Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], my good friend, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], let me first of all say, Your argument about tax cuts for the rich is clearly false, but let's really look at this argument in two ways. First of all, Mr. Chairman, all the tax cuts were paid for before we even started talking about Medicare. Confirmed by CBO, these tax cuts were paid for as follows: welfare reform is $90 billion in savings; FCC spectrum auction is $15 billion; Uranium Enrichment Corporation is $2 million; and appropriation reductions are $38 billion in savings. My friends in the House and to all Americans, you should realize that they were paid for--$245 billion--was saved even before we even started talking about saving Medicare. So the point is that there is nothing about this tax cut that is coming from Medicare savings or going for the rich. [[Page H 10456]] When we are going broke in a program like Medicare and spending less, we cannot put the savings into anything. That is math 101. There is not more cash by slowing of the growth in Medicare. There is less debt. Now the trust fund will be able to build up a reserve for those future generations. It is like reducing the principal on one's home mortgage. It does not mean that you have more cash. It means that you pay less obligation to the bank. By slowing the spending growth, we insure that the Medicare trust fund stays solvent. Solving this growth means the program will survive, and, Mr. Chairman, as mentioned before, the lockbox insures any savings from waste, fraud, and abuse goes to the trust fund.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Is it not a point of fact that all the people in this room have the Federal employee health benefit program, and is it not a point of fact that people on this side are in HMO's, in fact, there are Members of Congress who have retired who are in health management organizations and they are not picketing and screaming and worried? Because actually what we are trying to do is develop a program for Medicare that is much like the First Lady and the President has and all of us have, which basically says that health management organizations might work for some people. It should be a choice, and surely if it is good enough for Members of Congress, these same choices should be available for the seniors. So I think that is what you are saying for this particular woman in Florida who is on a very small pension every month. This would be a possible choice for her. You might want to just amplify on that, because I know you have toured, like I have, many health maintenance organizations, talked to the seniors, and for some of them they are very happy. There are people that have high monthly drug costs, and the HMO is paying for that, and it is paying for their deductible. So that surely that is an approach we should not rule out by keeping the one warehouse, one-size-fits-all program we now have. Surely moving it to what we have in the Federal employee health benefits program is a step forward.

Mr. STEARNS. Is it not also true, if they want to remain in Medicare as it is right now, they can still do that? They still have that choice?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a colloquy, if I could, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Both he and I have worked hard in our districts getting the message out how important it is to look at this program because it is going bankrupt, and we want to offer them choices, much like the choices that the gentleman and I have. Perhaps many Members do not know that a large number of the Federal employees are retired and they have choices, HMO's, PPO's, and all these other things. Let us talk, for example, about a widow whose $600- a-month pension is too low to pay for this expensive part C medigap insurance and whose biggest problem is that she cannot afford the deductible portion of her doctor's bill. So what happens, she does not go to take care of herself. Now, what would we have under this program with our HMO's and PPO's and the PSN's? I mean, even a $5 doctor bill is something that she would be concerned about. You might want to amplify on that.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said in Houston at a fundraiser that, ``A lot of people in the audience are still mad about my budget,'' that he pushed through in 1993, ``and they think I raised their taxes too much.'' Now, listen carefully to this: The President said, ``It might surprise you to know that I think I raised taxes too much,'' the President of the United States making an admission that he raised taxes too much. Think about that, Democrats, those that voted for it. That is why we have a new Republican majority in Congress. That is why our new majority promised the American people that we would roll back some of these taxes, these huge tax increases that the President pushed in 1993 that he now thinks are a mistake. This fall we will give every middle-class family a $500-per-child tax credit, provide tax relief for seniors and help create more jobs and more opportunity. Mr. Speaker, the President may say his tax increases were a mistake. The Republican Congress is going to do something about it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we press ahead with the most important business before this Congress, strengthening Medicare, the American people need to understand just how much waste can be cut out of this program for senior citizens. Last Thursday I was home in my district for a series of town meetings with seniors to discuss the Medicare plan. At one of these meetings I had a constituent, Mrs. Hill of Ocala, stand to her feet to offer one example of the waste in the system. This is it, right here in my hand. It seems Medicare part B reimbursed beneficiaries no matter how small the cost, in this case 1 cent. What is Mrs. Hill going to do with the check for 1 cent? The time she spent opening the envelope was worth 1 cent. The postage alone to send this check is worth 32 cents, or 32 times its value. I bet the paper and ink used to print this check cost more than 1 cent. Mr. Speaker, conservative estimates put the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare at $20 billion. With stories like Mrs. Hill's it is little surprise. Our seniors demand and deserve that we root out waste, fraud, and abuse for Medicare. They are right, and we should.