E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our country's veterans. On Saturday, November 11, we will celebrate yet another Armistice Day, or as it is more commonly called today Veterans Day. This is a day when every American should stand together in remembrance, reflection, and gratitude to the men and women who have fought for our freedom, a freedom which has endured only through the enormous sacrifice of the veterans we remember today. More than 1 million veterans did not return to the freedom of America. Countless other millions returned wounded in body or in spirit. To those soldiers and their families, I pledge today, that we will never forget your mighty tribute to our country. And on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month we will stand and salute the flag which our veterans carried with them to the wars, and which serves as a symbol of our national pride. At that moment, when the sirens sound, we must reflect on what kind of America we might live in today if not for the service of those who we honor each year on Armistice Day. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record. Veterans Day, 1995 The threat to freedom and peace is no less sinister than in war. Our country's future must not go by default. The veteran must not fail the Nation's trust.--General Douglas MacArthur Veterans Day marks the final day of the closing ceremonies of the 50th Anniversary of World War II. Although this day marks the conclusion of the official end of commemorations, we must never forget to honor the brave men and women who served in the war that changed our future forever. Veterans Day provides us with an opportunity to remember and to acknowledge the sacrifice of men and women who have served their country in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is not a day of sadness, but is in the truest sense, a day of reflection; a day of commemoration; a day of honor; a day of celebration. Veterans Day allows us to celebrate victory and the ultimate peace achieved on a myriad of battlefields around the world. Peace and victory have been earned with the blood of Americans who sacrificed their lives to preserve freedom and democracy. As terrible as that sacrifice is, nonetheless, it is the most divine of all human sentiments and the unconditional moral evolution of mankind. Today, freedom enjoyed by us all is directly due to the sacrifice made by the American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine who was willing to fight and die for freedom. He has engraved his imprint upon the souls of his countrymen. He has molded his statue in the hearts of all Americans. He has erected his monument in the memories of his comrades. His legacy has provided Americans with the highest example of patriotism. [[Page E 2159]] His testimonial has provided posterity with the foremost lessons of liberty and freedom. His recollection belongs to us by virtue of his achievements. His memorial belongs to the ages. Our estimation of him was formed on the battlefields around the world and has never changed. We regard him today as we always have--our nation's enduring hero. He has written his own history in the annuals of war in the blood of his enemy. The glory of his name is the legacy of every freedom loving man or woman who has ever lived or died on American soil. We do not know the parable of his life. We do, however, know the nobility, the glory, and the significance of his death. Men and women who have served their country in war need not be reminded of the high price of freedom. They, more than most, understand that freedom earned is always worth the price paid. That is our birthright; the legacy of America. That birthright, that legacy, and that heritage must never be taken for granted. The more difficult the struggle, the more glorious the victory. Today, children must be taught the value of freedom and at what price their freedom was earned. They must be infused with the singular pride and privilege of being an American, and must be taught the deep sense of duty, honor and conviction conferred upon those of us fortunate enough to live in a free country. Throughout the history of the United States, succeeding generations of Americans have always been inspired by the deeds, by the valor, and by the sacrifices made by American servicemen who served before them--giants in life and in death. Veterans Day is a gathering of generations, and a gathering of giants, and is the one day that solidifies generations of Americans. On Veterans Day, a torch is passed from one generation to the other, and empowers us all to recollect and to express our gratitude for those who have served in wars past. The torch is subsequently passed along to our children and to our grandchildren, and burns brightly within the spirit and the soul of men and women destined to uphold the courageous tradition of American servicemen--patriots all who honorably served their country, not only in World War II, but to those who served in Korea and Vietnam, and whose 50th Anniversary will soon be upon us. The American spirit has always been resolute and cannot be deterred, and is the determination which fires our consciousness through any endeavor, through any ordeal, through any conflict. Servicemen and women have always been our nation's guardians, and have always protected and defended the sacred traditions entrusted to us by the Constitution. To paraphrase Winston Churchill in honoring British airmen, never has so much been owed, by so many, to so few. If history has taught us anything, it is that the American serviceman will bear any hardship, will overcome any obstacle, and will conquer any foe in their quest for liberty, justice, and freedom. As we conclude the commemoration ceremonies of the 50th Anniversary of the end of the war, it is fitting that we pay homage and acknowledge the World War II generation for their contribution to our nation. In a true sense, this generation had a rendezvous with destiny.