is what we must do. Again, I remind my colleagues that Castro is holding on by his fingernails in terms of his economy. He is using this expropriation and property thing even today. And for us not to pass this legislation is really effectively to support his regime. That is the effective result of failure to adopt this legislation would do. Mr. Chairman, the message that it sends to Castro in particular is that he can seize property of Americans and get away with it. It is wrong. We need to adopt this legislation. We need to understand the specifics of it. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the legislation.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if the debate was just about the Torricelli bill, the Cuban embargo bill, then I think some of the comments that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] made would be quite relevant. But what I ask my colleagues to do is to at least read part of the bill or at least go through the index of the bill, the table of contents or the committee report on the bill. Because as the bill is now in front of us as a substitute, this bill is relatively narrow. Let us talk about the specifics of what it does. It only deals with foreign companies, non-U.S. companies that have in some way ascertained, purchased, illegally confiscated property in Cuba. That is all that it deals with in its present form in front of us. That is the bill. That is the issue in front of the United States Congress. Let us just again talk about what that means, the specifics. It is a factory in Cuba, a refinery in Cuba that was owned by an American citizen--someone has left Cuba, now in America, or maybe even an American citizen prior to the change in government--that was expropriated illegally by the Castro government and then sold to a company, sold to a non-United States company. That company now is producing in that factory and getting the benefits of the production of that facility, and an injustice is occurring. What this bill says is there is a way to right that wrong. The way to right that wrong is to say and use some pretty strong sanctions, and I agree that there are strong sanctions. My colleagues have mentioned some of the strong sanctions: giving access to the United States courts to the person or, for that matter, the company that has had their property illegally expropriated and then sold to a foreign, non-U.S. company. One of the sanctions deals with visa rights of non-U.S. citizens to even come to the United States of America. There are some strong sanctions in this bill to prevent this from happening, but what I would say is those are needed. What we have seen, and again I point out to my colleagues, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] as well, that the Cuban embargo is really the Torricelli bill that has been in effect several years, not 35 years. The changes that we have seen, and I know Members speak to people in Cuba and I have the opportunity to speak to people, as well, who are visiting the island, who have seen the island, the reality is that Castro is holding on by his fingernails, barely holding on by his fingernails. I urge the adoption of the rule and urge the support of the bill.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to two outstanding police officers, Officer Joseph Alu and Detective Jim O'Hara, whose heroism and sacrifice demonstrates a commitment far beyond the call of duty. On July 25, Detective O'Hara and Officer Alu responded to a call that a man had taken two teen-age girls hostage. The officers, responding to the girls' screams for help, entered the bedroom where the man was holding the girls hostage. As they opened the door, the man detonated the bomb which scorched the gasoline soaked room, instantly killing both himself and the girls. The officers, trapped in the room when the bomb went off, survived, but suffered severe burns. Both officers were airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, the area's principal burn treatment center. Over one quarter of Officer Alu's body was covered with severe burns, and he was listed in critical condition. Detective O'Hara fared much worse. Over 80 percent of Mr. O'Hara's body was covered with third degree burns, and he had a gunshot wound in his thigh. He is still in the hospital today and still in critical condition. His wife, who gave birth to their son just 6 days after the explosion, spends as much time at O'Hara's bedside as the hospital allows, and his entire family has held prayer vigils at the hospital. However, Mr. Speaker, there was an even greater tragedy brought to light by this one incident. Because the officers were forced to retire, the Plantation Police Department would not cover their medical expenses. The policy, at the time of this accident, was that the department didn't pay the medical expenses of those who retired--even those who were forced to retire because of injuries suffered on the job. This is a policy which is not uncommon in many communities across the country. In light of this tragedy, Plantation changed its policy retroactively to include the two officers. It shouldn't take similar events to cause other communities to do the same. We need legislation in this country which protects those who risk their lives everyday to fight the war on crime, or fight fires, or fight to save others lives. We need laws which protect our valiant men and women on the front lines. When they go down in the line of duty, we have an obligation to provide for their long-term care. These two officers risked everything when they tried to save the lives of two young girls from a madman, how can we ask others to do the same if we won't stand behind them?

