Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. All Democrats supervising elections, and then we go to a Democratic-appointed judge to verify it. I represent Duval County, which went two-to-one for Governor Bush, and in that county they have a lot of the same questions. We have to, in the end, question this recount as a delaying tactic. We have already recounted twice in Florida. I do not think we should do it again. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. The Institute celebrated its 75th anniversary in April of this year and is known throughout the world for its outstanding staff and exceptional care that is delivered at the facility. The Wilmer Eye Institute has been designated as the best overall department of ophthalmology in the country. This distinction marks the fifth consecutive year that it has received this honor. This is the first year that Wilmer has been designated best in all categories by the Ophthalmology Times, which includes best overall, best research, best clinical, and best residency. The fact that it is the only department to be given such recognition by a peer survey of department chairmen and directors of residency programs across the United States makes this an even greater honor. The Wilmer Institute has an interesting history. Back in the 1920's, Mrs. Aida Breckenridge, who suffered from glaucoma, was treated by Dr. William Holland Wilmer. To show her gratitude Mrs. Breckenridge persuaded 700 other grateful patients to build an eye hospital to honor him. Through her efforts $3.7 million was raised and the Wilmer Eye Institute was dedicated in 1929. It was the first eye hospital to combine patient care with teaching and research. Since it was founded, the Institute has made many significant contributions throughout the years. In 1947, physicians on staff at Wilmer were responsible for writing the textbook on the subject of Nueroophthalmology and are still considered to be the authority on this subject. I would like to mention several major achievements made by Wilmer Institute to correct diseases that impair eye sight. In 1956, scientists at Wilmer discovered that excess oxygen in incubators causes retinal damage in many premature infants. This discovery resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of blind preemies. Then, in 1979, the Dana Center under the auspices of Wilmer opened the first and only preventive ophthalmology center in the United States. The Center has been instrumental in saving the sight of millions of people all over the world. The Dana Center can list among its many accomplishments the following discoveries by its researchers; overexposure to ultraviolet light from the sun significantly increases the risk of developing cataracts; demonstrated the link between smoking and cataracts; found that glaucoma strikes African-Americans at five times rate of white Americans, and are developing more effective screening techniques for this disease; and the Center was also instrumental in leading to the development of the first safe drug to treat and control river blindness. Perhaps one of the most meaningful discoveries made by its researchers occurred in 1983 when Vitamin A capsules were given to children in developing countries to prevent blindness. Another benefit of this discovery was a 30 percent drop in the death rate among these children. The Wilmer researchers continued to make other noteworthy discoveries throughout the 1980s. In 1987, the Institute developed one of the most effective eye drops to treat the eye pressure caused by glaucoma. Cornea surgeons at Wilmer successfully used excimer laser energy to erase scars on the cornea which delayed and in some cases eliminated the need for a transplant. These are but a few of the many, many contributions that have been made since the founding of the Wilmer Institute 75 years ago. I believe we all owe Mrs. Breckinridge our gratitude for her keen insight and tireless efforts to promote the establishment of this premiere eye institute. Mr. Speaker, I can't speak highly enough about the Wilmer Institute which is responsible for preventing the loss of sight of millions of people around the world. It is precisely for this reason that it is regarded as the best eye hospital in the world by doctors surveyed in the U.S. News and Report. It has proven time and time again that it is on cutting edge when it comes to treatment of eye disorders. I'm not surprised the first ophthalmic genetic center in the United States was established at Wilmer. The leading causes of blindness are cataracts, infection, diabetes, macular degeneration, and glaucoma. In the words of Dr. Morton Goldberg, Chairman of the Wilmer Eye Institute, ``My prognosis for the future of eye care and eye research is higher than it ever has been.'' This type of optimism from the number one ophthalmology institution in the country should be very comforting for every individual who has a history of eye disease in his or her family. Many of us here in Congress have had first hand experience with being treated at the Wilmer Institute and know that it has and will continue to do an outstanding job in caring for its patients. Let me offer my congratulations and best wishes to the staff for their years of hardwork and dedication. Congratulations to the Wilmer Institute at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland as they celebrate their 75th anniversary this year.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 582, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 583, I was not unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 581, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 580, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 578, I was not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about prescription drugs. I think everybody in this House is committed to affordable prescription drugs for our seniors who are on the Medicare program. But this morning I would like to talk about the difference between the Democrat plan and the Republican plan. I would also point out, Madam Speaker, that here in the House we passed by a bipartisan margin a prescription drug package for seniors. This was not an issue that just came into place from 1995 on, so I guess a question would be asked, why have the Democrats made this such a major issue, when they had, prior to 1995, an opportunity to solve this issue themselves when they were in the majority in the House and they had the presidency? I think it is easy to criticize someone else's plan, but we offered a plan and it passed the House. So let us talk about the difference between the two plans. The Democrat plan provides less choice, because it would provide seniors with a one-size-fits-all government plan. The Republican bill, H.R. 4680, would give beneficiaries a choice between at least two private sector drug plans. It would allow beneficiaries to choose plans that best suit their needs. Our plan is market-based, rather than relying on the government to run the plan. Now, why is this so important? Because we know that