John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we have lost one of our beloved colleagues and one of my dear friends, Steve Schiff, the gentleman from New Mexico. I had the great honor of serving with Steve when I first entered this body as a new Member of the House of Representatives on the Committee on Government Operations. Steve grew to be, as I said, not only my colleague but my friend. There are some things that you distinguish about individuals, and others have said it here today, but truly, in the very truest sense of the word, Steve Schiff was a gentle man. As my colleagues know, he was also a wise man, a wise man because I know so many, including myself, sought his counsel and we depended on him, his judgment, his wisdom and his great intelligence. Steve Schiff was also a tough man. If my colleagues knew Steve, he was a tough individual with a tough prosecutorial background. But most of all, he was a fair man, and that is something we all remember about Steve. Most of all we must remember, and I remember Steve as a family man, and how his family must mourn him today and how we will all miss him because of his dedication to not only his congressional family, but his own family who has suffered such a great loss. This afternoon and in the coming days, my prayers go out to Steve's wife and his family and his many friends in his district, for we indeed have lost a great friend and a gentleman. The House of Representatives has lost indeed a great Member. Mr. Speaker, we will all miss him, and I miss him as a friend.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House again this afternoon to talk about one of the greatest threats to our Nation and to our society. That is the threat of drugs and illegal narcotics. I have spoken many times on the floor about this. Today let me review for a minute again the history of how we got ourselves into the situation where we have a tide of drugs coming into this country and countless deaths because of drug abuse and drug misuse. First of all, in 1993, when the other party controlled the White House, the other body and the House of Representatives, they took actions which we are paying for today. First, they cut and almost eliminated most of the staff in the drug czar's office. Then they cut the military involvement in the war on drugs. Then they decimated and cut the source country programs to stop drugs where they are grown and where they are produced. Then they appointed a Surgeon General that said just say maybe. At probably one of the lowest points we had comments replayed by the President who said if he had it to do over again, he would inhale. We also had a situation that we are looking into now on my Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice where Federal drug prosecutions in this country are actually down and have dropped. Just within the last few weeks, this administration took the final blow in certifying Mexico, which is the source of 50 percent of the hard drugs entering this country, certifying them, making them eligible for benefits of the United States trade, aid, and foreign assistance. It just is not right. The results are incredible. Listen to these statistics. Since 1992, drug use among teens has skyrocketed 70 percent. Half of high school seniors think that it is easy to obtain cocaine and LSD in a national survey. Eighth grade drug use has increased by 150 percent since 1992. One out of 4 high school seniors is currently a user of illegal drugs. I come from central Florida, a beautiful area in our Nation. Let me tell Members what has happened in my community, a rather prosperous district in central Florida, is doing very well and economically well placed. But in Orlando, in 1995, we ranked fifth in the Nation in cocaine deaths per capita. Orange County and Osceola counties in central Florida led our State in heroin deaths per capita in 1996. Cocaine deaths in Orlando went up in 1996 to 87 from an already high number of 75. Tampa and St. Petersburg had a combined 91 deaths in 1997. The wholesale price of heroin in central Florida has dropped dramatically from 1991 to 1997. Let me tell Members what Republicans have done. We have restored some of the Clinton cuts from the 1993 to 1995 period. We have gotten our military back into the war. We have restarted our source country interdiction and eradication programs. We have passed tougher laws. We think tougher laws work. You can spend a lot of money. But look at New York City with a Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani. In just a few years with tough enforcement and tough prosecution, they have dramatically dropped the crime and incidence of drug abuse and use in that city. Tomorrow in central Florida we initiate a HIDTA. It is called a high intensity drug trafficking initiative. That program is a Federal program, but it is combined, bringing Federal resources with State, local and prosecutorial forces together to have tough enforcement in central Florida. If you do drugs in central Florida, you are going to do jail. We are going to arrest you. We are going to make it tough on you. Tomorrow in central Florida, we hope to take a lead in stopping this rash of drug trafficking, this rash of deaths from heroin, cocaine overdoses among our youth. I know you can get tough. I know it will work. In closing, let me tell Members a little example. Out here at First Street there is an Officer Thompson. Everyone knows about Officer Thompson because if you jaywalk at his corner and his beat, he enforces the law. So very few people, Capitol staff or Members, ever jaywalk where Officer Thompson is, because he is a tough enforcer of current laws. That is what we are going to do in central Florida. That is what we need to do in the United States of America, is stop drugs at their source. If you do drugs, you are going to do time. We are going to enforce the laws of this country.