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Floridian and dear friend who recently passed away. J. Richard ``Dick'' Sewell, a former congressional aide and retired Washington representative for Florida Power & Light Co., died October 26 in a Washington hospital. He had lung cancer. A native of Orlando, Dick was well known and loved in Washington and Florida. He moved to Washington in 1963 to become administrative assistant to Congressman Charles Bennett, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the first House Ethics Committee. In 1966, he served as staff coordinator for the ad hoc ethics committee and helped Bennett draft legislation which resulted in a permanent House Ethics Committee. He was a former president of the Burro Club, an organization of Democratic congressional aides. In that capacity, he hosted a 1967 visit to Capitol Hill by President Lyndon Johnson and members of his Cabinet. President Johnson, himself a former Burro Club president, reminisced to the membership at length about his own experiences as a congressional assistant in the early 1930's. Dick left Bennett's staff in 1971 to become director of public affairs for the National Association of Food Chains. In 1972, he assisted Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA) in his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination, serving as the campaign's executive director in Florida. He became director of Federal Government affairs for Florida Power & Light Co. in 1973 and was the utility's chief Washington representative until his retirement, due to illness, in 1994. He was highly effective in energy, environment, and tax issues pending before Congress and Federal agencies, and was the author of numerous published articles on those subjects. In 1986-87, he directed FPL's campaign to establish a national award to recognize quality performance by American corporations. Partly through those efforts, Congress in 1987 enacted the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Improvement Act, under which companies compete for the Malcolm Baldridge Award. Named for the former Commerce Secretary, the awards are given annually by the Department of Commerce to corporations of all sizes in various categories. Dick was a past president of the Washington Business-Government Relations Council [[Page E 2106]] and the Washington Representatives Research Group. He served on the board of directors of the Public Affairs Council and as a charter member of the board of governors and treasurer of the Bryce Harlow Foundation. His club memberships included the Congressional Country Club, Metropolitan Club, National Press Club, Burning Tree Club, National Democratic Club, Capitol Hill Club, and the Jefferson Islands Club. After graduating from public high school in Orlando, he studied journalism at the University of Florida and received his degree in 1959. From 1957 to 1959, he was sports editor of the Orlando Evening Star. After college, the joined the sports staff of the Atlanta Constitution. He later moved to Jacksonville, FL, where he opened his own public relations and advertising agency. A lifelong loyal Floridian, he was a former president of the Florida State Society in Washington and the Washington Chapter of the University of Florida Alumni Club. He received the University's Distinguished Alumnus Award in 1979. Dick was an avid golfer and sports fan. His survivors include his wife, Margaret ``Peggy'' Sewell, and their two children, Jane and Michael Sewell, all of Washington; his mother Bertie Sewell of Orlando; and a brother, Walter Sewell, also of Orlando. All of us from Florida will miss Dick, a great American, a great friend.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, for the second time this year, the House will be asked to decide between the status quo and making real reforms to the failed welfare system. Consider the millions of Americans now on welfare. History tells us that they came from farms, they came from all over this Nation and elsewhere in search of a better life for themselves and their families. They settled in the cities, they settled in the coal mines, and they were hard working because there was a strong work ethic. Then the jobs went away. So when the jobs left the big cities and the mines closed, why did not the same people who were the children of those who came to the factories, who came to the cities seeking a better way of life, why did they not follow? Why did they not go where there were better jobs and better opportunities? They did not because the Congress of the United States, this Government, put into place a welfare system that was corrupt and destructive--although thought to be kind and gentle. For generations now, we have seen this destructive welfare system stay in place and keep people where there are no jobs, a system that destroys self- esteem, destroys families, destroys the basic moral fiber that has held this Nation together. Now is the time to sweep this failed welfare system away. One of my colleagues has said that, through our welfare reforms, the Republicans are coming for the poor and the children. Yes, we are. We are coming for them to pull them out of the life of dependency and poverty. We are sweeping away a destructive system, and we are putting in a system that can work. For once, after we pass this bill, let us join together in a new meaning of the American spirit and solve the problems of poverty in this country, to give people back self-dignity, to discourage illegitimacy, to promote the family, and to promote the values that have made this country great. Support real welfare reform; support the Republican reconciliation bill.