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief. This is an amendment that I had put together as a piece of legislation, H.R. 1909. It was introduced earlier this year and had bipartisan support. We had the support of Chairman Burton, ranking member Torricelli, as well as the Members from the State of Florida. I intend, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment, but I wanted to just outline a little bit about the amendment because I think it is important that the House be aware of what this amendment intended to do. It was also offered on the Senate side. The important part about this amendment is it says basically that when the administration negotiates with the Castro regime, that they cannot do so without notifying Congress first. I think that is important, particularly when we saw what happened in Vietnam. My amendment would require that the President notify congressional leadership prior to any meeting with the Castro regime, and that a timely report be made to the leadership with the results of any such negotiations. With the situation as delicate as it is right now, Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned, particularly talking to people on both sides of the aisle, that this would move the negotiation process into a phase where there might be a lot of confrontation, and that the administration itself might not be amenable to this amendment. I actually withdraw this amendment, but I would like to make my opening statement part of the Record. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is largely identical to H.R. 1909 which I introduced earlier this year with broad bipartisan support and which includes Chairman Burton, Ranking Member Torricelli, Representative Ros-Lehtinen, and Representative Diaz-Balart among its original cosponsors. It was jointly introduced with an identical bill in the Senate offered by my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, who was also joined with widespread support in the other Chamber, including Majority Leader Dole, Foreign Relations Chairman Helms and Senator Lieberman. My amendment will require that the President notify congressional leadership prior to any meetings with the Castro regime and that a timely report be made to the leadership with the results of any such negotiations. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act is an important piece of legislation. It rightly steps up the pressure on the Castro regime in the hope that Democracy can be restored to the people of Cuba. But this legislation and its impact could be rendered meaningless if the present administration opens up negotiations which could legitimize the very regime we are trying to remove. With a situation as delicate as negotiations with one of the last Communist dictatorships left in the world, it is essential that Congress be kept aware of any attempts made by the administration to legitimize the Castro government. Already members of this administration have shown their willingness to deal with Castro. Chairman Burton has wisely included language in this bill that emphasizes the true position of our Nation: Not to deal with the Communist dictatorship in Cuba. This Congress must remain vigilant and ensure that this policy is in fact the one being followed. The normalization of United States relations with the Communist government of Vietnam is just one example of where the current administration has moved too quickly and without open discussions with the Congress prior to its actions. Had there been a provision such as this during the negotiations with Vietnam, at least the Congress would have had the ability to advise the President on how we felt. Instead, the President presented us with a fait accompli. We need to ensure that tomorrow we don't see a headline proclaiming ``Administration Officials Meet With Castro, Congress Caught Totally Unaware.'' Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that it is the prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs, it is also the responsibility of the President to keep Congress informed of his actions so that we might respond accordingly. This amendment will insure this just balance of power. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in making sure that the United States does not rush into a closer relationship with a Communist dictatorship without the elected Representatives of the people being properly informed. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, if he wishes a copy of the plan, he certainly can read about it in the Wall Street Journal, he can read about it in the Washington Post or the Washington Times. Furthermore, the slowing of the growth in Medicare is what has been proposed by Republicans, it is pretty much what President Clinton proposed last year in his health care bill. So what we are all trying to do here is to slow the growth down and save the program. