Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for what he is doing and point out to my colleagues this program maximum is a $50 million pilot program. This is on a $49 billion budget for veterans, which is the second largest appropriations of money. The only one larger is the Department of Defense. So this might be, I do not know if the fractions are right, but this is one-one thousandths of a percent that is going for a very small program to demonstrate, to see if it is feasible. So I think that this is a very modest approach, and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for what he is doing. I certainly think, as one of his constituents pointed out, this is worth this small effort to try to serve veterans.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to again, like others, recognize the superb leadership of the gentleman from Arizona and also to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, and, of course, recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for all of their efforts in the development of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for veterans, and it is a good bill to pass today. It contains provisions that are workable, useful and innovative. It is a winning combination for the veterans we serve and for the Department of Veterans Affairs who we are charged with to take care of our veterans. After a number of hearings we had on the subcommittee dealing with site visits and other data collection, I introduced this bill with bipartisan support, H.R. 5109, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act of the Year 2000. It has 20 cosponsors from the Democrat side and many from the Republican side. It is bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, let me just quickly review for my colleagues some of the key provisions of our bill. Mr. Speaker, about 10 years ago, Congress created an innovative pay system for the nurses in the VA system with the locality-based mechanism to produce pay raises that were intended to address labor market needs and to keep our veterans' nurses competitive. The idea was that each veteran hospital could act on its own self-interest and remain competitive locally. It was intended to be a good reform, and this system initially gave the VA nurses a big pay raise. Mr. Speaker, VA's recruitment and retention problem for nurses effectively disappeared for a while with this reform. But the old saying ``that was then and this is now'' is true today. My subcommittee gave special focus during this Congress to the pay situation of VA nurses, because a lot of them were leaving our system, what we found was disappointing. We have learned that many VA nurses had not received any pay increases in their pay since the initial one from our 1990 legislation. While those first pay increases were, in many cases, substantial, in the course of time, with inflation and other Federal employee groups moving ahead, what happened is they fell behind. So once again VA found itself in a competitive disadvantage, and some VA nurses were looking for employment options elsewhere. In my judgment, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, it was a loss that we could not afford; therefore, our bill guarantees VA nurses the statutory national comparability pay raises given to all the other Federal employees, Mr. Speaker. I am not declaring reform to be my enemy. I want to make the earlier legislation work that we passed in the 101st Congress. In addition to the guaranteed national pay raise for nurses, the subcommittee crafted 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 rate increases for our VA nurses. I believe this is the right solution. It is a compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle but in the end that is what is best. Mr. Speaker, the bill also addresses a recommendation of VA's Quadrennial Pay Report concerning the veterans' dentists, bringing their pay into better balance with average compensation of hospital- based dentists in the private sector. This is the first change in 10 years in VA dentists special pay. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for bringing his voice to this important issue and for continuing to prod us forward on behalf of the VA dentists. Our bill also authorizes major medical facility constructions in Palo Alto and Long Beach, California; Miami, Florida with a commensurate authorization of appropriations money for this construction. Southern and western States such as these, Mr. Speaker, are areas where we continue to see rising VA patient-care work loads and demand for modern, accessible and safe facilities for veterans. These projects will help ease these burdens. This House is making the right choice by authorizing these projects now. My friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), as the ranking member of the full committee, recently raised the profile of the need for Congress to reauthorize the landmark 1988 study of post-traumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans. Our bill authorizes this important study again. The bill also requires VA to record military service history when VA physicians and other caregivers take a veteran's 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, may be associated with onset of disease later in life. I want to commend the veterans, the Vietnam veterans of America, for bringing this proposal to us. It is valuable. It is a valuable contribution to this bill. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, our bill contains a very good approach, crafted by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has no VA hospital in his district; nor do I. We believe that in such a situation, when a veteran who is under VA care in a VA community-based clinic remote from a VA hospital, needs brief inpatient hospitalization, that he or she should be able to obtain this vital service closer to home. It is not any different for a veteran in this regard than it is for a nonveteran. Can anyone in this Chamber say he or she would relish the thought of leaving their family and friends and traveling hundreds of miles for a hospital admission at a distant hospital while bypassing community hospitals closer to home? While working with our colleagues across the aisle, our bill sets up a pilot program involving not more than four small VA clinic service areas. Within these areas, enrolled veterans in need of uncomplicated general hospital admissions would be