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak in this part of the debate, but I have been sitting in my office listening to the debate, and sitting here on the floor listening to it. I have heard so much about this Republican tax increase. What this side has been talking about is the cuts in the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit started in 1975. It started out as a $2 billion a year program. It now has grown to $20 billion a year. That is a 1,000 percent increase. Is the Republican plan cutting it? No, we are not cutting it. I have a graph next to me that I think very graphically depicts, in picture form, so maybe those who have been debating can understand it. The red bars, as we see, starting in the year 1996, are the Republican proposal. The blue shows what existing law is, and what existing law would be if the present spending levels were to remain in place. As we can clearly see, in each year where we see the red bars, that is the Republican plan, the spending levels are substantially over 1995 and continue to escalate. As a matter of fact, it escalates out to $27 billion. People might say ``Where are the savings coming from?'' The savings are coming from people who do not have children. We feel that the earned income tax credit was meant, really, to help people out that are trying to raise families. The question is, of the people that have children, were any of them cut. Yes, some of them were cut. That was at the highest level of income. The ones going into the workplace, the ones that are becoming first-time employed, they are not all affected by what the Democrats call this huge cut. The argument has been going on on this side of the aisle to say ``This is a tax increase.'' Let me tell the Members that is what is wrong with this country today, that type of mentality. Eighty-five percent of the money sent out by Uncle Sam as an earned income tax credit is an outlay, 85 percent of it. That means only 15 percent is actually a refund in taxes. If we look at the whole reconciliation bill we will also find something else in there that people who are taxpayers are getting. That is a $500 credit for children. The people that are losing the earned income tax credit at the higher end of the scale, they are going to receive a tax credit. It comes out in the wash, and it is just, really, about the same. The only people that are going to actually lose this are the single taxpayers that do not have children, that are not raising families. I tell the Members, with the type of mentality and the type of argument that has been going on in this Chamber today, it is no wonder that we are swimming in red ink. This is irresponsible accounting and it is irresponsible debate. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concurrent resolution.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, after expanding the welfare state for 60 years, President Clinton and the Democrat Party failed to deliver on the Clinton campaign promise to end welfare as we know it. Yet, while every lever of power was controlled by the Democrats, no one acted to save the millions of children that today remain trapped on welfare as we know it. In the Democratic Congress, no Democrat welfare reform bill was approved in committee, none was advanced to the House and Senate floor, and none came to the President's desk for signature. Republican and bipartisan efforts to reform welfare were stymied. In contrast, House Republicans today are taking another huge step to deliver on our pledge to the American people to replace the failed welfare system. We promised to bring real welfare reform to the House floor for a vote, and we kept our word. We pledged to cut programs, to cut redtape, and to slow exploding welfare spending, and we did just that. In the next few weeks, we will send a bill to President Clinton that will forever change welfare from a way of life into a way to help America's poor get work and free themselves from government handouts. Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that reforming welfare is necessary. Candidates in both parties have campaigned on the need to reform welfare and have won a lot of votes talking about change. But there is a big difference in this town between talk and action. To Republicans, the options have been clear: Whether to save the failed welfare system or save the children it traps in poverty forever. We chose to save the children. That is why Members who want to reform the failed welfare system will vote for this reconciliation bill, because they know it is right for our children and it is particularly right for our children's future.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. For 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the religious and cultural capital of the Jewish people. Yet, Israel remains the only country in the world where the United States does not maintain its Embassy in the capital city. On this day when Jerusalem is celebrating its 3,000th anniversary, there is no better time than now to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the recognized capital of Israel by relocating our Embassy to there. This is a matter of principle and priority to the Jewish people. Jerusalem is their seat of Government. Their Prime Minister and Parliament are located there. We can show no greater respect for their Government than to agree to move our Embassy to their capital. I urge my colleagues to continue to strongly support all efforts to follow through with this legislation.