one of the overwhelming components of any plan that we offer is that it should provide individual choice for our seniors. Choice must be the centerpiece, I believe, of whatever plan we adopt here in the House. Now, how affordable are these plans? Let us look at these two plans and see what they actually provide seniors. H.R. 4680, which was passed by the House on June 28, the Republican plan, uses private insurance companies as the vehicle to begin prescription drug coverage for seniors over 65. This plan provides taxpayer subsidies to encourage insurers to offer policies with premiums estimated as low as $35 a month. Participation is voluntary. That is something else important. Seniors taking part can choose between at least two plans. All plans start with a $250 deductible. It would establish the Medicare Benefits Administration, a new agency, to run this program. Volume buying that would be generated is expected to even lower the cost. The legislation covers 100 percent of drug and premium costs for couples with incomes up to $15,200 and singles with income up to $11,300. For all participants it covers at least half of drug costs up to $2,100 annually, and 100 percent, Madam Speaker, of out-of-pocket costs over $6,000. The bill is projected to cost just under $40 billion over 5 years, and the money has already been set aside in our budget just for this purpose. In other words, my colleagues, it is already paid for. That is the Republican plan. Now let us look at the Democrat plan that the House defeated here. Currently seniors pay a premium and receive reimbursement for a portion of their doctor and hospital costs through Medicare. Under the Democrat's plan, they would use the new government benefit to reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Now, what does this mean? The Democrat plan puts government in charge of seniors' prescription drug through the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA. They run Medicare now. The government would choose and control a drug purchasing contractor for every region of the country; in other words, a new government one-size-fits-all program. This is key, because a recent survey of seniors with drug coverage found that, by a margin of 2 to 1, they preferred private insurance coverage to government price controls. That being said, the Democrats' measure offers premiums that would range from $25 to $35 month, but with no deductible. Medicare would reimburse half of drug costs, up to $2,000 annually, and all costs above $4,000 per year. However, the real question, my colleagues, our seniors are faced with, is who do they trust to run their prescription drug program, the government or the private sector? Do they want to make their own choices and control how their money is spent, or do they want a government-run plan that leaves them without any say about what works best for them? I believe the choice is clear, Madam Speaker. We offer a plan here, the Republicans, that is voluntary, universal, affordable, with choice and security. For those seniors who are happy with what they have, they do not have to participate, but those that do can. I believe we can and must work together in a bipartisan manner to help Medicare beneficiaries gain access to affordable prescription drugs. This bill offers coverage that is affordable, accessible, and voluntary for our seniors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 579, I was not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the honorable Sidney Richard Yates was a dedicated public servant with whom I was privileged to serve in the United States House of Representatives for 10 years. When I came to Congress in 1989 he had already served his beloved Ninth Congressional District of Illinois for 38 years. He knew the House inside and out and had been a subcommittee chairman for many years. He bore the ``distinguished gentleman from Illinois'' title with dignity and grace and knew the art of compromise. My most outstanding memory of working with Mr. Yates was when he and I debated funding for the National Endowment for the Arts on the floor of the House. Of course, we were looking at the issue from two different perspectives but there's no question that I was dealing with an experienced debater and legislator. I enjoyed the opportunity.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce for yielding me this time. I think this is a very, very rewarding evening, to have had the Senate pass the original 2498, which was the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, which now has been amended to include different sections of what we have tonight and is now called the Public Health Improvement Act of 2000. My portion of the bill, which is section 4, is something I am very proud of because, Mr. Speaker, between 200,000 to 300,000 Americans are lost every year to sudden cardiac arrest in the United States. Many of these victims could be simply saved if they had access to immediate medical response, including defibrillation. Just today, Mr. Speaker, the New England Journal of Medicine released the results of two recent studies in which nearly half of the victims of cardiac arrest were saved with the help of an automatic external defibrillator. That represents 10 times the usual survival rate of 5 percent for people who suffer cardiac arrest in a nonhospital setting. For the last several years, I have been working closely with the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, and local emergency medical systems to develop bipartisan support to encourage the widespread use of automatic external defibrillator devices to help save lives. These devices, AEDs, are small portable medical devices. They are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and can measure a victim's heart rate, determine whether the victim is suffering from ventricular fibrillation and, if electric shock is necessary, can instruct the lay user how to use it and when to use it to shock the victim, and even tell them when to use CPR. So these devices are safe, effective and do not allow a shock to be administered until after the device has measured the victim's heart and determined whether a shock is really required. Do my colleagues know that for every minute of delay in returning the heart to its normal pattern of beating it decreases the chance of that person's survival by 10 percent? And let me tell my colleagues tonight, because we all feel, probably, that we are in good health, that Robert Adams felt he was in good health. He was 42 years old and was an attorney working in Manhattan. On the weekends he was an NCAA referee. Obviously, he was in great condition. He had recently passed several extensive physical exams with flying colors; yet he suffered sudden cardiac arrest on July 3rd, a weekend, in Grand Central Station in New York City. Fortunately, by the grace of God, the station had just received delivery of an AED the day before. A couple of nearby construction workers saw Mr. Adams fall to the ground. They grabbed the AED, which was still in its package. They prayed and hoped that the batteries were installed and charged. And, sure enough, they were. They shocked Mr. Adams back to life. Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, AEDs are not being widely employed because of the perception among would-be purchasers and users of these devices that if they do use them they are going to be sued. Our legislation removes this barrier to adopting AED programs with a Good Samaritan clause. If a Good Samaritan or building owner or renter acts in good faith to purchase or use an AED to help save someone's life, this bill will protect them from unfair lawsuits. We may not want to force people to provide medical care to someone having a heart attack; but if they are willing to do so, if they are volunteers, we should not put them at risk of being sued for unlimited damages if something went wrong. So this legislation also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop guidelines for the placement of defibrillators in Federal buildings. It is a moment in our history when we have to have these accessible throughout all the Federal and State and local buildings. It is inexcusable that we do not have these life-saving devices widely available today. We need to be a role model for the private sector by demonstrating our commitment to protecting the lives of our Federal employees. H.R. 2498 does not impose any new regulations or obligations on the private sector, and it does not preempt State law where the State has provided immunity for the person being sued. My colleagues, let us help save 250,000 American lives who are lost annually to sudden cardiac arrest. It could be any one of us on any day in the 365 days. The Senate passed this bill, as I mentioned, earlier today; and I urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long journey for all of us to get this bill passed through Congress. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for his support and encouragement all during this process and for the work he and his staff do; and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his help in moving this legislation to where we are tonight. I also want to thank those who have worked so hard on the bill, including my staff, Veronica Crowe; as well as the folks on the Committee on Commerce, Marc Wheat, Robert Gordon, and Brent Delmonte; and Pete Goodloe, who was legislative counsel; and, of course, Mr. Speaker, the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross. This is a red letter day, and I think all Americans will benefit. I urge the passage of this valuable legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the 106th Congress draws to an end, this body will be saying good-bye to several outstanding public servants. Among these distinguished legislators is Congressman Charles Canady. Since 1993, Charles has represented the 12th Congressional District, which neighbors my district to the south. This has provided me the opportunity to work with him on issues that are vital to central Florida as well as to the Nation. As Members know, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) pledged to his constituents that, if elected, he would step down after four terms. During this 8-year tenure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has accumulated an impressive record of accomplishments. This is not just my opinion. The National Journal states, ``In a short time, Canady has become one of the most productive and effective Members of the House.'' That is how he will be remembered. He will be missed by the Florida delegation and others throughout this Chamber. We wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans will honor and strengthen Social Security. We will protect all benefits for today's seniors and ensure that Social Security is available for their grandchildren. The administration has done nothing to save Social Security in the last 8 years even though the massive baby boom generation will begin drawing benefits 8 years from now. When Social Security first started, there were 42 workers to support each retiree. In a few decades, there will be only two workers per retiree. As a result, Social Security benefits will exceed contributions beginning in the year 2015 and the system will go bankrupt in the year 2037. The Vice President touts his plan for Social Security, but his plan would do nothing to improve the program's long-term solvency and will lead to higher taxes or cuts in benefits. In fact, the Vice President's plan would leave the basic structure of Social Security untouched, essentially gambling that future generations would be able to pay the bills when the baby boom generation begins to retire in full force. This is not good. Help is on the way with a Republican White House and a Republican Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in this pivotal election, the American people will hear a lot of back and forth about who works harder for their country. Shakespeare wrote, ``What's past is prologue.'' And I believe no other phrase can quite describe both the achievements of the Republican Congress and its vision for America's future. In 1995 when Republicans took over here in the House of Representatives, one of the first orders of business for the new Republican majority was to declare that it was going to comply and be bound by the same laws with which all Americans are forced to comply. We reformed the bloated, inefficient welfare system which held captive many Americans who only wanted a better life for their families. Providing a welfare-to-work incentive for both individuals and businesses, the Republican-led Congress succeeded in dropping the welfare rolls to the lowest level in history. Congress extended health insurance under the Medicaid program for millions of uninsured children, giving them the proper care and attention that they deserve. The Republicans passed health insurance portability to guarantee working Americans that if they switched jobs or lost their jobs, they could continue with their current health coverage. We reformed the Food and Drug Administration, giving people quicker access to lifesaving drugs and medical devices and providing for better food quality. The Republican Congress enhanced criminal penalties for sexual crimes against children and established a nationwide tracking system for sexual predators. We also enhanced punishment for drug-induced rape. We boosted education by increasing funding and giving local school districts and States the flexibility to use Federal funds to best meet the needs of children. For seniors, Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation ending the Social Security earnings limit test which unfairly penalized senior citizens for simply trying to make a living. The House also voted to roll back the 1993 Clinton-Gore tax on Social Security benefits. We passed legislation to repeal the marriage penalty tax and the estate tax here. Sadly and unfortunately, the President vetoed both our bills and chose to turn his back on millions of Americans. We strengthened our national defense by