E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a sledge hammer now hangs over the States. Because of bipartisan legislation enacted back in 1988, States that violated the deadline for establishing good computer systems in their child support enforcement programs will lose all of their child support funds and, eventually, all of their funds in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, that is TANF. Here is an idea of how huge these penalties are: In California, they would amount to $4 billion a year; Michigan would be $880 million; in Pennsylvania, $800 million; in Illinois, $650 million. Penalties of this magnitude are devastating and would cripple both the child support and the welfare programs being run by those States. Then everyone would lose: the Federal Government, State government, and families and children, most of them poor. What we need is a new penalty that will be serious enough to motivate the States to do the right thing, yet moderate enough not to cripple the States' programs. This is exactly what this bill does. Specifically, under this bill noncompliant States will lose 4 percent of their child support money but none of their TANF welfare money the first year they are out of compliance; 8 percent the second year they are out of compliance; 16 percent the third; and 20 percent for the fourth and subsequent years. To give an idea of the impact of this bill, consider the following comparisons: California would be penalized $11 million, not $4 billion. Michigan would be penalized $4 million, not $880 million. Pennsylvania would be penalized $3 million, not $800 million. Illinois will be penalized $3 million, not $650 million. Yes, the penalties under this bill are moderate compared to those of current law. But no Member would think that they are weak. When this bill is enacted, at least 16 States will pay penalties that total about $30 million. This amount is greater than all the child support penalties imposed against States in this program for the previous decade. At the request of several States and Members of this body, we also included a waiver procedure in this bill that gives States some flexibility in how they can fulfill the most important computer requirement in Federal child support legislation, creating a computer system that links all the counties and cities of the States together in a common system. The General Accounting Office assures us that the technology to link together computer systems that operate on different software is now readily available, so we should allow the States to use this technology and then help them to pay for it. But our provision is carefully drafted to ensure that the linked systems perform efficiently and that the Secretary has adequate information and authority to disallow systems that are not adequate. The most important feature of this bill is that we have worked for nearly 5 months to build a bipartisan, bicameral approach that is supported by the administration, the States, and child advocates. And here I have to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my esteemed colleague. The gentleman and his staff have contributed greatly, at least as much to this bill as the majority. The gentleman from Michigan has repeatedly helped us to find the middle ground between competing forces that tried to move the penalties towards the extremes. Thanks in large part to the gentleman and the members of his subcommittee, this bill has found that magic place along the continuum of penalties that allows all sides to support our bipartisan approach. Thus, it is not surprising that this bill enjoys nearly universal support. All sides support the bill because it represents the middle ground between severe penalties that will cripple the States and moderate penalties that will motivate the States to do the right thing. In addition to a few minor and technical provisions, the bill also contains a very useful reform of the Nation's child support incentive program. Under current law, generous child support incentives are paid to States that conduct inefficient child support programs. More than half the money is now given away without any regard to the programs's efficiency. Under the system created by this bill, States will receive incentive payments only for effective performance. Virtually everyone who has studied the new system has concluded that it would lead to improvements in child support performance by the States. The House enacted this reform last year, but the Senate failed to take it up, so we are going to send it back to them once again. The heart of this bill is the penalty provision. It is fair, it is tough, and it enjoys nearly universal support. So let us now move quickly to enact this bill and to impose serious but not crippling fines on States that have failed to build effective computer systems. If we take this action, I can virtually assure the Members that within a year all but one or two States will have their systems and will meet all the Federal requirements. More importantly, we will have taken yet another step towards creating a child support system that ensures that children get the financial support they need and deserve. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a hard-working member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I agree with the gentleman that we are going to continue to work with him. We know of his concern in this area and we know of the value of his intentions. We will do what we can to work with the gentleman during the conference process and even afterwards if it is not included in the final product.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would tell the gentleman that we are still in general debate. We are, I think, about to conclude the general debate.