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Medicare Preservation Act, and to deliver to this legislative body a message from my senior constituents in south Florida. Stop the fraudulent and abusive practices against the Medicare system. Do something about it, and just stop it. On September 6, I mailed a letter to all of my constituents who qualify for Medicare which explained the problems that face the Medicare program. In this letter I asked for their input on how to preserve the system. To my surprise, over 90 percent of those who responded said that Congress must stop the fraud and abuse that they feel is widespread. Just listen to what is going on out there. On September 22, I received a letter from Mrs. Jack Barnett, whose husband at one time was the chief of surgery at his hospital in New Jersey. Today Dr. Barnett is an invalid living with his wife in Hollywood, FL. Mrs. Barnett noticed last year that they were receiving billing statements for feeding tubes which Dr. Barnett never used. The company charging for these services received $2,765, $3,870, and $4,411 from Medicare. Mrs. Barnett asked her husband's nurse if she had ever seen anything like this before, and when the nurse saw the name of the company, she stated that two of her other patients were billed for the same thing by the same company. Mrs. Audrey Vitolo of Deerfield Beach, FL was charged $600 for a simple blood test. Medicare paid the bill. She told me she felt victimized. Mr. Ted Murphy of Fort Lauderdale, FL, was charged $10,000 for a simple operation on his eye lid. Even though this was an outpatient procedure, Medicare paid the bill. He told me that he complained to the hospital, but no action was taken. Mr. Chairman, I want my constituents to know that their message came through loud and clear, and that Congress today is taking serious steps to stop fraud and abuse. This Medicare bill will make it a Federal offense to engage in fraud, theft, embezzlement, false statement, bribery, graft, and illegal remunerations, including kickbacks. Civil penalties have been doubled and incentives have been added to encourage people to report cases of fraud and abuse. First, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will be required to alert beneficiaries of instances of fraud and abuse against the program. A toll-free number will be established to report cases of fraud and abuse. Also, at the request of any person, the Secretary will publish a special fraud alert, which notifies the public of practices that are suspect. Second, a beneficiary incentive program will be established where individuals who report cases of fraud and abuse can share the amount collected against those who are fined. Just think of the power of this provision, Mr. Chairman. There are currently 37 million Americans in the Medicare program. This means there are 37 million potential private attorney generals to help stop fraudulent and abusive practices. I know this will please many of my constituents, especially the Simons of Hallandale, FL, who wrote to me recently to inform me that they saved Medicare $4,000 by reporting suspect billing practices of their doctor. Third, under this legislation, direct spending for Medicare-related activities of the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services will significantly increase. These activities include: First, prosecuting Medicare-related matters through criminal, civil, and administrative proceeding; second, conducting investigations relating to the Medicare program; third, performing financial and performance audits of programs and operations relating to the Medicare program; fourth, performing inspections and other evaluations relating to the Medicare program; and fifth, conducting provider and consumer education activities regarding Medicare fraud and abuse. I want to stress to my constituents that this legislation is not a paper tiger. This bill provides serious money to stop fraud and abuse: At least $430 million in 1996; $490 million in 1997; $550 million in 1998; $620 million in 1999; $670 million in the year 2000; $690 million in 2001; and $710 million in 2002. This is a serious financial commitment that the Congressional Budget Office said will save Medicare money. Finally, this bill establishes a health care anti-fraud task force. This task force will be a coordinated effort by the Department of Justice to prosecute health care fraud offenses. Mr. Chairman, the Medicare Preservation Act is the toughest, most serious attempt this Congress has ever taken to stop fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. I am proud to have contributed to the effort to address the issue of fraud and abuse, and I know when my constituents learn of their new rights under the Medicare program, they will be proud of this Congress too. I urge my colleagues to vote for this most important legislation. Vote to preserve and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for clearing that up, and I will be sure not to make that mistake again. I would go back to the point that what we were after was dealers. We were not after users on minimum mandatory. And the gentleman made the statement in his remarks earlier as to why did we go after heroin and some of those other drugs. Heroin use back in 1986 had fallen way down, and we did have certain information about crack cocaine, and it really scared us very much about what would happen to our neighborhoods.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would close by just saying to the gentleman that the inner-city neighborhoods, the poor minority neighborhoods, are the most fragile in the entire country. They are the ones that have to be protected. They are the ones where we have to rid the neighborhood of the drug dealers. I think we must all work together to see this does not happen.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend from Michigan that I always listen to him, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not voluntarily, but I have certainly listened to the remarks that he has just made. And I would say to the gentleman that we are not talking about mere possession here. Before reaching the minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines, for the law now, one has to have over 5 grams of crack cocaine. That qualifies them as a trafficker, not a casual user. And if the gentleman does not believe that qualifies them as a trafficker, I would suggest that he might want to argue that further within the committee to change the level, the committee on which the gentleman is the ranking Democrat member. But I would say to the gentleman that we need to go after drug traffickers of all these drugs that are destroying the future of the young Americans, and that is exactly what this crack cocaine continues to do.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SHAW. I apologize.