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this afternoon to announce that chemical warfare has been declared upon the United States of America. Some of my colleagues may be wondering what I mean by this statement that chemical warfare has in fact been inflicted upon the United States, but let me tell them the rest of the story. In the entire Gulf War with the United States, Iraq took 148 American lives in battle. Let me give Members some statistics from 1992 to 1994 in the loss of life in the chemical war that has been declared upon the United States of America. There have been drug deaths during that period of time of 38,882. If we had the most up-to-date statistics through last year, we are probably looking at 60,000 Americans who have lost their lives because of drugs entering this country. I ask my colleagues where most of the drugs are coming into this country. What is the source of the chemical warfare that has been declared upon our Nation? I tell them today that it is Mexico. The DEA confirms it. Everyone who has testified before my National Security subcommittee that oversees our policy on the narcotics issue has confirmed it, that Mexico is the source of illegal chemicals, drugs, coming into this country. Many of those thousands of lives that have been lost in this chemical war are young people. Listen to the quantities of narcotics that are coming in from Mexico, and this administration and this President recently certified Mexico as compliant with attempts to eradicate drugs. Do Members know the source of 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine transiting into the United States, into their community? It is Mexico. Do they know where 30 percent of the heroin entering the United States into their community is coming from? It is coming from Mexico. Do they know where 70 percent of the foreign-grown marijuana which is produced and transited to the United States is coming from? It is Mexico. The certification law that we have on the books is a simple law. It says our State Department and our President must confirm that a country is cooperating to eliminate drug trafficking and drug production. In fact, Mexico is not doing that. They are being certified to get benefits from the United States. They get benefits for foreign aid, for financial assistance, for military assistance and trade benefits. This is a simple certification process which Mexico has not complied with. What has been their response? Their response has been to launch a chemical war on the children and the people of the United States. The loss of life, the loss of our children's futures, the loss of civility and civil conduct in our community has been disrupted. We have 2 million Americans behind bars. Our people are sleeping at night behind bars. Our elderly are confined to their homes behind bars, because 70 percent of those who are committing crimes are there because of a drug-related offense or drug abuse. I submit that 50 percent of the hard drugs, and these are not my statistics, this is the DEA, the FBI and other Federal agencies confirm that 50 percent of the hard drugs, these chemical weapons, are coming into the United States from Mexico. I urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to join me with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) in cosponsoring House Joint Resolution 114. Let us end this chemical warfare that has been declared upon our Nation and upon our children. I ask my colleagues to join us and cosponsor House Joint Resolution 114 and let us make a difference in the lives of our children and in the lives of our community and stop the drug warfare on this country.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, one of the intended outcomes of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was that telecommunications services would be universally available at reasonable and affordable prices. To ensure that would happen, the Act provided for all telecommunications carriers to contribute to a universal fund subsidy. The FCC's attempts to implement this portion of the bill have been at best ineffective. Until the FCC begins to seriously take steps to ensure support of rural and residential service, we cannot consider this part of the job finished. Another responsibility of the FCC, as set forth in the Telecommunications Act, was to implement a program assisting schools, libraries and health care facilities in entering the information age. However, Congress did not intend for this to be a tax and grant program. The entire issue of how the FCC is implementing this program is now being considered by Congressional committees. I am concerned that the FCC did not adequately consider the negative impact on the consumer or Congressional intent before implementing this program. The FCC must understand that their role is not to rewrite the Act, but to implement the Act as it was written.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this afternoon to ask for support and cosponsorship of House Joint Resolution 114. This is a resolution that has been introduced by myself and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) that would decertify Mexico. Most people are not familiar with the certification process. The certification process is a good process that does certify through our State Department whether or not individual countries are making progress in ending drug production and illegal drug trafficking. That certification is made. Once it is made, a country becomes eligible for benefits of the United States Government, benefits such as foreign aid, financial assistance, trade benefits and military assistance. It is a simple law and it does work and it does put pressure on countries who want these benefits of the United States to take action to stop illegal drug trafficking and production. We do not believe that Mexico has made progress in stopping the wave of illegal drugs coming into this country. Unfortunately, last week the Clinton administration certified Mexico that they are making progress. I ask my colleagues, is this