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the crux of this issue is, is there competition in this industry at this time on the issues of this amendment? I think the answer to that is that there is. Let us be very specific about what the amendment does. The amendment would keep regulation on nonbasic services. Basic service would continue regulation beyond the 15-month period. For nonbasic service, for HBO, Cinemax, and things like that. There is competition today in just about any place in this country, and I know for a fact in my community you can buy a minisatellite dish. You can go to Blockbuster Video and rent a video. Many people choose that. Cable passes 97 percent of the homes in this country, yet only 60 percent of those homes choose to purchase cable systems. What this bill does is it gives an opportunity for this country to enter a new age, an age for competition throughout our telecommunications. The major opportunity is there for the phone systems for competition through the cable system. Again, in my own area of south Florida, cable systems are actively marketing competition in commercial lines, today, against phone systems. That is something they want to do in the short term, tomorrow. If this bill has any chance of creating this synergism, the new technologies, the things that will be available that are beyond our imagination, the opportunity of cable systems to be part of that competition is a necessary component. If we can think back 15 years ago when none of us could have imagined the change in the technologies that have evolved, this is a case of hope versus fear. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, as the Congressman for Florida's 20th Congressional District which includes Key West, I have had the privilege of working closely with Captain J.M. Munninghoff, the commanding officer of Naval Air Station, Key West. I am always impressed by Captain Munninghoff's professional manner and personable nature, but never surprised. He has shown relentless dedication to his job, and I am very sorry to see him leave his post. Captain Munninghoff's entire career reflects his fine qualities and distinct attributes. His warfare specialty has taken him all across the globe. His 4,400 flight hours and 774 carrier landings stretch from the South Pacific to the Indian Ocean. During his tour as commanding officer of VA-81, the squadron received the distinguished Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet Battle Efficiency Award in 1987. In addition to his accomplishments with in his warfare specialty, Captain Munninghoff has held many prestigious positions including the aviation readiness training branch head, and later deputy director to the Chief of Naval Operations, as well as the assistant strike operations officer and the air operations officer of the U.S.S. Forrestal and the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Reflecting his many achievements, Captain Munninghoff has also been awarded various personal awards, including the Legion of Merit, Merritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and Navy Achievement Award. I have had the personal pleasure of working with Captain Munninghoff in his current position of commanding officer at Naval Air Station Key West. I feel that he has done an exemplary job of dealing with the civilian community of the Florida Keys on important issues such as the Peary Court housing controversy, the base realignment and closure process, as well as the more recent proposals for joint use of military property. It is rare to meet a person of such fine character, and I am honored to have had the opportunity to work with such a man. Needless to say, I am very sorry to see him move on. I only hope that the Navy recognizes the tremendous asset they have in Captain Munninghoff.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Republican colleagues, ``Thou doth protest too much.'' Let me talk about specifics. I hope that the people of this country are watching and getting engaged in this debate, because the reality of the 30-year history of the Medicare system is it never had more than a 10-year actual life. In fact, at one point in time, it had a 2-year actuarial life. The majority party has made adjustments, or the former majority party has made adjustments. In my first year in Congress in 1993, we had a $50 billion adjustment to the Medicare system. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing is a $270 billion cut in Medicare, astronomical by any comparison to what had ever been done before. It was not dictated by actuarial analysis. It was dictated by their budget, and they drew that. There is no doubt they can save $270 billion in Medicare, but the Medicare that will exist in America under the Republican plan will adversely affect 37 million people in this country. It will not be the Medicare that we know today.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, today is the 30th anniversary of the Medicare Program. I think this is a day to focus on what the Republicans in this Congress are proposing to do to that program. The Republican budget-passed plan has $270 billion in cuts. They have said, and they have said recently on this floor, and they continue to say that those are necessary to save the plan, to save the plan from itself. Well, the reality is in the last 30 years of the Medicare Program it has never had more than a 10-year actuarial life. In fact, there have been times over the last 30-year period where it has only had a 2-year actuarial life. The $270 billion number has nothing to do with 10-year actuarial life. It has to do with the budget that they have proposed and some of the outrageous corporate welfare systems that still exist. Now, what can be done? What is that $270 billion to lead to? The $270 billion will lead to a fundamental change in the Medicare system for beneficiaries. When you go through the numbers, the inevitable result of $270 billion in cuts is that you will have a Medicare system not very similar to the system that exists today. We would have a Medicare system that would force a large percentage of the 37 million people in this country on Medicare into substandard HMOs. Right now, Medicare reimburses HMOs at about 95 percent of the prevailing fee-for-service in an area. Only about 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries choose to join those HMOs. The Republican proposal will drive down that reimbursement cost in the neighborhood of 70 percent. I do not doubt there are private for-profit HMOs that will be able to provide service at that cost, but at what quality? That is the question.