increasing military pay and retirement benefits, enhancing health care benefits for veterans, providing the care and respect for our military which this administration has misused and forsaken. And let us not forget the budget, Mr. Speaker. The Republicans passed the Balanced Budget Act and bound our appropriations bills to spending caps. The Nation's checkbook is in the black and we have paid down the debt by nearly $270 billion. I would like to point out that the Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate and the House, right here in the 103d Congress. Instead of protecting Social Security, Medicare and providing for prescription drugs, the Democrats succeeded in increasing the Social Security tax on seniors, increasing the tax on gasoline, and increasing the overall tax burden on Americans. At the same time, the Democrats squandered the Social Security surplus. Before 1995, when Republicans took over here, the Democrats spent billions of dollars of the Social Security surplus as if it was a slush fund for Members of Congress. The Republicans, in sharp contrast, have chosen to lock the Social Security surplus away, making it untouchable for anything except Social Security. Last month, the House passed the debt relief lockbox which will continue our pledge to protect 100 percent of both Social Security and Medicare while providing for $240 billion in debt reduction. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Congress has worked tirelessly for the American people. We have produced real solutions here in Congress. We have fought hard and passed legislation on welfare reform, better health care, better education, tougher criminal penalties, tax relief, a stronger defense, a balanced budget, debt reduction, and Social Security protection. We will not hear that, Mr. Speaker, from the folks on the other side. They refuse to state or admit the facts. They are afraid that the American people will see the truth, so I thought I would come on the floor this morning to set the record straight on the accomplishments of the Republican-led Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the 106th Congress draws to an end, we can celebrate many of our accomplishments--the Social Security lockbox, the third annual budget surplus in a row, and more than $300 billion in debt reduction. The end of the 106th Congress also means bidding farewell to many of our colleagues. Among the outstanding public servants who are stepping down is Tillie Fowler of Jacksonville. Her dedication and expertise will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, my district covers all or part of nine counties and is contiguous to 6 other congressional districts--five of them in Florida. My district stretches from just outside of Orlando all the way to the Georgia border. This gives me the honor of representing a portion of Jacksonville, and this has given me the privilege of working closely with Congresswoman Fowler on many issues. Not so long ago, Jacksonville was looked upon as a small city supporting paper mills, a commercial port, and military bases. Today, the Jacksonville area numbers one million people and the city is recognized as a vibrant, growing urban center. Although it has shed some its past, Jacksonville maintains its strong commitment to our armed services as the host to major military facilities. The successful transformation of Jacksonville over the past two decades owes much to Tillie Fowler. She has worked on behalf of the area as a volunteer, and as an elected official at the local and federal levels. This dedication to public service is a family trait. Tillie's father, Culver Kidd, served for 42 years in the Georgia legislature; and her mother, Katherine Kidd, was a community leader. Tillie learned about civic and local involvement in Milledgeville, Georgia. I should point out that Milledgeville has contributed a great deal to this nation. It was also the home of the distinguished writer Flannery O'Connor and the long-time Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Carl Vinson. From her small hometown, my colleague pursued her education at Emory University in Atlanta earning a B.A. in political science and late a J.D. Armed with her law degree, Tillie came here to Washington, D.C., and worked on the staff of Congressman Robert Stephens of Georgia. Her strong talents were soon recognized and she was brought to the White House as a counsel in the Nixon Administration. During this period, Tillie not only expanded her professional horizons, she met and married a fellow attorney, L. Buck Fowler. In 1971, she moved with her husband to Jacksonville, Florida, where she set about the important job of raising a family, two daughters, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth. Although she put her career on hold, Tillie did not ease up on public service. She volunteered her efforts as the President of the Junior League of Jacksonville, with the American Red Cross, and other charitable groups. In 1985, she returned to the political scene with her election to the City Council and served on the council from 1985 through 1992. In 1989, she became President of the Jacksonville City Council, the first Republican and the first woman to hold that position. Although she retired from the council in 1992, her political career was just changing direction; she then successfully ran for Congress. Congresswoman Fowler returned to Washington with an ambitious agenda. She had vowed to make Mayport Naval Station a top priority and she succeeded. Through her position on the Armed Services Committee, she has built a reputation as an advocate of a strong national defense. She has improved the nation's commitment to military personnel and facilities in her district, throughout the nation, and around the world. Her tenure on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has also resulted in major improvements for Florida. Florida is a rapidly growing state and deserves a greater share of transportation funding. Through Mrs. Fowler's efforts, Florida is receiving an additional $440 million annually for its transportation needs. Due to her experience with the Transportation Committee, Congressman Fowler was named Chairman of the newly created Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management. While making her first run for Congress in 1992, Mrs. Fowler offered to limit herself to four terms. Although she was asked by her leadership and her colleagues to reconsider, Tillie is stepping down after four terms. After all, she has accomplished the goals she set out to achieve eight years ago. We are losing more than an experienced lawmaker, we are losing a good friend. In fact, Mrs. Fowler has been a good friend to the people of Florida, and perhaps more importantly, the men and women of our armed services. It has been an honor to serve and work with Tillie and we will miss her.