progress? Let me cite the facts about Mexico: Seventy percent of the hard drugs entering the United States come in through Mexico. That was the statistic provided to my national security subcommittee a year ago and it is the statistic today. A wave of heroin, a wave of cocaine, a wave of methamphetamines and illegal hard designer drugs are coming into this country and affecting our youth, our schools, our cities and our streets. Mexico has failed to extradite a single drug kingpin trafficker to the United States to stand trial. The facts are that Mexico has failed to adopt a maritime narcotics agreement with the United States. The facts are that the United States drug enforcement chief, the chief of our DEA, Tom Constantine recommended against certification of Mexico according to the Washington Post. Let me quote what he said in a confidential assessment by the Drug Enforcement Administration. It says that the country has had a continued impunity to arrest or to detain the country's biggest drug traffickers. Let me quote. During the past year, the analysis reads, the government of Mexico has not accomplished its counternarcotics goal or succeeded in cooperation with the United States Government. The level of drug corruption in Mexico continues unabated. This is from the director of our United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The Mexican government is involved in corruption from the street level to its highest offices and ministries. Mexico has refused to authorize United States law enforcement agents to carry weapons for their own protection. The scope of Mexican drug trafficking has increased significantly. This is not just my opinion, this is also the opinion of our Drug Enforcement Agency. Again heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine continue to enter the United States in unprecedented quantities. Let me tell my colleagues what this tidal wave of drugs is doing. We have 2 million Americans in prison. I am told that nearly 80 percent of those who are incarcerated in the jails and prisons of the United States are there because of their relationship to drugs, drug abuse or a drug-related crime. Heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine use by our youth has skyrocketed. We must decertify Mexico. I ask for Members' cosponsorship of this joint resolution.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on 2-25-98 as I was in Central Florida with the President visiting the victims of the horrible tornadoes which struck our community. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #19 (the Nadler amendment to HR 1544) I would have voted no. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #20 (the Conyers amendment to HR 2181) I would have voted no. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #21 (Passage of the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act) I would have voted yes. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #22 (the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment to HR 1544) I would have voted no. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #23 (the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment to HR 1544) I would have voted no. Mr. Speaker on Roll Call #24 (Passage of HR 1544, Federal Agency Compliance Act) I would have voted yes.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today I understand that the administration is about to certify Mexico as compliant with the United States law that requires an assessment of every country that is making an effort to eradicate or eliminate drug trafficking or drug production. It is rather sad that the administration would certify Mexico to a law that was designed to give benefits for trade, foreign assistance, financial assistance and military assistance to a country that is making progress in these areas, and choose to do so with Mexico because I cannot think of any offender worse than Mexico. In fact, in the drug war, Mexico is a disaster. The major source of almost all hard narcotics coming into the United States across our borders is Mexico. In fact, the major source of cocaine, of heroin, of methamphetamines and marijuana coming into the United States, the vast quantities that are coming into our country and destroying our cities, our communities, our children, are coming in, in fact, from Mexico. And today this administration, I understand, is going to certify Mexico as compliant. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues that Mexico is involved in narcotics up to its eyeballs, from the President's office down to the policeman on the beat. We know this. We have had hearings in our Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice that I serve on that confirm Mexico's lack and failure to cooperate in the war on drugs. Mr. Speaker, they failed to sign a maritime agreement; they failed to cooperate in the extradition of the hard criminal drug traffickers; they failed to bring down even one major trafficking ring in Mexico; they failed to curb corruption; and they have failed to aid our DEA agents when they put their lives at risk in that country to help stop the war on drugs. Mr. Speaker, neighbors do not let neighbors have their young killed in the streets. I submit that Mexico is a neighbor and it has failed to take action and should not be certified by this administration now or until, in fact, it does get its act together and takes positive steps to curtail the production and the transit of drugs from that country to our country. All we have to do is look at the youth death and the death and crime in our country as a result of the drugs. Again, the major source of these drugs is Mexico. They are coming into our country. Two million Americans behind bars are there because of a drug-related offense and most of those drugs are coming in from Mexico. We have a skyrocketing rate of drug abuse and drug deaths among our youth, hitting our youth and our streets and our schools and our communities with cocaine