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am here to talk about Medicare and Medicaid together, the program for our elderly, disabled, and low- income women and children, but I am here to talk again about waste, fraud, and abuse in this program. The spending on these programs, as my colleagues know, has gone up at 10.5 percent In the private sector, it has gone up at 4.5 percent. We need to bring the spending down, but part of the reason the spending has gone up so high is because of the waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs. Some people estimate this waste, fraud, and abuse at 12 percent of these two programs, or $30 billion, as high as $44 billion for the two programs combined. An indication of how pervasive this program is was summed up recently by a Clinton high official. This person was the Human Services Inspector General, June Gibbs Brown, and this is what she said, Mr. Speaker: ``The basic structure of the current health care system is almost as if it had been designed for the very purpose of promoting waste, fraud, and abuse.'' Now, that is a startling admission. The truth is that such behavior is not restricted to just one segment. Providers and beneficiaries alike seem guilty of bilking the system for personal gain. Examples of these have been recounted in numerous hearings on the Committee on Commerce on which I serve and the Health Care Subcommittee. However, today I will share with you several examples that have been reported in the Reader's Digest. I was heartened by the fact that this wonderful publication has presented this because so many readers subscribe and purchase the Reader's Digest, and so they too will be able to identify the waste, fraud, and abuse from these articles. The first step is to identify the sources of abuse and then to put the mechanism into place that will correct the situation and prevent such abuse in the future. We, in our plan, do that. One such scheme that was reported in the Reader's Digest dealt with a doctor. His wife and his 14-year-old daughter were working together. The doctor assigned his 14-year-old daughter the task of taking and reading the x rays. On a good day, the office submitted 180 claims. The take was $4.5 million over the year for this particular doctor, his wife, and his daughter. They submitted these fraudulent claims to some 40 insurance companies. What finally finished this lucrative and costly scam was that the Customs officials became suspicious when, during the course of investigating drug money laundering, they noticed that the doctor's check cashing patterns were strange. It makes one wonder why this was not detected by the Health Care Financing Administration. Are they not the body that is supposed to detect this? Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, one of HCFA's contractors suspended five computer-alert programs that had saved taxpayers $4 million in just 3 months. Why was this done? The volume of suspicious claims had become impossible for the staff to review. In fact, the General Accounting Office found that half of Medicare fraud and abuse complaints are not even investigated. The GAO told Congress, ``HCFA needs to guard a thousand doors, but has the resources for only a couple doors.'' Perhaps the most egregious account that was cited involved the National Medical Enterprise, which was a $3.9 billion New York Stock Exchange company that owned psychiatric hospitals, which operated 86 psychiatric hospitals nationwide. Sadly enough, witnesses testified before the State legislators that social workers, school counselors, probation officers, and even ministers served as, quote, ``headhunters'' and were paid bounties for referring individuals to some of these hospitals. In Texas, a Texas State senator led the investigation of this in his State and stated, quote, ``people were locked up against their will. Then they were miraculously cured when their insurance benefits ran out.'' My own State of Florida also has its share of con artists. In fact, in March of this year, Florida Medicaid found that at least six taxicab companies and two individuals were ripping off the Medicaid Program designed to give needy patients free rides to the doctors. In the course of 317 days, one company received $1,134,164 for driving patients over 1 million miles. As one investigator wryly noted, ``That is enough to travel 41 times around the Earth at the equator.'' My colleagues, the Republican plan includes ways to stop waste, fraud, and abuse and it is important we address this matter immediately. No matter which party you represent, which side of the aisle you are on, we can all agree that waste, fraud, and abuse is something that bothers most Americans and we need to stop it now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I commend these two poems to my colleagues. They were written by Ellen M. Fisher from Belleview, FL, a constituent of mine. Veterans Our veterans have suffered through many struggles and strife, To protect our American way of life. Most of them volunteered to go in our place, Young and old, some from every race. They've fought in places too numerous to name. Some we never heard about, others gained heroic fame. No matter what the assignment, whether a task great or small, Each and every one of them can stand proud and tall. They sacrificed so much for us, some limbs, some sight, some lives, So we could enjoy liberty and freedom and all that freedom buys. We can never say thank you long or loud enough, To erase the pain and suffering that has been so very tough. The things we take for granted, they fought so hard for. Have you thanked our many veterans for going off to war? There are those who never came home from war, And some who have never been accounted for. The answers to these questions are known somewhere, They didn't just vanish into thin air. The door should never be closed on our POW's and MIA's. While the search continues, America prays. We want to know without a shadow of a doubt, Of our friends and loved ones whereabouts. Our veterans deserve much more than we give. It's only because of them that we can really live. They may not be perfect, but neither are we. If it were not for their service, we wouldn't be free.