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would also add, in talking about our expectations, people will generally not rise above our expectations of them. Clearly under the welfare reform bill, now under this bill as the effect that it is going to have on fathers all over this country who are not meeting their obligations, it is going to raise the expectations and require certain things that were not required before and that were really just sloughed off. Those days are behind us, thank goodness, and I think we are on the way to putting back together the American family. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill with reservations, which I will state. This legislation is intended to encourage the remaining states and territories to comply with child support enforcement computer guidelines set in 1988. The states have had ten years to get their computer systems together. Yet here they are, asking Congress not only for an extension, but, while we're at it, could we throw in reduced penalties too? Incredibly, there are still 14 states and two territories that have yet to comply, including my own state of Maryland. A substantial number of children will be adversely affected if we do not make these changes. That is something that no one wants to do. This is tragic. Congress is, in effect, rewarding the states for their delinquence. We are sending the wrong message to deadbeat parents and their children. However, Mr. Speaker, we are reminded once again that, in the past, child support enforcement was a low priority in this country. We cannot and should not send the wrong message to deadbeat parents that failure to pay child support is acceptable. They are not excused by Congress or any other government function of their responsibilities to their children. We must be careful not to forgive passive neglect. In my own legislative efforts to crack down on deadbeat parents, I say ``you can run but you can't hide!'' This legislation says ``you can run, you can hide, and eventually you will be caught, but not for a little while longer.'' Any extension provided for non-compliant states and territories prolongs the time that children must wait for badly needed support. I will vote in favor of this bill for the children, who need assistance sooner rather than later. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means have until midnight tomorrow, Friday, February 27, 1998 to file a report on H.R. 3130.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will require health maintenance organizations (HMOs) under Medicare to disclose certain information to individuals who subscribe to an HMO, or who are a prospective subscriber to an HMO. Specially, my bill would require an HMO to provide Medicare subscribers or prospective subscribers with a description of the medical education and training received by the HMO's physicians, the physicians' history of domestic of foreign medical practice, and the position each physician currently holds in the HMO. In addition, my bill would require an HMO to disclose to subscribers upon request its audited financial statements, as well as the salaries of its five highest paid executives. Any promotional material by the HMO would state that the above information is available upon request. Overall, my bill would allow Medicare HMO subscribers to scrutinize their HMO's financial condition to ensure that quality health care delivery is being achieved. It is time for HMOs, who receive federal dollars and ask for the trust of our nation's seniors, to be open and candid about their operations. It is time for Medicare HMO subscribers to benefit from efficient management. It is time we allowed a little sunshine into our nation's Medicare HMOs. Mr. Speaker, my bill builds on the reforms passed last year as part of the Balanced Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33). Those reforms gave HMO subscribers greater protection by giving them access to pertinent information about HMOs. This bill is also similar to a bill I introduced in the last Congress, H.R. 2249. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very generous words. President Clinton's $22 billion child care initiative creates the impression there is a national child care crisis and that the Federal Government needs to intervene even further than it has in local child care markets. The facts are that 73 percent of preschool children are cared for primarily by their parents or relatives and that the Federal Government already sponsors a host of child care programs. Five of these programs also provide direct payments or subsidies for child care totaling about $11 billion this year. At the same time only about 30 percent of American families with preschool children use paid child care while parents work. Consequently, around 70 percent of the families, many with low incomes, who are struggling to provide quality care for children at home, would receive no support from the Clinton child care initiative. If there is money to spend, it should go to all families with children. We should acknowledge that all mothers work, whether they decide to work at home with their children or remain employed outside of the home. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, we made two major reforms to child care programs: First, block grants totaling several major programs so that the States and localities would have flexibility in using Federal child care money; second, giving States $20 billion over 6 years to help pay for child care for poor and low-income families. CBO estimates that between 1997 and 2002 spending on child care will increase by 38 percent without any additional legislation. In response to the changes made by the welfare reform, States are now revamping and expanding their child care programs, especially to make them more effective in helping mothers who leave welfare. Let us give the States a chance to get their child care systems in place. The child care credit in the Tax Code is open-ended spending available to all Americans who pay Federal taxes. This source of Federal support for child care is also expected to grow substantially without the need for additional Federal legislation. The child care market is working well. Most parents report that they are satisfied with their current child care arrangement. The bottom line is that if there is money to be spent by helping families raise their children, it should be available to all families with children and not mandated from Washington.