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues in both Chambers to press forward in getting to the truth in airing the facts behind the administration's deal with Moscow. I ask my colleagues that sit on the relevant committees to investigate the administration and, of course, the Vice President's role in co-chairing the 1995 meeting with the Russian Prime Minister on the U.S.-Russian Binational Commission. My colleagues, it is only through newspaper articles recently that we have hints of the administration's turning a blind eye concerning Moscow's arms sales to Iran. The White House has refused to provide a copy of the classified 1995 ``aide-memoire'' signed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin that stated the United States would not impose penalties on Moscow as required by U.S. law. The aide-memoire reveals an implicit agreement to ignore U.S. laws governing the U.S. response to arms sales to terrorist nations, including Iran. Mr. Speaker, the law I am referring to is the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act that was passed in 1992, which requires sanctions against countries that sell advanced weaponry to countries the State Department classifies as state sponsors of terrorism. It is interesting that then-Senator Gore, along with Senator McCain, authored this law, also known as the Gore-McCain Act. The law is rooted in concerns about Russian sales to Iraq of some of the most sophisticated weapons that the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement explicitly allowed. In 1995, an agreement signed by Vice President Gore and Russia's Prime Minister Chernomyrdin endorsed Russia's completion of sophisticated and advanced arms deliveries to Iran. The Vice President and the Russian Prime Minister mentioned an arms agreement in general terms at a news conference the day the agreement was signed, but the details have never been disclosed to Congress or the public. The weapons Russia has committed to supply to Iran include one kilo- classed diesel-powered submarine, 160 T-72 tanks, 600 armored personnel carriers, numerous anti-ship mines, cluster bombs, and a variety of long-range guided torpedoes and other munitions for the submarine and tanks. Russia agreed to complete the sales by the end of 1999, and not to sell weapons to Iran other than the ones specified. Russia has already provided Iran with fighter aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. The kilo-class submarine sold to Iran should be of particular concern to Congress and the American public because it can be hard to detect and could pose a threat to oil tankers or American war ships in the Gulf. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, Russia continues to be a significant supplier of conventional arms to Iran despite the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal, the Central Intelligence Agency reported in August. Those working for the Vice President argue that the arms pact aided the U.S. because the submarine and tanks were not advanced weapons, as defined by the Pentagon; and, thus, the U.S. could not have applied sanctions anyway. However, statements by the White House and the Vice President's office defending the policy of not sanctioning Russia was contradicted by a letter sent to Russia in January by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The letter to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov states that the United States would have imposed sanctions on Russia for its arms sales if there had been no 1995 agreement. ``Without the aide-memoire, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws.'' Furthermore, Senator McCain, one of the principal authors of the act said, ``Clearly, the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement was intended to evade sanctions imposed by the legislation written in 1992 by the Vice President and me.'' Furthermore, he went on to say, ``If the administration acquiesced in the sale, then they have violated both the intent and the letter of the law.'' Without the explicit act of Congress, the Vice President did not have the power or authority to commit the United States to ignore U.S. law. The Vice President's deal with Moscow gives the Russians not only the green light to violate our Nation's laws but encourages them to do so. The administration has already admitted that Russia has failed to meet its promise to end deliveries by December 1999 to Iran. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to properly investigate, find the truth, and I should say get to the bottom of our relationships with Russia.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 532, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, first, to my colleagues, I want to recognize our superb Chairman, Mr. Stump of Arizona, who leads us today as Chairman of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Stump is a senior Member of this House and a man of honor, Madam Speaker. Bob Stump served his country faithfully--and with distinction--in war, and has served with care and vigor as a Member and Chairman of the Veterans Committee. I am privileged to serve with him; Bob Stump is one of the secret treasures of this House. I salute him for his leadership on this bill, and for his dedicated service over the past six years as Chairman of our Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Madam Speaker, the bills before us today, S. 1402, H.R. 4864, and H.R. 4850, are good bills for veterans, and they are good reflections of this House. They contain provisions that are innovative, useful, necessary, and workable--a winning combination for the veterans we serve and for the Department of Veterans Affairs that we are charged to oversee. Madam Speaker, I want to address specifically one of our measures today, S. 1402, final passage of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to S. 1402, the ``Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 200.'' After a number of hearings, Subcommittee meetings, site visits and other data collection, I introduced, with bipartisan cosponsors, one of the predecessor bills incorporated in this measure, H.R. 5109, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act of 2000.'' My Subcommittee endorsed this bill on a bipartisan basis, and our full Committee, under my Chairman's leadership, ordered the bill reported to the House on September 13, 2000. The House unanimously passed H.R. 5109 on September 21, 2000. Let me review some of the key provisions of our health bill, H.R. 5109, that were successfully negotiated with our Senate colleagues, and are incorporated in S. 1402: nurses Madam Speaker, about ten years ago, Congress created an innovative pay system for VA nurses, with a locality-based mechanism to produce pay rates that were intended to address labor market needs to keep VA competitive. The idea was that each VA hospital could act in its own self-interest, and remain competitive locally. It was intended to be a good reform, and this system initially gave VA nurses a big pay raise. VA's recruitment and retention problem for nurses effectively disappeared for awhile. But the old saying, ``that was then, and this is now,'' comes to mind. My subcommittee gave a special focus during