deaths. In my area of central Florida, record heroin deaths and heroin is coming in and it will soon be as cheap as cocaine or any other drug in incredible quantities from Mexico. So we cannot certify a Nation that, indeed, is not cooperating. We cannot certify a Nation that is raining death and terror on our young people in the streets and neighborhood at a tremendous cost to our young people, a tremendous cost to our communities. The jails that are filled in this country and our citizens cannot even go to sleep at night because of the related crime and the related violence of drugs and narcotics. So they are taking a step today and it is the wrong step. They have taken the wrong step in the past when they had a Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, who established the policy of ``Just Say Maybe'' to drugs; when we had the President tell our young people, ``If I had it to do all over again, I would inhale.'' Today, another fatal step in the lack of war on drugs by this administration and this President who are about to certify this country, which is the major source of violence, crime, and drugs in our Nation. We can stop it. We must stop it. We must decertify Mexico.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the citizens of central Florida's 7th Congressional District. Our area and other central Florida communities were in the path of devastating tornadoes yesterday. Mr. Speaker, while our residences, our businesses and our communities can and will be replaced, the lives of an unprecedented number of wonderful human beings has been lost forever. I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends who have lost loved ones in this terrible natural disaster. The people of my district are strong, determined, faith and family- oriented. They will rebuild, they will heal their wounds, but they will never forget that night or those lost. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to again see the wonderful people of my district in central Florida come together. I saw volunteers, law enforcement, emergency management personnel, utility workers, Red Cross representatives, private contractors, State and local and Federal officials and employees working together. Mr. Speaker, I salute and pay tribute to the fine citizens of my State and district, and I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to my colleagues and others who have made expressions of concern and support during this difficult time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is one of the most important responsibilities given to the Congress, and that is to be a judge of its own Members in contested elections. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about fraud in a contested Federal election. This important responsibility is not a game of horseshoes where if we get close, we win. This is about one of the most sacred responsibilities and opportunity every American has, and that is to cast an honest and fair and open ballot. The question today is, did fraud occur? And the answer is yes, fraud did occur in this. We have information from the county, we have information from the State, we have information from Federal agencies. But we just heard the gentleman from Maryland speak at the well who said that we do not have all the information necessary. Mr. Speaker, I today protest the closing down of this investigation of fraud, and I am dismayed by what has taken place by some on the other side, what they have done. The tactics are, first of all, smear the investigation. Try to discredit it. Call it partisan. Call it a witch-hunt. Fail to cooperate. And not just that side of the aisle, but Federal agencies, INS, the Department of Justice. And then some who have been involved in this fraud have fled the country so we cannot talk to them. Does all of this sound familiar? Finally, the most repugnant part of the tactics of the other side is to come and disrupt the proceedings of the floor. My concerns is that we cannot act through intimidation in this process. We cannot act through obstruction. We cannot act through delay. If we pervert the electoral process, we destroy faith and confidence in the entire system. Mr. Speaker, this election is one of the worst cases of voter fraud in the history of Federal elections. Again, this is not a game of horseshoes. This is a fact that we have got to 700 and we have stopped counting. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has spent millions and millions of dollars to ensure fair elections in Haiti, in Bosnia, in countless developing nations and developing democracies across the world. Yet, we cannot ensure an honest election and fair election in the 46th District and there are still on the rolls 1,700 illegal voters, according to our information. Let me say that history will record the closing down of this investigation of fraud and this election with disdain. My grandparents were all immigrants. The greatest day in their life was when they became an American citizen. The second greatest day was when they were able to cast a vote, because they often did not have that opportunity from where they came. The integrity of that vote has been disparaged here today. What have we done to the vote that I and they cherish? If those who close down this investigation were taking a wrecking ball to the side of this House of Representatives' chambers, I do not believe they could do more damage to this institution than what they are doing today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today I attended the dedication of the George Bush Library at College Station, TX. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the following rollcalls: Nos. 587, 588, 589, 590, 592, 593, 595, and 596. I would have voted ``no'' on the following rollcalls: Nos. 586, 591, 594, and 597.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1836, as amended.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 2675, as amended.