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on December 18, 1997, I had the pleasure of honoring David Samson at a meeting of the Concerned Citizens of Northeast Dade. Below is the text of my speech: Tribute to David Samson Today I rise to honor a man who has proven himself to be a true leader in one of the most civic and politically involved communities in these United States. I am speaking of The Honorable David Samson, Mayor of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. When Mr. Samson moved to Florida 25 years ago, he planned to retire after a successful business career in Chicago. But for a man like Dave Samson, retirement didn't come easily. He got involved in his community, became the president of his condominium, and has held that office for the past 23 years. I believe he is the longest standing condominium president in Florida's history. Dave also has been Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Metro-Dade Police Department Station 6 for the past eight years. To his credit, he has raised thousand of dollars to assist the police department and the families of fallen police officers. For the past 13 years, Dave has been President of one of the most active and influential civic groups in all of Miami- Dade County, Concerned Citizens of Northeast Dade. During his tenure, Dave has improved the quality of life for residents, most of who are in their golden years. He created the Vial of Life Program for seniors in emergency situations, created programs to educate residents on hurricane preparedness, improved police protection, street lighting, and urged the formation of a much needed fire rescue unit on the beach. Under Dave's leadership, this group has also been responsible for tremendous support in ``getting out the vote'' initiatives for important issues and candidates they felt were worthy of their support. I have been a beneficiary of this support and feel that we have an excellent partnership working on issues that greatly affect this community such as beach renourishment and seniors' right related to adult-only condominiums. This outstanding organization is honoring Dave at a most-deserved affair to pay tribute to him as the outgoing president. I am proud to be a part of this tribute. Ladies and Gentlemen, there's still more. At the ripe young age of 80, Dave Samson led the fight to incorporate his beautiful area of Sunny Isles Beach and befittingly became its first mayor. This doesn't surprise those of us who know Dave personally. He is truly a dynamo and a man filled with heart. Perhaps the person who knows best is Dave's beautiful wife of 58 years, Marion. They say behind every great man is a strong woman. To have endured a lifetime with a man whose career that just won't quit, I believe Marion deserves a medal. On behalf of Emilie and myself, I congratulate Dave on his many years of dedicated service to Concerned Citizens of Northeast Dade and to the entire community who has benefited from all his tireless efforts on their behalf.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues, within the last year I was in the Republic of the Congo. I went deep into the Ndoki forest, and saw what was going on; spent almost a full day with President Lissouba and got to know him, and know of the concern, the deep concern he had for his people and his country. Sure, it is a fragile democracy. It was the only democracy that the Republic of the Congo has ever known. For it to be struck down in such a brutal way by not only the rebel forces from within the Republic of the Congo, but from the intervention from Angola, is inexcusable. I think when we talk about what is our interest in that part of the world, we have to ask ourselves certain questions. Sure, there is oil there that is of great value and should be conserved. We would like for our American oil producers to have equal access to it. But there is much more than that. In the Ndoki forest, traveling hours in dugout canoes, and going back and hiking hours through the swamp, and sleeping on the ground, we were able to actually see for the first time the silver-backed gorillas that are coming closer and closer to extinction. On the way we were able to see the results of what happens in clear-cutting the rain forest, which is going to have a lot to do with world climate. We talked to President Lissouba and know of his concern, his cooperation with USAID and other organizations that are trying to conserve the forest, trying to conserve the rain forest elephant and the silver-backed gorilla, together with other endangered species. If we care about this earth that we live in, if we care about the freedom of individuals, if we care about democracy, we must turn our attention to the struggling democracies in Africa, and ask ourselves exactly what course this Congress should take, what actions should the United States take, what should our relations be with nations that would destroy cities such as the leveling of Brazzaville, and actually the illegal conduct of Angola and what it has been doing. I want to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Menendez] for bringing this to the floor and the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] for his good leadership in this regard. And I urge a yes vote on this important resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think there are so many people who have been working on this legislation. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] mentioned Sister Josephine Murphy, whose personal experience that she shared with us in such a dynamic way both at a press conference immediately preceding this bill coming to the floor, as well as before the committee. We had so many wonderful witnesses give testimony as to what is happening out there and the tragedy of foster care as opposed to getting people into adoption. I want to thank a few of the staff people, too: Casey Bevan, whose experience in this area has been invaluable to the committee. Deborah Colton, the chief of staff on the Democrat side of the subcommittee, has done a tremendous job of cooperation, as, of course, her boss, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] has done a tremendous job, for which I am deeply appreciative; and, of course, Ron Haskins, who is the chief of staff on the Republican side and the subcommittee. To all of them, all of my colleagues know that we cannot function with good legislation without competent staff. The competence has been tremendous in this regard, and we certainly appreciate it. I want to close at this time, Mr. Speaker, in sharing with my colleagues an article that was in the Orlando Sentinel. I was in Orlando Monday night, spending the night, and Tuesday morning. The headline in one of the lead stories in the Orlando Sentinel was a colored picture of a baby who is designated as ``Disney's darling.'' The reason she was is that she was found in the restroom in the Magic Kingdom, actually in a toilet, where the mother had left this poor child. They had to give the child CPR. But I am pleased to tell my colleagues that this child is doing well. She is loved by the care she is receiving now in the hospital. Her mother is unknown, as, of course, her father is, too. She has been named by the people at the hospital as Baby Jasmine. I think the House should reflect a moment on the historic nature of what we are doing today. Baby Jasmine has a real good shot, in fact, I would say a probability at this point, partly because of this legislation, that Christmas of 1998 will find her with a real family, her permanent family, a loving family in which she will celebrate the Christmas holidays. And that is a wonderful thing to look forward to for Baby Jasmine, as well as thousands of other kids. So when we approach the holiday season next year, we will know that this vote, this legislation, has been responsible for placing so many of these kids in a permanent loving home. I want to close with the words of a 3-year-old. I stated these words when the original bill came to the House floor, but I cannot think of any words that express the meaning of what we are doing today better than these words from a 3-year-old. In meeting her adoptive family, the first family that she had ever known in her 3 years, her first comment, standing in front of them with her hands on her hips, saying, ``Where have you been?'' ``Where have you been?'' This bill is going to expedite this entire process and it is going to bring about the joy of adoption and the bonding of a real family to so many kids. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], who has been very active in this area of adoption on both the floor and since she has come to the Congress.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 327), providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 867 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are now considering is needed to resolve the differences between the House on bill H.R. 867, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. This legislation passed this House last April by a vote of 416 to 5. It was approved last week by the other body by unanimous consent. The resolution before us provides for a House amendment to the Senate-passed amendment, with an agreed-upon compromise of the differences remaining between the two houses. We are doing this with the expectation that the Senate will agree quickly to this compromise and send the bill to the President for his anticipated signature. I have seldom been so proud as I am today to have been involved in this most historic legislation. Let me briefly tell my colleagues why. In 1980, the Congress enacted legislation that provided badly needed money to help the States protect abused and neglected children. Designed primarily by Democrats, the legislation was a great achievement in its time. However, we can now see that some of the technical provisions of the 1980 legislation have caused too many children to remain too long in foster care. In our highly justified efforts to help unfortunate parents and their children, we have inadvertently created a system that keeps children in the limbo of foster care, and in all too many cases, in harm's way. This wonderful bill corrects that problem. It does so by use of three tried and true methods. First, it establishes time lines to which States must conform in getting children into permanent placement. We are talking about permanent adoptive, loving homes. The effort of these time lines is to force States to make quicker decisions about when the child should be returned to the biological parents or made available for adoption. Second, the bill gives the States much more flexibility in identifying cases in which no attempt to help the biological family should be made. These include cases in which a parent has murdered another child or has lost custody of another child, plus other aggravated circumstances of this type which would be identified by the States. Third, we give States a cash incentive for increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care. Specifically, we pay the States up to $6,000 per adoption for increasing the number of children who are adopted out of foster care. The bill does other fine things, but this is its great achievement. That great achievement is moving children toward adoption with dispatch. As a result, we can expect adoptions to increase by many thousands of cases in the next 5 years. Think of that, thousands of additional children removed from the uncertainty of foster care and placed in warm, loving, and permanent families. For this great achievement, two Members of the House deserve special recognition. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dave Camp, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, has worked for more than a year now to guide this bill to final passage. As a matter of fact, he brought a great deal of expertise from his own experience as a lawyer in this area. His tireless work on this legislation and especially his persistence in working with the U.S. Senate, which sometimes is not an easy task, has enabled us to achieve a bill that is assured of passage in both the House and Senate. And the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Barbara Kennelly, has worked closely with the gentleman from Michigan on this bill and has succeeded in representing the interests of the Democrats in a wide variety and array of advocacy groups. I have always respected the legislative skills of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Mrs. Kennelly], but sometimes working on different sides of important issues. Thus, it has been a special pleasure for me to work on the same side of an issue with her and to profit from, rather than sometimes and occasionally being the victim of, her great legislative skills. Because of the demands of the legislative schedule, the House and Senate were not able to conduct a formal conference on this legislation. Even so, we have worked closely with the Senate at both the Member and the staff levels to achieve a bill that both Houses could accept. But because there is no conference, there is no conference report to establish and to clarify the legislative history of this important legislation. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an abbreviated version of the legislative history of this bill.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3034.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3034, a bill to preserve current funding for Customs inspections positions throughout the State of Florida. I am pleased that the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means has agreed to allow this time sensitive bill to come to the floor under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, this bill is needed to preserve Customs inspectional positions in Florida ports due to the fact that Customs' authority to access the Customs COBRA User Fee Account expired on September 30, 1997. The User Fee Account has a substantial surplus, and my bill would allow Customs limited access to pay the salary of Customs inspectors who process cruise-ship passengers returning to Florida from the Caribbean Basin. My bill will allow Customs more than enough time to develop a long-term plan to continue processing the current level of cruise-ship passengers, as well as expected future increases. As a longtime champion of the Customs Service and their fine work in south Florida, I am confident of their commitment to provide full service to the cruise ship industry which is so vital to the economy of my home State of Florida. Let me acknowledge that the Committee on Ways and Means will have to consider any extension or expansion of this temporary provision beyond September 30, 1998. Mr. Speaker, enactment of the temporary measure in H.R. 3034 will ensure that the smooth flow of passengers at Florida's ports continue and that our State's vibrant cruise ship industry will not be damaged while a long-term solution is found. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3034. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. [Conference Report submitted by Mr. Rogers is in Part I.]

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] as well as the ranking Democrat Members, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], for allowing this to come to the floor in this expedited procedure. This is a very important bill for Florida. I would also like to commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for their involvement in moving this bill along.

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