this Congress to the pay situation of VA nurses. What we found was disappointing--we have learned that many VA nurses hadn't received any increases in their pay since the initial ones from our 1990 legislation. While those first pay increases were in many cases substantial, in the course of time, other Federal employee groups had caught up because of the annual comparability pay raises available to every other Federal employee--except VA nurses. So once again VA finds itself in a competitive disadvantage, and some VA nurses are looking for other employment options. In my judgment, as Chairman of our Health Subcommittee, it is a loss that veterans cannot afford. Therefore, our bill guarantees VA nurses the statutory national comparability pay raise given to all other Federal employees. My colleagues, these changes do not mean that Congress is declaring reform to be our enemy. We want to make certain that the earlier legislation works as the 101st Congress intended it. Therefore, in addition to the guaranteed national pay raise for nurses, the bill crafts necessary adjustments to the locality survey mechanism to ensure that data are available when needed, and to specify that certain steps be taken, when they are necessary, that lead to appropriate salary rates for VA nurses. This is the right solution for VA nurses; it is a bipartisan compromise, and I compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, and also another gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, Mr. Gutierrez, for their cooperation in getting this important matter resolved for VA nurses and for the veterans they serve. dentists Madam Speaker, this bill addresses recommendations of VA's Quadrennial Pay Report concerning VA dentists, bringing their pay into better balance with average compensation of hospital-based dentists in the private sector. This is the first change in almost 10 years in VA dentists' special pay. I want to recognize my colleague from the State of California, Dr. Bob Filner, for bringing his voice to this important issue for VA dentists. construction Our bill authorizes major medical facility construction projects in Beckley, West Virginia, Palo Alto and Long Beach, California, and Miami, Florida, with a commensurate authorization of appropriations of $120.9 million for this necessary construction. Also, we are extending a prior authorization for a long-term care project in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, and approving an authorization for a previously appropriated project for the Murfreesboro, Tennessee VA facility. These are excellent projects that have been carefully reviewed by Members of both Bodies and warrant our approval in this legislation. ptsd My friend, Mr. Evans of Illinois, the Ranking Member of the full VA Committee, recently raised the profile of the need for Congress to reauthorize the landmark 1988 study of post traumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans. Madam Speaker, our bill reauthorizes this important study. military service The bill also urges, in a Sense of Congress Resolution, that VA record military service history when VA physicians and other caregivers initially take a veteran's general health history. This will aid any veteran who files a VA claim for disability, especially given our new appreciation that military and combat exposure may be associated with onset of disease in later life. I want to commend the Vietnam Veterans of America organization for bringing this proposal to the Subcommittee on Health--it is a valuable contribution to this bill. property matters In addition to these items, Madam Speaker, we are making some important changes in VA properties. We are transferring a number of parcels of land at VA medical centers in Georgia, Michigan, Montana, and Tennessee to state and local governments, and the private sector, for good uses. Also, we are authorizing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to close the VA Medical Center in Ft. Lyon, Colorado, on the condition that the Secretary ensure that the veterans this facility serves now are properly treated in other facilities in the private and public sectors. Also, I want the Secretary to know that my subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, will be carefully monitoring VA's actions in the case of Ft. Lyon. We are particularly interested in how VA will meet its statutory requirement to maintain capacity to provide long-term care, and how southern Colorado will contribute to this obligation, following closure of the Ft. Lyon facility. In all likelihood, the Subcommittee on Health will hold hearings on this matter next year. Thus, VA needs to be aware that its actions in respect to Ft. Lyon will be closely scrutinized. Also, VA needs to ensure that employees of the Ft. Lyon facility are offered all the personnel options available to the VA for ``early out'' and ``buy out'' benefits. It is through no fault of these employees that this facility is being closed, and all our Members believe that they should be held harmless by the Government's decision to close this facility. These VA employees have served their country honorably and with dedication. This service should be recognized and treated with the respect it deserves by the Secretary as the VA moves closer to closing this longstanding institution. Madam Speaker, our bill is endorsed by a number of organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, PVA, BVA, the Nursing Organization of Veterans Affairs, the American Dental Association, and the largest federal union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), among others. I hope that each of my colleagues will vote for passage of this measure today, and that we can send it on to the President prior to adjournment sine die of the 106th Congress. I want to add one personal note today. I have served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health for the past 4 years. It has been both an honor and an education for me, and I appreciate having been afforded an opportunity to serve in a leadership position on this Committee. I thank my Chairman, Mr. Stump, and the Ranking Members of the full Committee, Mr. Evans, as well as Mr. Gutierrez, our Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health, as well as other Members for supporting me as Chairman. It is important to note that these Members also exhibited the best of our traditions on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--the traditions of Sonny Montgomery, Tiger Teague and Bob Stump--of working together in a bipartisan manner, to honor and to help veterans. So, Madam Speaker, my chairmanship of the subcommittee has been a rewarding experience for me, and I look forward to continuing these good bipartisan relations in the new Congress in January 2001. In conclusion, veterans of our Armed Forces need these bills, Madam Speaker. They are good bills, with effective provisions, that help veterans, and I urge my colleagues to support them so that we can continue to keep our promise to America's veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as the appropriation process continues here in Congress, I want to bring attention to Planned Parenthood's 1998/ 1999 annual report. The report shows the inordinate amount of profits made from their operation. In 13 years, their profits have totaled $356 million and not once, not once in that time, did they report a loss. In fact, their annual report stated they currently have net assets totaling $536 million. This is an increase of $131 million in just one year. Even dot-com companies would be envious of such profits. These numbers might be wonderful if Planned Parenthood was just a normal business, but the organization claims to be a charity. They are subsidized by the United States Government through grants; and they also want special deals, including reduced rates of advertising in the media. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the American public saw Planned Parenthood for what it is, a business intent on making profits at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, hearing the Democrats say they reformed welfare is similar to saying all of us in this House won gold in the Olympics. Did we participate in the success at Sydney? No. But did this Nation benefit from the years of practice and experience of these gold medals? Yes. When we were talking about reforming welfare, the Democrats said welfare reform would fail, and President Clinton vetoed this legislation twice. Well, failure could not be further from the truth today. Taxpayers are better off than they were 4 years ago due to fiscal responsibility and reforms passed by the Republican Congress. Six years ago welfare checks in the Northeast totaled about $47 million, and this year the costs are about $12 million, nearly $35 million in savings. Republicans have helped restore incentive to work instead of dooming families to a life of continued dependencies. Our policy should be a hand up, not a hand out.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently Governor Bush proposed a comprehensive energy policy which I believe will go a long way towards increasing our Nation's energy self-sufficiency and strikes the proper balance between energy production and protecting the environment. Last week, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, on which I serve, held a hearing to examine the United States' energy concerns. Most of the hearing focused on the President's decision to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to supposedly help Americans in the Northeast who may face a dwindling supply of home heating oil for the upcoming winter. While no one would argue that we must ensure that Americans' heating needs are met, I seriously question the motivation and the reason for releasing this oil. First, the key word here is ``strategic.'' The reserve was created in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo, and Presidential authority to draw down the reserve is contingent only upon the finding of a severe energy supply disruption. In fact, the Energy Information Administration, in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), in February, stated: ``The SPR is intended for release only in the event of a major oil supply disruption, not for trying to manage the world market of nearly 74 million barrels per day.'' Last month, Treasury Secretary Summers and the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent a memo to the President opposing the release of oil from the reserve based in part ``it would be seen as a radical departure from past practice and as an attempt to manipulate prices.'' Furthermore, Vice President Gore himself opposed the release of oil from the SPR earlier this year but suddenly had a change of heart with both winter and the elections looming ahead. Upon announcing the release of 30 million barrels from the SPR, the President also announced the release of $400 million of taxpayers' money in low-income home energy assistance program funding. However, these funds will have to be replaced by Congress, most likely through emergency supplemental appropriations, and the oil will have to be replaced, hopefully, when oil is at a lower price per barrel. Mr. Speaker, this action is indicative of the administration's lack of leadership, I believe, on energy policy. This 30-million-barrel release amounts to only about a 36-hour supply. Instead of tackling our energy problems head-on with a coherent policy, the administration chooses to run in a circle throwing money at the problem or proposing politically expedient policies which fail to address the long-term solution. Since the Clinton-Gore administration took office, America's oil consumption has increased by 14 percent, while domestic production has decreased by 18 percent. America is the world's only superpower, and we are 56 percent dependent on foreign countries for our main energy needs. In contrast, during the crippling 1973 oil embargo, the United States was only 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. And to add insult to injury, Iraq has now become the fastest growing oil supplier to the United States. Another fact that I found troubling is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is made up of predominantly foreign oil. For crude oil received up to 1995 for the SPR, only 8 percent came from domestic producers. I find it ironic that we developed the SPR so as to never again be at the whim of foreign nations in terms of oil supply and yet we fill our reserve with foreign oil. I would also like to point out that Americans also use a large amount of natural gas for home heating. However, I have heard of no cry from the Clinton-Gore administration to help these Americans. The demand in price of natural gas is skyrocketing, while natural gas production has been virtually flat over the past few years, primarily because domestic exploration has been hindered by this administration's severe environmental policies. At last week's hearings, witnesses testified that we do in fact have a type of natural gas reserve, but because of the lengthy permit process and access restrictions enforced by this administration, we are unable to adequately tap these reserves. Mr. Speaker, our country's demand for both oil and natural gas will increase dramatically over the next 10 to 20 years. It is time for a real energy policy and not a Band-Aid policy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, just one final comment. I do not know how soon the gentleman will be 65, but under the Gore plan, at age 64\1/2\, if the gentleman does not want to join at that time, or changes his mind later, he is out of luck because he has got to make his decision at 64\1/2\ to do this, or there is no other chance. The other point I want to make is that the Government will decide which drugs are and are not covered. If the people, like the gentleman from Texas, want to have drugs, the Government can decide it is too expensive; and they will tell him to go to another drug. So all the concerns we had about Mrs. Clinton's health care plan is coming back with this pharmaceutical drugs plan. I think the American people should understand that.