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I fully endorse the concept of a lockbox and believe this is a good first step toward fulfilling our pledge to the American people. We made a promise that we will spare future generations from being asked to bear the brunt of paying for our follies. When I heard the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] talk, and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] talk, I thought to myself, they would be interested to know that even Thomas Jefferson supported the lockbox. So I went back into his writings and I have a quote for my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, it says, I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of offices and salaries merely to make partisans, that is, just pass something to get votes, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of it being a public blessing. In effect, when he was talking about ridding the national debt by taking possible savings, he was actually talking about a lockbox. My colleagues probably did not know that, but I thought I would share that with them. Mr. Chairman, obviously I am in favor of this concept, and if we are truly committed to turning our Nation's economy around, we must not falter in this regard. I am a cosponsor of this bill and proud to speak in its behalf. Mr. Chairman, let us heed the words of Thomas Jefferson and vote to protect the public interest and make the lockbox permanent.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Coburn substitute. It promotes core Republican principles of smaller government, less intrusive regulation, and private sector solutions. It puts parental responsibility where it belongs--in the hands of parents. This substitute will do more to protect children from objectionable programming than the Markey amendment. The Markey amendment is unfair. While two-thirds of American households do not have children under 18, the Markey amendment requires all TV purchasers to pay for the mandated V-chip. The Markey amendment is flawed because it still does not protect children as intended. Since most houses have more than one TV set, children will still have access to TV sets not containing the V-chip. The Markey amendment is also punishes consumers. Approximately 20 million TV sets are sold in the United States annually. Since the V- chip is estimated to add between $5 and $40 to the cost of every TV, American consumers could have to pay an additional $800 million for a feature that two-thirds do not need. Legislative proposals to curb objectionable TV content, no matter how well intentioned, mean government control on what Americans see and hear. By contrast, the Coburn amendment recognizes that parental responsibility coupled with private industry cooperation is the only viable solution. The broadcasting industry recognizes that its impact is vast, influencing our lives socially, economically, and politically. That is why it is willing to do more and fully endorses the Coburn amendment. The broadcasting industry has been working to find solutions. In 1992, the networks adopted joint standards for the depiction of violence. In 1993, the four networks agreed to increase the use of violence advisories. In 1993, ABC launched a 1-800 hotline to inform parents of upcoming programs carrying advisories. In 1994, the four networks also agreed to an analysis of network programming. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment that leaves TV content control where it belongs, in the hands of parents--and more importantly--keeps it out of the hands of government.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. The rules regulating broadcasters were written in the 1950's. but the world for which those broadcast provisions were necessary doesn't exist anymore. It's gone. Most of us have recognized that fact and bidden it a fond farewell. But not the supporters of this amendment. They would take the U.S. broadcasting industry back to the days of the 1950's. This amendment would ensure that while every other industry in America surges ahead, U.S. broadcasters remain mired in rules written when the slide rule was still state-of-the-art technology. We should be thankful that we didn't impose the same regulations on the computer industry as we have on the broadcast industry. If we had, we'd all still be using mechanical typewriters. The Markey amendment is the equivalent of trying to stuff a full- grown man into boys clothes--they simply won't fit anymore. The broadcast industry has outgrown the rules written for it when it was still a child. If I could direct your attention to the graph, you will see that to reach that 50 percent limit, one would have to buy a station in more than each of the top 25 markets out of the 211 television markets. That in itself is no small feat. But keep in mind the result: Broadcasters would own a mere 30 stations out of the 1,500 TV stations nationwide. Who has this money, the financing, for that would be mind boggling. On the question of localism--it isn't lost. Networks and group-owned stations typically air more local coverage. Covering local news simply makes good business sense--give viewers what they want or go out of business. Business succeed by making people satisfied. Opponents will also tell you we will lose diversity in the local market with this bill. That is simply not true. Just keep in mind the following: The FCC can deny any combination if it will harm the preservation of diversity in the local market; and under no circumstance will the FCC allow less than three voices in a market. We must reject this backward-looking amendment. We must reject the advice of the Rip Van Winkles of broadcasting who went to sleep in the 1950's and think we are still there. If the supporters of this amendment had their way, smoke signals would still be cutting-edge technology. The dire predictions about the harm of lifting broadcast restrictions remind me of Chicken Little's warning that the sky is falling. Ladies and gentlemen, the sky is not falling. Freeing broadcasters from outdated ownership rules will do us no harm. If I can steal from Shakespeare, the Markey amendment is ``full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me be just perhaps a calming voice on this. I heard my good colleague the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], talk about the Hyde amendment in 1993. Most of us voted for the Hyde amendment and we did that because we did not have the majority at that time and we felt the Hyde