Mr. SHAW. I hope one day to have a home in your State.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from California, who would not yield to me, that she is talking about these innocent young blacks with just a few things in their pocket. We are talking about 20 to 50 doses. Nobody walks around with that unless they are selling and unless they are trafficking, and those are the ones we are after. I do not know how it is in California, but I can tell you that in Dade County, in Broward County, and Palm Beach County that I represent, and as a matter of fact right here in this Nation's Capital in the minority areas, they are saying come in and arrest the drug traffickers, get them out of our neighborhood. Put them in jail and throw the key away. That is the voice of America. That is the voice of the minorities in the areas that are responsible who want to get their areas up out of poverty, get out of the gutter, get the problems out of their neighborhoods and get the crimes out of the streets so again they can walk their streets and sit on their front porch and they can enjoy life.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I was sitting in my office and listening to some of the debate. The gentleman from South Carolina was speaking as I walked out the door, and the suggestions were being made that there was some racist motivation behind the question of minimum mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine and possession thereof. And also the question was raised as to how did this ever get into the law. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman how it got into the law. It was an amendment I put into the law, and I put it in when I was on the Judiciary Committee. At that time I felt that it was a very important provision to be in the law. There was no racist motivation whatsoever in putting that in the law. It was about in 1986, right about then. I was on the Judiciary Committee. Crack cocaine was almost a recent phenomenon, but it was growing like Topsy. This was something back in 1981 or 1980, back when I was mayor of Fort Lauderdale, when a crack was a thing in the sidewalk. We knew nothing about crack cocaine. This came in in the early 1980's, and we found the instant addictive nature of this substance was absolutely debilitating. We also found that where it was being used most, and where it was creating its worst problems were in minority areas because of the cheapness of it. We found this was an area that was being unfairly, unconscionably impacted by cocaine, crack cocaine, as it is even today. So I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina that it was because of concern for what this was doing in minority neighborhoods, how it was tearing up these neighborhoods, and it has. The gentleman well knows this from his own background. The problem that we have in the inner cities, particularly in minority areas right now, the crime and all of this, is that the drug problem in this country has absolutely torn these neighborhoods apart. What did it seem to be the best thing to do? The best thing to do was to go after the dealers. We set quantities we felt that would qualify people as dealers, not users but dealers, people who were going in and exploiting the poor people and stealing their lives and their future by selling them crack cocaine. There was no racist motivation at all. As a matter of fact, it was a question of trying to save the minority neighborhoods from this awful curse that had gone all across this country, and it is not only confined in the minority areas. I will not suggest that. But it seemed that was where it was having its biggest impact, and this is where we had to go after the problem, and this is why we did it.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 15, 1995, the Northeast Dade Coalition, American Red Magen David of Israel and Admiral's Port Condominium along with the entire community of northeast Dade County, FL, will honor Mr. Philip Cohen for his many years of civic service and outstanding achievements. Mr. Cohen is a world traveler and has been a successful CPA and businessman all his life, carrying three very diverse portfolios which employed several hundred employees. In addition, Mr. Cohen has earned a place in a Marquis publication, ``Who's Who in the USA,'' as well as in the International ``Who's Who of Cambridge, England.'' He has taken his business expertise to the local community of northeast Dade County where he resides and is highly regarded. He remains quite active fulfilling his duties as president of the Magen David Adom Blood Bank, he raises funds for the Northeast Dade Coalition of over 80 condominiums, and he writes a monthly column called ``Let's Talk Taxes'' in various publications. It's hard to believe that this man is considered to be retired. As a Member of Congress I represent hundreds of condominiums spanning some 97 miles of my district in southeast Florida. Although Miami may be viewed as the retirement capital of the world, I am proud to say that it is involved, dedicated activists like Mr. Philip Cohen who comprise the most active and respected representatives of our senior population in the United States of America. Congratulations to Mr. Cohen and to all of northeast Dade.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R. 2288) to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for 2 years the deadline by which States are required to have in effect an automated data processing and information retrieval system for use in the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding under his reservation. H.R. 2288 simply gives States an additional 2 years to implement data processing requirements that Congress imposed on their child support programs in 1988. H.R. 2288 was approved on September 12, by unanimous voice vote of the Ways and Means Committee. According to CBO, the bill has no budget impact. As far as we have been able to determine, there are no Republicans or Democrats who oppose the bill. Several factors have prevented States from meeting the October 1, 1995, deadline for meeting Federal data processing requirements. To date--less than a week before the deadline--only one State has actually finished its system. So beginning October 1, if we don't take action, 49 States will be subject to financial penalties and mandatory correction procedures. Clearly, if only one State can meet a deadline, something is wrong. That is why I rise to ask unanimous consent to extend this deadline for 2 years.