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader. I would like this afternoon to focus on prescription drugs. We have talked about the waste, fraud and abuse, the incompetency that the gentleman from Michigan brought up, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, when he talked about under a Gore administration they would spend $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and this would go into the Social Security surplus. I want to talk about one of the most potential political questions in this election year. The Democrats have proposed a prescription drug program that was defeated, and the Republicans proposed a prescription drug program here in Congress that passed. So I want to focus on the difference of these plans. And more particularly, about the difference between the plan that the Gore campaign is talking about and what we have passed here in Congress and what we think is better, which the Bush campaign has adopted. All of us in this House, all of us in the Senate are committed to helping our seniors with access to affordable prescription drugs through the Medicare program. But there is a key difference. Joshua Hammond wrote a book called The Seven Cultural Forces That Shape Who Americans Are, and the number one is choice, because we believe that Americans should have choice in what they do and what is offered to them by different programs. So I would like to discuss just briefly today the proposed plans by Republicans and Democrats that have been before this House and talk about the difference. Madam Speaker, I might point out to my colleagues, this House has been controlled by Republicans since 1995. But if prescription drugs was such a problem, why is it that the Democrats did not propose a solution to this before we took the majority in 1995? And why did we have to wait for Republicans to come forward with a solution? So it is easy for them to criticize, but they had 40 years when they controlled the body over here to come up with their own plan and present it to the American people. Why did they not do it? It is only because Republicans have tackled this issue, which is very controversial, and the Republican bill, H.R. 2680, would give beneficiaries a choice. The hallmark of the American approach is choice. We do it through two private sector drug plans. In addition to having choice, the question becomes: Who do we trust? The government running the program? Or do we believe that through choice and competition we will get a better program? Our program will allow beneficiaries to choose plans that best suit their needs. Our plan is market-based rather than relying on the Government to run the plan. Now, why is this so important? Because we know that overwhelmingly, the components of any plan that we must offer must have this choice. It must be the centerpiece of any plan that we offer to the American people dealing with prescription drugs. How affordable are these plans? Let us look at these two plans and see why they actually provide what they actually provide and how much it would cost our seniors. Our bill, which is H.R. 4680, passed on the House floor here on June 28. So the Democrats say the Republicans do not have a plan. We have a plan; it passed here on the House floor.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I think what the gentleman from Texas is saying in a larger measure is just because they do not control the House does not mean they cannot contribute. They could have been on the House floor offering proposals, trying to make this bill in their estimation better to their determination. But we passed it. And as I point out, they have had years and years to solve this problem and they did not. So now we have tackled it, and I think it takes political courage. We provide taxpayers a subsidy to encourage insurers to offer policies which are affordable to our seniors. One key aspect about our program it is voluntary and seniors taking part can choose from at least two plans. All plans start with a $250 deductible, and it would establish the Medicare Benefits Administration. This is an agency that would run the program, but it would be private sector-oriented and provide volume buying for these seniors. It would cover 100 percent of drug and premium costs for couples with income up to $15,200 and singles with incomes up to $11,300. For all participants, it covers at least half of all drug costs up to $2,100 annually and 100 percent of out-of-pocket costs up to $6000. So we have something that private companies are providing, the Government is giving incentives and subsidies to help them, it is helping Americans get choice through at least two private sector choices, and it is voluntary. But let us take a look at the Democrat plan that the House defeated here on the House floor. Currently, seniors pay a premium and receive reimbursement for a portion of their hospital and doctor costs through Medicare. Under the Democrat plan, they would use the new government benefit to reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. As I point out, it is a government program. Translation: they put government in charge of seniors' prescription drugs through the Health Care Financing Administration, which is HCFA, which would choose, they would choose and they would control the drug purchasing contractor for every region of this country. HCFA would be doing it. In other words, it would be a new Big Government program, a one-size- fits-all plan. And this is a key element of their program. In a recent survey done with seniors talking about drug coverage, they prefer by a margin of two to one a program that is private sector- oriented, that is voluntary, and not having the Government through HCFA provide the pharmaceutical drugs. So the Clinton-Gore plan for seniors dealing with prescription drugs is like a government-chosen HMO for drugs; and, therefore, I do not think it is good. Another thing I would like to say is that seniors would lose their private sector coverage, whether they participate or not. This is a key element. I say in closing, the premiums for the drug coverage under the Clinton-Gore plan come directly out of the monthly Social Security check. Do not think this is going to be a choice. This is government coming into seniors' Social Security check and taking the payment out every month, whether they like it or not in this program that is not voluntary. So I think the real questions seniors have to come to grips with in this political season is do they want to have choice, do they want to have competition or a voluntary approach to this plan, or do they want to have the Government run it? So I say to the distinguished Majority Leader, I think it is clear. If the American people look at the two plans, the prescription drug will be a plan that is much more favorable to seniors with what we offered, what we provided on the House floor, and I regret that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) walked out on us.