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act will provide valuable benefits to our Federal workers and their families. For the first time since 1954, Federal employees will have the opportunity to consider something other than term insurance as a plan for their family's financial future and security. They will be able to carry more insurance on themselves into retirement, I believe at very reasonable and competitive costs, and they will be able to increase the coverage for their dependents. This also will provide substantial benefits for our Federal retirees, who sometimes are lost without insurance coverage or see decreasing or diminishing value of their insurance coverage. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both the Majority and Minority staff for their fine work on this legislation and for their efforts not only on this bill but also on the previous legislation which passed today. I wish to also thank Members and staff for their work on the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the 103d Congress, I might add, for the record, there were 54 staff that handled Civil Service issues in a number of subcommittees. We have operated with one subcommittee and seven professional staffers on both sides of the aisle total, and worked on numerous pieces of legislation, including the two presented here today and nearly all the appropriations measures and other legislation to come before the House. I want to thank each of the staff members, members of my subcommittee, for their diligent participation and productive session as this may be the final bill we offer. This legislation, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, is bipartisan legislation. There is no controversy surrounding it. I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2675) to require that the Office of Personnel Management submit proposed legislation under which group universal life insurance and group variable universal life insurance would be available under chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, entitled the Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act, is in fact a bipartisan effort. It incorporates the provisions of the bill which I originally introduced and amendments offered by the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Civil Service. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his hard work on this legislation and also for his close cooperation on putting this legislation together. The bill also addresses an issue first brought to our attention by the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and I also want to commend her for her interest and contributions to this bill. Mr. Speaker, employer-provided benefit packages are in fact critical elements of employee compensation in our society today. If the Federal Government is to deliver the quality of services our overburdened taxpayers deserve, it must be competitive with the private sector to attract and to maintain a quality work force. Benefits must provide good value to Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I held an oversight hearing on the Federal Employees Government Life Insurance program. I called that hearing because I was concerned that the current program does not deliver the value Federal Government employees deserve. It has been in fact too many years since key parts of the life insurance program have been improved or in fact reviewed. More importantly, Congress has not even looked at the fundamental structure of the program since 1954. For 43 years, Mr. Speaker, the program has been based on term life insurance. For the first time in 43 years, this bill would introduce a life insurance option other than term insurance for our Federal employees. Many things have changed between 1954 and today, Mr. Speaker. Life insurance products are no exception. As usual, the private sector has led the way. The Federal Government must learn from the private sector. We must adopt benefit practices from the private sector that have adjusted to the dynamic, ever-shifting market environments. At our hearing, the Subcommittee on Civil Service heard from interested private sector insurance experts. We also heard from Met Life, which has been the sole provider of life insurance under the program since 1954. All of these experts agreed that it is time for major improvements in the Federal Government's life insurance program. All of these experts agreed that, at the very least, Congress should increase coverages that are currently available. All of these experts agreed that Congress should consider providing a new option to employees, group universal life insurance. In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, group universal life is a very flexible plan that permits employees to accumulate cash benefits for use in later years for various family needs or for their retirement. It has been gaining popularity in the private sector because it offers these many advantages. Insurance planning is important to many of our employees. Employees want and need to protect their families from financial hardship. Life insurance is an important component of that protection. My colleagues on the subcommittee agreed that our Federal employees in fact need more flexibility to tailor insurance coverage to their own needs. To better protect their families, Federal employees would be able to choose from options that are increasingly available to employees in the private sector such as group universal life. This bill does just that. It directs the Office of Personnel Management to present to Congress legislation offering our Federal employees group universal life insurance, group variable life insurance, and additional voluntary accidental and dismemberment insurance policies. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill permits employees to increase insurance coverage of family members and to maintain more adequate levels of coverage on themselves throughout their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, the hallmarks of this legislation are family protection, employee choice, and flexibility. Federal employees and their families will enjoy more options as they plan for their financial security. It is an important bill. It is important to our Federal employees. It is the first major improvement in life insurance benefits for our Federal employees in 16 years. It is the first time in 43 years that an alternative to term insurance is incorporated for the benefit of our Federal employees. I urge all Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1836) to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to improve administration of sanctions against unfit health care providers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1997, H.R. 1836, makes some very significant improvements in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], in order to protect the integrity of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. The Office of Personnel Management, which administers this health benefits program, asked for many of the specific changes this bill proposes and suggested much of the language incorporated in this measure. Additionally, some provisions in this bill are substantially similar to those in a bill which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Cummings], who is the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Civil Service. I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for his leadership on this important piece of legislation and these issues, and thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings] for his leadership and for his close cooperation on this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, almost 9 million Federal employees, postal workers, retirees, and their families depend on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. They rely on this program to obtain high quality health care at affordable prices. For the most part, the program has been a great success story. It is widely considered to be a model employer-sponsored health care plan, and many have suggested that its model should be copied so others in need of coverage could have access to a similar program. Key to the success is in fact the market orientation of the program. It provides Federal employees and retirees with the opportunity to choose from among numerous competing health care plans. Consumer choice and competition have kept premiums in check. To keep the cost of health care affordable for our Federal employees, retirees, and other dependents, Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect their health benefits from those few unscrupulous health care providers that attempt to defraud the system or engage in other improper practices. H.R. 1836 strengthens the Office of Personnel Management's ability to debar health care providers who commit such misconduct, and it also allows OPM to impose civil monetary penalties. Fraudulent and abusive practices drive up the costs of our health care. Under this bill, OPM will better be able to protect the taxpayers and Federal health care consumers by acting swiftly against unethical providers. This bill also contains other provisions that are very important, Mr. Speaker. For the first time, this bill establishes rules under which employee organizations-sponsored health care plans may reenter the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program after previously discontinuing their participation. It also requires the Office of Personnel Management to distribute the reserves of such plans that withdraw from the FEHB to plans that remain in the program. Another feature of this legislation makes clear that the FEHB contracts preempt State and local laws. This is a necessary provision which will permit nationwide plans in the program to provide uniform benefits throughout our country. Another important problem this bill addresses is the use of so-called silent PPOs. Mr. Speaker, PPOs, preferred provider organizations, negotiate lower rates from medical care providers. In exchange, the PPOs provide certain incentives to the providers. Directed PPOs promise to direct patients to the provider. Nondirected PPOs may promise financial incentives such as prepayment or prompt payment. Both directed PPOs and nondirected PPOs are in fact legitimate business arrangements, but silent PPOs are not. Silent PPOs arrange for carriers to pay discounted rates when they are not, in fact, entitled to them. They violate the terms of the discounted rate arrangements the providers have entered into with networks or carriers. Unfortunately, many people believe the Office of Personnel Management has tacitly encouraged the use of silent PPOs in a shortsighted effort to obtain lower rates from providers under any circumstances. Hospitals and doctors are the first victims of silent PPOs, but in the end, the practice in fact drives up health care costs for all consumers, just as shoplifters drive up the cost of retail purchases for everyone. Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that full disclosure is the answer to this problem. This legislation, H.R. 1836, requires OPM to encourage carriers who enter into discount arrangements with third parties to seek assurances that the third party has fully disclosed the terms of the discount to the health care provider. This solution protects the sanctity of contracts and the integrity of the FEHB program without hindering legitimate PPOs, whether they are directed or nondirected. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill permits certain employees and retirees from the Fed and also the FDIC to participate in our Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. Unless both Houses of Congress pass this bill during this session, some employees at these agencies will not be able to participate in the government's health care benefit program next year. These agencies in fact will be forced to find more costly alternatives to cover those employees. I urge all Members to support this bill and the many improvements it offers us and our Federal employees today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman of our full Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], another distinguished member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1997 deserves the support of every Member. This bill provides the Office of Personnel Management the tools to deal swiftly with health care providers who defraud the program or who engage in similar misconduct. The bill protects the integrity of the FEHBP in other ways as well. First, it makes it abundantly clear that carriers and preferred provider networks are expected to live up to the terms of their agreements with doctors and hospitals. Also, it establishes rules for the reentry into plans that have been discontinued as far as participation in the program. Finally, it levels the playing field for certain health care providers by clarifying that carriers may provide direct access and direct payment to those providers, even though they are not named in the relevant statute. Very finally, in closing, Mr. Speaker, a provision of this bill improves the Federal Government's ability to compete for highly qualified doctors by raising the maximum physician comparability allowance. I want to take this final moment to thank the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Burton, for his introduction of the legislation, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], the ranking member, and the gentlewoman who worked so hard on behalf of our civil servants, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and Members and staff who have helped put this bill together. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 555, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, why can we not pass the same bill that this House passed last year by a vote of almost every Member of the House? I submit it is because special interests weighed in. Here are the folks that supported the legislation last time that have now reversed their position. Special interests have weighed in. I have a unique approach today. Let us not represent special interests. Let us represent the American taxpayer. We heard it is not costing us anything. Let me put this in perspective. For every time someone got on an Amtrak passenger train last year, the taxpayer paid $25, $25. There were 20 million boardings. That is hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. So it does cost the taxpayer money. In fact, it has cost the taxpayer, since 1971, $19 billion to subsidize Amtrak. Testimony to our committee said that we could transport people by chauffeured limousine along some of these routes at a lower cost. Why can we not make these changes? Because special interests say that if we eliminate a route, we must pay 6 years full wages and benefits. We have tried Band-Aids. We have tried bailing wire. We have tried masking tape. I submit that the taxpayer demands that we make real reforms that fix Amtrak.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this debate and this matter is not about Bob Dornan and it is not about Ms. Sanchez. This debate is really about the Committee on House Oversight, on which I serve, finding the facts in this case. Why could this matter not and why can this matter not be concluded? It is simple. We found as a committee that agencies have dragged their feet in compliance with requests that we have made, simple requests to get to the facts. This House just a few weeks ago, September 30, passed a resolution to the Department of Justice asking the U.S. Attorney to do their jobs, to help us get the facts. So what we have been faced with is stalling, delay, a lack of information. This is not a complex issue if our committee has the facts. The facts that we have in fact indicate that a significant number of voters who voted illegally. We heard the minority leader say that we need the facts, we need the proof, and we need the evidence, and that is exactly what we need and that is all we are asking for. There is no intent to go through the citizenship of every voter. However, we have reason to be concerned about the validity of a significant number of voters in a contested election. Ms. Sanchez has been seated and treated fairly by this side of the aisle and by our committee. Again, this is not about Ms. Sanchez, it is not about Mr. Dornan. I agree that the time has come to conclude this process with one caveat, that we have the facts.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious business, a very serious issue before the Congress. In fact, as we heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] say, Amtrak is going down the tubes. Amtrak cannot survive a strike which has been put off for another week here. What is fundamental to this debate is, why is Amtrak off track? As a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, I had the nerve, the very gall, like other responsible members of the subcommittee, to ask why. Why is Amtrak in this condition? We held hearings on this matter. Why are we subsidizing billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in a losing system? Why is Amtrak losing money day, after day, after day? How can we put national and vital regional rail passenger service back in responsible operation? Anyone, in fact I submit anyone, Democrat or Republican, who take a look at this and we passed this bill by a wide, wide bipartisan measure and folks looked at it. We had a bipartisan commission look at it. I submit even if we had the village idiot look at this they would all come up with the same conclusion, that there are two reforms that are necessary for Amtrak. One is labor reforms, changes in labor law, some that were enacted decades ago. Two, liability reform. Everyone who looks at it comes to the same conclusion. I submit on the labor front, and this is, let us get to the heart of the issue, just read this, what are the