amendment was something that was better than what the loyal opposition would offer. So we voted on that with the understanding that if we ever had the opportunity we would try and develop a provision that would permit the States to decide whether to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortion in the case of rape or incest. So I am really trying to say to my colleagues that it is not a question of the Hyde amendment being the law of the land and perhaps we should continue that. What we all believe is that we should move it back to the States and let the States decide, because in each State's particular circumstances, they will have a better understanding of how to prohibit abortions, how to help women. And certainly it is nothing to do with brutal crimes against women. It is all talking about a procedural context, and we should remember that. And in the end, I want Members to support the Istook language.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question: If you asked the American people, do we need to change the way Congress works, I think you would get a large percentage that would say yes. There is another question. Shortly we are going to see on this voting board around here the votes on this amendment. The American people are going to look to see who votes against this very simple amendment for a lockbox. That is the other question. Let us show the American taxpayers that we are serious, very serious about reducing the deficit. Supporting this amendment should make it clear that we are going to put our money where our mouths are. In other words, we will ensure that any savings realized in the appropriations bill will automatically go into a lockbox and not be spent in another way. Such a trust fund is long overdue, my colleagues. If we show the folks back home that we are truly committed to reducing the deficit, it will be easier for our citizens to accept some of the other tough choices we are asking them to accept. Again, I want to compliment my colleagues for offering this amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I support the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from Illinois that the reason we have not really looked at this program is we did not have the majority here to do anything. The funding for this program just increased exponentially under the Democrats, and the only reason we have not taken the time to look at this program carefully is because we never had the votes. Now let us talk about what the real problem is. This all comes down to a debate on, and I think it basically could be thought of this way, do you want young women to be counseled for abortions without parental consent, without informed consent? Do you want your Federal Government to spend your money to do that? Do you want this same agency that is getting your taxpayer dollars to go out and lobby, lobby through the Supreme Court, using your tax dollars, to fight for more abortions? That is what it all comes down to. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood amendment to appropriate $193 million for title X. The Federal family planning program, title X, was enacted in 1970. Before 1970, people will say, what happened? As the whip has said, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has mentioned that since title X, we have had no studies to show that it has worked, that it has done any of the things they have talked about. At this point it has ballooned into such a program that well-to-do families are using it. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to support the Smith amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. By the early 21st century, analysts predict the global information industry will be a $3 trillion market. That's an amazing figure when you consider the entire U.S. economy today is about $6 trillion. Make no mistake: If we fail to pass this bill, we will have forfeited a golden opportunity for the U.S. economy to catch the wave of this revolution. It makes no sense to keep U.S. communications companies penned up in the starting gate as the global telecommunications race is set to begin. My colleagues, the Communications Act of 1995 is, quite simply, the most sweeping reform of communications law in history. And it should be. I direct your attention to the timeline. When the first Communications Act passed in 1934, we had the telegraph, the telephone and the radio. That's it. We didn't even have the black and white television set yet. Do you really want the communications industry to be governed by communications law that was enacted when we had this radio? The communications world as it existed in 1934 is barely recognizable today. Again, I direct your attention to the timeline. We have experienced an explosion of technology. In the last 50 years, television, AM and FM radios, computers, faxes, satellites, pagers, cable TV, cellular phones, VCRs and other wireless communications have all joined the communications mix. And that's just the beginning. Video dial-tone and high definition television are poised at the entrance of the telecommunications arena, while countless other new technologies are waiting just over the horizon. At this moment in history, when the communications revolution is racing forward, we still have not revamped communications laws written 60 years ago. To say our communications laws are out of sync with the technological revolution underway in America is an understatement. The question we face today is not whether we can afford to deregulate the telecommunications industry, it is whether we can afford not to. I know of no sector of our economy so shackled by needless regulations as the communications industry. But if we pass this bill, the economic boom it will spark will amaze even its supporters. My colleagues, it is not the business of Government to preordain winners and losers in the communications industry. Rather, at the starting line of the communications race, Government should step aside and allow the most dynamic sector of our economy to enjoy what most other segments of our economy take for granted, the freedom to compete. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make part of the Record my contribution to Keith Jewell and also to speak in behalf of him, too. I also rise to speak highly of Keith Jewell, having seen him in operation during the State of the Unions and actually seeing him in operation on the steps of the Capitol so many times where all of us, when we had constitutents and we had junior high schools and high schools, and how many times he has been here when the President and Vice President and Cabinet officers have come by. He is a remarkable man. He is so humble, and he is such a serving individual and has such a serving spirit. I want to compliment him also and to make my speech part of the Record, which I will put into the Record at a later time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to join with my colleague, Mr. Dingell, in paying tribute to Keith Jewell. Keith has served this body well in his 30 years of service. I have always found him to be not only an excellent photographer but also a fine human being. Keith was never too busy to answer a last minute call and always did it with a smile. You will certainly be missed by all of us. You didn't just take pictures you studied human nature and the photographs you took are evidence of not only your ability but also reflect how much you enjoyed your profession. On a more sentimental side, you might remember Keith, that you went above and beyond the call of duty by helping out my Executive Director, Marcia Summers, with her daughter's wedding. You were selfless, hard working, and I know I speak for all the Members here today when I say thanks, a job well done.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this shortsighted amendment. All of us have seen in recent months what has happened in the space program, the recent docking between America's space shuttle and the Russian space station. It brings new hope for greater cooperation in our efforts to understand our planet, our solar system, and even our galaxy, but, as nations from around the world are working together to establish a space station where we can work together toward a better future for our children, this amendment would end, end our manned space station program. All of us remember what President Ronald Reagan said about the space program: ``The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted, it belongs to the brave.'' He was also talking about our space program when he said: ``We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here. Our hopes and our journeys continue.'' And I remember President Kennedy talking about the space program when he said, ``. . . not because it is easy, because it is hard.'' Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, mankind's dreams of reaching out from our world will end. A hope for greater understanding of our world and even for new developments in areas such as medicine and metallurgy, will end also all because we were unwilling to look ahead, invest in the future. Let me quote a poem as I close from Alfred Tennyson: For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see. Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be. Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails. Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales. My colleagues, today we have the opportunity to make this dream a reality. Vote no on the Obey amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the top 10 reasons why the Democrats cannot solve the Medicare problem is they do not tell the straight facts. I can say that 10 times, but I do not want to use all my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program, because this program is spending so much money. It is alleged that almost 12 percent of the entire Medicare-Medicaid budget is rife with fraud and abuse. Let me share some facts. In 1980 Medicare spent $34 billion. In 1990 that sum had increased to $107 billion. In 1995 it will spend approximately $177 billion. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he responded, ``That's where the money is.'' Is it any wonder with billions of dollars at stake that all manner of scoundrels and ne'er-do-wells would plunder this Government bank account for all it is worth. Over the next few weeks I plan to talk a good deal about this problem which is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. I also plan to talk about what we can do to remedy the fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare Program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, I did not participate. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think many Members know how many more cases of fraud, waste, and abuse have come before our Committee on Commerce. According to the General Accounting Office, the amount of taxpayers' dollars that will be lost to waste, fraud, and abuse for fiscal year 1996 is estimated to be an astounding $19.8 billion, or roughly 10 percent. In hearings held in both the House and Senate, evidence was presented showing how widespread these practices have become. The Committee on Commerce on which I sit has been holding a series of hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse; and frankly, some of the examples that we have discovered are simply unbelievable. One such example was transmitted to me by Willis Publishing Co. in Lebanon, GA. I was provided with documented evidence of licensed providers of goods and services marking up their products by as much as a thousand percent. That is right. You heard me correctly. A thousand percent. You might ask, how is this possible? A good example is billing of Medicare-Medicaid $1,210.55 for 155 adult diapers which on a wholesale level cost 41 cents. Tripling the wholesale cost, a great markup, would have resulted in a price of $1.23 each. The licensed Medicare provider billed Medicare for $1,210.55, collected $986.44, and then had the nerve to bill