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act of 1995. First, I would like to clear up any misconceptions about the nature of this bill. H.R. 260 does not close a single park. As a strong supporter of the preservation of native resources, I would never support a bill that threatened our national parks. In the last 10 years, the National Park Service budget has more than doubled, increasing by more than 30 percent above the rate of inflation. Despite these substantial increases, the National Park Service claims that their agency is suffering huge funding shortages. In the past, when similar proposed budget cuts have been recommended, the NPS has responded by threatening to close highly visible areas. In the NPS budget request for fiscal year 1996 only 48 percent of the $1.5 billion requested goes directly to fund park operations. In the remaining 52 percent of the budget, the administration has requested funding for projects such as $1 million to repair the White House sidewalks. Clearly, NPS funding could afford to be cut in many areas with little or no effect on parks. In fact, the National Park Service has already submitted a report to Congress recommending specific programs that could be cut to meet the budget reductions, without closing parks. Many ask why the National Park Service doesn't just increase its park entrance fees. Currently, the NPS collects fees at only one-third of the areas it administers, resulting in the failure of the NPS to collect $60 million annually. H.R. 260 is similar in scope to a bill which passed the House by a vote of 421 to 0 last Congress. It requires the NPS to develop the first plan in the history of the agency to define the mission of the agency. In addition, it requires that the NPS review the existing 368 areas managed by the agency--excluding the 54 national parks--to determine if all of them should continue to be managed by the NPS. I quote directly from the bill, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying or terminating any unit of the National Park System without a subsequent Act of Congress.'' This bill is not designed to save money but to ensure that our park system continues to be the best in the world.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce timely legislation that will require health maintenance organizations under the Medicare Program to disclose certain information to individuals who subscribe to an HMO, or who are a prospective subscriber to an HMO. I believe that an HMO subscriber under the Medicare Program has the right to know the medical education and professional background of the physicians who will provide health services to that subscriber. I also believe that it is important for a subscriber to know the financial structure of the corporation in which he or she is placing so much trust. Specifically, my bill requires that, upon request by a subscriber or a prospective subscriber, an HMO shall provide descriptive information on each physician within the HMO. This information includes the medical education and training received by the physician, the physicians' history of medical practice--including foreign practice, and the position each physician currently holds. My bill also requires that an HMO provide recent audited financial statements to subscribers and prospective subscribers. Furthermore, any promotional material--marketing and advertising brochures, et cetera-- must state that the above information is available. This information must be out in the open. In fact, I have titled this legislation the Medicare Managed Health Care Sunshine Act of 1995 to represent that it is time for these health care providers, who receive Federal dollars and ask for the trust of the Nation's seniors, to be candid about their operation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask that this bill and these remarks be inserted into the Record.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, If the gentlewoman has completed her remarks, I think it is just a question that the timing is entirely wrong. The funding for FEMA is too important. I would urge a ``no'' vote. point of order

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment both of my colleagues from Florida on their tireless efforts to see that the veterans of Florida, the many thousands that are moving to Florida each and every week, are properly cared for. There is no question but there is a crying need for these facilities. I would, however, oppose this amendment very strongly, and particularly tonight, in that the funding would come out of FEMA. As we are seated in this Chamber tonight, a hurricane is bearing down on south Florida. That hurricane, we do not know whether it will come in somewhere in the Florida Keys, or whether it will come in somewhere south of Sebastian, but right now it is predicted it is going to hit somewhere in south Florida. This would make a drastic need for FEMA and the funds that it carries, and it also, I think, really amplifies the need not to raid FEMA. Several amendments have been offered under this bill that would raid these funds that will be desperately needed one day. Hopefully, south Florida will be spared tomorrow from the rages of this hurricane, but, nonetheless, it should underline to us our dependence in time of disaster upon FEMA. I would, therefore, reluctantly, but very strongly, oppose this amendment.