Democrats and labor bosses defending? Up to 6 years of wages and benefits for any Amtrak employee asked to travel more than 30 miles from home to work. This is one provision. Look at this one. What are the Democrats and labor bosses defending? Up to 6 years of full wages and benefits for all Amtrak employees who are laid off due to a route elimination or because of the frequency of Amtrak train service falls below three trips per week. This is the premium that we have to pay some labor agreements that were made years and decades ago. We do not have firemen on trains anymore because the situation changes. We do not have fires in the engine anymore. But this is what they want to preserve. This is the heart and the core of it. I submit we can protect employee rights. I think that we can expand employment in Amtrak and give more opportunity. But we need labor reforms, we need liability reforms. We can protect individual rights as far as liability reform, but we must limit some exposure. We cannot be paying out these huge settlements and make this train run on track. With a little bit of flexibility, I submit, with a little bit of cooperation and, God forbid, a little bit of innovation, we can make Amtrak run. We can increase employment and, in fact, we can provide cost-effective national passenger rail service. Times change. I said there is no firemen on trains anymore. I am part of the club, too. I worked on the railroad in the summers and they are great people. They are wonderful people. They are hard-working people. But times and position change, I submit, Mr. Chairman, and we must change. Why must we change? Because Amtrak must run like a business. The Congress demands it. The balanced budget requires it. Common sense dictates it. The taxpayers are fed up and they will no longer pay for it running the way it is.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, this rule, in fact, that will keep Amtrak on track. Mr. Speaker, let us examine the facts. Amtrak is about to enter bankruptcy, and this Nation could, in fact, risk losing its inner city passenger rail system. We have a bill before us that enjoyed the bipartisan support of 406 House Members in 1995. This bill includes significant reform of Amtrak that will allow the corporation to do these things: To operate like a business, to cut costs, and achieve financial stability. In addition, the bill will allow the $2.3 billion that was provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act that we passed to be spent by Amtrak on very badly needed capital improvements and investments. Mr. Speaker, this rule should not be controversial at all. There is no veto threat. This is a badly needed piece of legislation. It allows us to have a Democratic substitute as well as Republican amendments. And H.R. 2247, in fact, is the same bill that this Congress passed 2 years ago on this floor. We need to act decisively to get this rule passed so that Amtrak reform legislation can be enacted to save Amtrak from bankruptcy, and that is the fact. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the labor reform measures that are contained in this bill since they are now generating some controversy. These reforms are exactly the same labor reforms that were included in H.R. 1788, the Amtrak reform bill of the 104th Congress. The reforms were actually endorsed by labor then. In fact, they were even drafted with labor's full participation in the process. These compromise reforms were the product of significant battles in our committee. And since the original committee proposals included even stronger proposals for labor reform, I think the case can be made that stronger labor reforms are appropriate for a company that is indeed facing bankruptcy. Through the efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], working in conjunction with organized labor, the committee produced legislation that enjoyed the support of the minority and also of organized labor. In fact, the bill was reported out of committee on a unanimous voice vote. Now labor is claiming the reforms are, in fact, unfair and this is what they have indeed supported in the past. I tell my colleagues what I think is unfair. The status quo to which labor is attached is unfair, and it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to this Congress and it is unacceptable to the American taxpayers who foot the bill for a system that is near bankruptcy. Under current law, Amtrak must pay a worker who is laid off due to a route elimination or frequency reduction up to 6 full years of full wages and benefits. Currently, over 75 percent of Amtrak employees are eligible for the full 6 years of benefits based on their length of service. This is what labor is, in fact, trying to preserve. They have a sweetheart deal that Congress handed to them a number of years ago on a silver platter when Amtrak was created and they do not want to give that up. Those are the facts. The same dynamic principle applies to the ban on contracting out. Right now Amtrak cannot contract out any work, other than food and beverage services, if it would result in the layoff of a single employee in a bargaining unit. This effectively prohibits almost all contracting out, in fact, of work by Amtrak. How is Amtrak supposed to rationalize the system and save money? This is a company about to, in fact, go bankrupt; to go belly up. But if it wants to downsize its employment base, if it has to pay everybody wages and benefits for 6 years, I ask how is that possible? Congress does not require the airlines to pay their employees for 6 years in the event of a layoff; why should we make Amtrak do that? And Amtrak cannot even achieve any savings through contracting out work as its competitors in the airline industry have been able to do. Mr. Speaker, this rule is indeed fair. Amtrak reform legislation is crucial to the future of passenger rail in this country. Let us pass the rule and let us move on to general debate on this important bill.