Medicaid for the remaining $242.11. U.S. taxpayers paid $7.81 for each one of these diapers which went on wholesale for 41 cents each. I will include the material I received from Willis Publishing in the Record. Another very telling example of that further demonstrates that this type of abuse, but on a larger scale, was reported during the hearings held before the Senate Select Committee on Aging this past March. At those hearings, the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services testified that a special investigation of home health care visits for which Medicare reimbursement was sought by a health care agency in Florida showed that from the $45.4 million that was claimed, the office of inspector general estimated that almost $26 million did not meet Medicare reimbursement guidelines. This is just one agency in the State of Florida covering home health visits. Frankly, I shudder to think what the IG's office would find if it investigated all 50 States. I would like to convey yet another example that was sent to my office by a constituent from Altoona, FL. This letter read, in part, ``The hospital charges seemed to me to be excessive. One in particular in the amount of $195 was for trimming my toenails. My only comment to that would be, that is a pretty expensive pedicure.'' Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take a math genius to figure out how much money we could save by wiping out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. By my calculations, if, as has been reported by the GAO, such practices of bilking Medicare at the cost of $20 billion a year are now prevalent, then by putting a stop to this type of fraudulent behavior we could save $140 billion in expenditures over the next 7 years. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced legislation to establish a bipartisan commission on the future of Medicare to make findings and issue recommendations on the future of this program. One of the areas on which the commission shall make specific findings is the need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We are doing a vast disservice to our seniors if we do not stop this type of abuse from occurring. Such practice not only costs taxpayers money, but it cheats our seniors by denying them access to benefits they would have otherwise received. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: Willis Publishing, Lebanon, GA, July 13, 1995. c/o Representative Cliff Stearns, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Ms. Crow: Here is the question I'd like someone to answer during your congressional hearings on fraud and abuse in the Medicare/Medicaid system: ``How are prices set for the goods and services sold to Medicare/Medicaid recipients and who approves those prices?'' It is my belief, based on 2 years research, that there is corruption in every step of the Medicare/Medicaid delivery system. Per our conversation today, here is a synopsis of my findings: [[Page H 7557]] 1. ``Licensed providers'' are bribing government officials for the license and then for setting the prices paid at artificially high levels: [Example (see document transmitted with this letter): The ``licensed providers'' of goods and services are marking their products up by as much as 1,000% (one-thousand percent). An example of billing Medicare/ Medicaid $1,210.55 for 155 adult diapers which cost 41 cents each wholesale is included with this transmission. Tripling the wholesale cost--a great markup--would have resulted in a price of $1.23 each. The ``licensed Medicare provider'' billed Medicare for $1,210.55, collected $968.44 and then billed Medicaid for the remaining $242.11. U.S. Taxpayers paid $7.81 each for diapers which wholesale for 41 cents each!] 2. Facilities which provide services to the elderly and handicapped are paying bribes to government agency personnel who refer the elderly and handicapped to them for treatment; [I have access to a tape of a conversation between a druggist and a personal care home owner in which the druggist offered a ``kickback'' if the owner would allow him to bill Medicare/ Medicaid for all prescriptions of the owner's residents. This was not a ``volume discount'' but an under-the-table bribe.] 3. ``Licensed providers'' are bribing owners of facilities providing housing and other services to the elderly and handicapped to allow the providers to furnish goods and services to their residents; [Example: a ``licensed provider'' approached the owner of a personal care home about providing ``hip protectors'' to the elderly residents of the facility. The ``provider'' said he had a doctor who would ``sign off'' on the ``protectors'' and that the ``hip protectors'' were already ``Medicare approved''. The ``hip protector'' consisted of two cotton pads about 6 inches in diameter connected with Velcro belts to hold them in place around the hips. The price to Medicare--$300.00 per unit!] 4. The nursing home and home-health industries are bribing legislators and government administrators and regulators to channel all Medicare/Medicaid payments into their industries rather than to the less-expensive ``intermediate care'' homes and ``local'' nurses, doctors and social workers who might accomplish the same goals at one-third to one-half the cost of nursing homes and the ``licensed'' home-health agencies. [This is common knowledge among State legislators in Georgia. Studies from Georgia government agencies and corroborating studies from Oregon, Maryland, South Carolina and numerous other places have shown that of the 40,000+ people residing in 24-hour skilled nursing facilities in Georgia with Medicaid funding, more than two-thirds do not need ``skilled nursing'' and would be better off in a smaller, more residential setting like a personal care home with the resultant savings to Georgia taxpayers of more than $350,000,000 per year! In terms of long term care for the elderly and handicapped, including home-health and residential facilities, here are some experts that you might wish to contact regarding potential savings to Medicare/Medicaid and the real benefits for the elderly and handicapped which would be derived by eliminating the graft and corruption from the system: Richard Ladd (former head Oregon and Texas agencies handling the elderly and handicapped who succeeded in reducing nursing home populations in both states) (512) 266- 7406/266-7648, Austin, TX Professor Rosalie Kane, Institute for Health Services Research, Univ. Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Box 197, Mayo Building, Room D-527, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624- 5171] Larry Polivka, University of S. Florida, Aging Dept., Tampa, FL (813) 974-3468 Please pass along my gratitude to Rep. Stern for the good work. If the fraud and abuse were eliminated in Georgia from the Medicare/Medicaid system, it would reduce the that expenditure by at least 50% while not cutting one needed service to the elderly and handicapped. I am continuing my research and working with the Georgia Attorney General's office, several legislators and many professionals in the long-term care field. If I find more information, I'll send it along and if there is some specific information you need, please let me know. Sincerely, Clay Willis.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Medicare was established to help our seniors, not to make unscrupulous companies wealthy at their expense. Today I am talking about the fraud in Medicare. Listen to the items that ABC Home Health Care put on their Medicare tab: Maid service payments for condominiums; golf pro shop expenses; airplane and automobile expenses for personal trips; and lobbying expenses. They use promotional and marketing gimmicks such as gourmet popcorn, golf tees, earrings, cufflinks, combs, and sewing kits to recruit new members. This is not a club but a home health care service. We should all be concerned. Taxpayers are footing the bill for these luxury items. Money was no object because ABC Home Health Care put it on the Medicare tab. Medicare was billed to the tune of $14 million for just 1 year. We cannot allow this to happen, this fraud to continue in the Medicare Program.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hobson amendment. I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio and his skills as a legislator, but let me point out to my colleagues, first of all that we need to understand a little background on this amendment. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] sits on the Subcommittee on Transportation where there were hearings on this matter. Mr. Packard did not come to his understanding by accident or because of some political pressure or some special interest groups came up to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. His legislation came about because he had a strong emotional feeling, a mental feeling, about this after listening to the hearings in the Subcommittee on Transportation. This identical language that he has offered has already passed the Subcommittee on Transportation. He thought the Subcommittee on Transportation would be voted on first. But, no, we have got Treasury and Postal first so now we are talking about it and it is being amended by Mr. Hobson. How long has the Hobson amendment been in the offing and studied? The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] says it started with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot]. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] did not want to do it. Then we had the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. He did not want to do it. Then we had the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson]. He wanted to do it. The thought that went into their amendment does not compare with the amount of thought that has gone into the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. Others have talked about it in certain ways, but the bottom line is there has been an abuse by the FAA in instructing people on new age and human potential philosophy which has disturbed all of us. If we go about amending the Packard amendment with the Hobson, we are going to change it--Mr. Packard's amendment--whole intent. I urge my colleagues to think about the history of this amendment, that basically it is the same amendment that came forward in the Transportation Subcommittee and was agreed on completely. It is in the transportation bill now. But now we have a last-minute effort by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] to amend it. He is amending it in a way that is not appropriate or in a suitable way that reflect what were the results from the hearings. I urge defeat of the Hobson amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. I say to my colleagues, ``This is going to be the vote on whether your support the bailout of Mexico.'' Make no bones about it. If you're against the bailout of Mexico, you should vote to support Mr. Sanders. You know time and time again we get on the House floor, and we say what is this amendment about. Let me just take a few moments to read the first two or three sentences of this amendment because too many people come on this floor and don't know that the amendment is about. Well, this is it: No amount made available in this Act may be used for the salaries or expenses of any employee, including any employee of the Executive Office of the President, in connection with the obligation or expenditure of funds in the exchange stabilization fund when it is made known to the Federal official to whom such amounts are made available in this Act that such obligations or expenditure is for the purpose of bolstering any foreign currency. Now, my colleague from Maryland says where does he get the idea of Mexico. Read the bill. We did a $25 billion bailout of Mexico. So I am saying to the House, my colleague from Vermont is just trying in this small way to say, ``Let's have a vote on this floor on the bail out,'' Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders-Cox amendment.