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is corporate welfare at its absolute worst; at its absolute worst. This is a program that spends about $2 million a year on the U.S. Mink Export Development Council, a council that is managed by four people, an attorney and assistant and representatives of two companies. Those two companies get 98 percent of the funds of that $2 million. One of those companies happens to be a Canadian company. Actually, it is a subsidiary of a Canadian company whose gross revenues are 3.9 billion American dollars. What do they spend this money on every year? They spend it on fashion shows overseas and many times even work that is done to bring it back to the United States. This is a copy of one of the fashion shows that does not even describe the minks or the mink stoles as America product. Mr. Chairman, this is not an amendment against mink farmers; it is an amendment against the U.S. Mink Export Development Council program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 5 minutes before we begin.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is truly corporate welfare at its worst. I ask my colleagues to take a look at the specifics of this particular program, what it really does. It is almost beyond belief what this program does. It is almost a parody of government gone crazy in terms of corporate welfare. We have about $2 million a year, we give it to the U.S. Mink Export Development Council managed by 4 people, 2 of whom are representatives of companies. One is an attorney for the council and one an assistant. Those people then all of a sudden, lo and behold, give 98 percent of the money that they get to the 2 companies represented on the board, at which point they then spend the money for fashion shows all over the world; Mainland China, Japan, Korea, Italy, and it is unclear what is going on. One of the companies is a $3.9 billion gross sales a year Canadian company. It is foreign corporate welfare. We are doing so well today in America that we can afford foreign corporate welfare. It is not about mink farmers; it is about this particular program. If we cannot get rid of this, we are not going to get rid of anything. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch-Shays amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is very similar to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] just mentioned. Is it the intention of the chairman of the subcommittee to have debate tonight and then no votes tonight after those next two amendments?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair to ask the chairman. I think a lot of us are concerned that we are going to have debate this evening on a lot of significant matters.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. George McKim Barley, Jr., a seventh generation Floridian who leaves behind a legacy of leadership in the fight to save Florida Bay and the Everglades. Mr. Barley tragically died in a plane crash in Orlando, FL, on June 23, 1995. George Barley will be remembered among the great conservationists like Marjorie Stoneman Douglas--author of ``A River of Grass''--who brought national attention to the plight of the embattled Everglades ecosystem that stretches from Lake Okeechobee to the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. A passionate environmentalist, George Barley became Florida Bay's most visible and ardent proponent in Washington. His advocacy and dedication were vital to much of the progress made to date in Everglades restoration efforts. Unfortunately, Mr. Barley was killed pursuing this passion--his untimely death occurred while en route to an Everglades meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Barley was the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission's first director. He was chairman of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council from 1992 until 1995. He chaired Save Our Everglades Alliance--a family of organizations dedicated to a broad campaign of Everglades education, political action and restoration. Mr. Barley was named the Florida Audubon's Conservationist of the Year for 1994. The Nature Conservancy, the Everglades Coalition, The Broward County Environmental Coalition and the Florida Outdoor Writer's Association also have given him awards for his volunteer work on restoring Florida Bay and the Everglades. Perhaps George Barley's greatest contribution to the cause of Florida Bay and Everglades restoration was his understanding of the need to express environmentalism as an economic argument, a question of jobs and a future for ordinary people. As a successful businessman, he was well positioned to argue for the need to protect our natural resources in order to maintain economic prosperity. He will be long remembered and sorely missed by those of us working to preserve the Everglades and Florida Bay for future generations.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I also join my colleagues in a very special opportunity to remind the world and this country and this Congress about the work of the Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, someone who in his lifetime probably influenced as many people as anyone else maybe in the history of the world in terms of good works and good deeds. I also thank the Chief Rabbi of Israel for being with us today and being part of a ceremony. Most Members, I think, are aware that today the gold medal that this Congress voted for the late Rebbe will be given at a ceremony at the White House, and there are activities throughout the day in terms of speeches in memory of the Rebbe. I can speak, in a sense from a personal perspective, from the community that I represent in south Florida. Before I move to that community, there was no presence of the Chabad movement. In the near 15 years, there are six centers of learning, a school that has several hundred students. It is not just a community that, in a sense, the Rebbe taught to, but the entire community of the world in terms of education and really faith that we have the opportunity today in a special way to thank and to bless his memory.