referred to community hospitals rather than being sent to distant VA facilities. VA would serve as a coordinator of benefits to ensure that costs are covered by available private and public coverage held by most veterans who use the VA. VA will ensure that the care is delivered efficiently and with due regard to these veterans' needs. On discharge from these short hospital stays, these veterans would continue under VA care just as before. It is a voluntary program, Mr. Speaker, a time-limited test, capped for expenditures, intended to test the premise of providing a more convenient alternative to veterans than traveling hundred of miles to seek inpatient care in large, urban VA hospitals. Mr. Speaker, a previous small scale experiment similar to this proposal in one VA clinic was a smashing success, with a 98 percent patient satisfaction rate and was found to have saved between 15 and 28 percent of the costs that would have been paid by taxpayers had these patients traveled to a faraway veterans hospital for their admissions. Importantly, the VA facility in Florida suffered no impact on their patient care workloads because of this local experiment. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good idea. Mr. Speaker, this is a synopsis of our key provisions of H.R. 5109. I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill. I would like to point out that we have a number of organizations that have supported this. The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Nursing Organization of Veterans Affairs, the American Dental Association and the largest union, the American Federation of Government Employees, among others, have all supported this legislation. So I hope my colleagues will vote for passage of this in a strong way so that we can enact this in the 106th Congress and go forward to help our veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5173, the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for FY 2001. This legislation achieves several important goals--not the least of which is to retire the nation's debt by an additional forty two billion dollars in FY 2001. It does so while providing that one hundred percent of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses are fully protected. Why is it so important to all Americans, including seniors that we pay down the debt? I'll be more than happy to tell you why I think it is vital that we pay down the debt since we have eliminated the nation's deficits. Thomas Jefferson made the following statement: I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. The was in 1816. That was a credible statement then and it remains so today. If you divide the number of citizens by the outstanding public debt, what would you get? Your share, my share, each and every child's share is $20,559. The gross debt, which is all of the federal government's outstanding debt, totals about $5.5 trillion. To answer the question I posed earlier: We must reduce the debt because it will enhance net national savings, this in turn would free up resources for investments in productivity that will lead to stronger economic growth in the future. A larger economy will help ease the burden on our nation's children, who in later life as taxpayers, will be asked to shoulder the burden of paying for retirement and health care costs of a dramatically older population. Paying down the debt is the right thing to do and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on campaign finance reform. This is a topic that this Chamber is quite familiar with, and a topic which seeks to prohibit the abuse of soft money campaign donations to national political parties. Though the current campaign finance system is in need of reform, the proposal the House passed, the Shays-Meehan bill, did not improve or strengthen our campaign finance system. The road towards campaign finance reform has been a long one with many constitutional roadblocks. The Supreme Court took a dim view of our efforts to curtail first amendment rights. Through such rulings of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, and other cases, the court has declared that the government may not regulate political commentaries ``to promote a candidate and his views.'' The court made an exception for ads that use explicit language to ``advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identifiable candidate.'' The Congress recently took a step in the right direction reforming campaign finance flaws by ending the secret fund-raising and spending by political groups under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 527 groups receive a large degree of anonymity under the law so long as their television ads, opinion polling and other political activities do not recommend the election or defeat of a specific candidate. This new law requires them to identify themselves to the public, then file periodic reports with the IRS that identify contributors and disclose how they spend their money in the political arena. About a year ago, the House passed its own campaign finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill. It was aimed at reforming abuses in modern day campaign fund-raising. Though I believe campaign finance reform is needed, the Shays-Meehan bill was not the right approach. It has been over 20 years since we last overhauled our campaign finance laws, but I believe many of the bill's provisions would have been ruled unconstitutional before the U.S. Supreme Court. I could not support proposals placing restrictions on issue ads, thereby effectively regulating campaign expenditures by individuals, interest groups and organizations loosely allied to the parties. That legislation attempts to alter the constitutional distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy by mere statutory definitions. The goal of this bill was to expand the category of speech that can be regulated by the Federal Government, thereby making speech no longer free. Under current law, all individuals, political parties, businesses and other organizations are free to refer to candidates and their records on issues without regulation by the Federal Government. But under the Shays-Meehan bill, the mere reference to a candidate's name on radio or television during election campaigns would transform issue advocacy into regulated express advocacy. Additionally, the legislation bans soft money for political parties. The Shays-Meehan bill would regulate, limit or even prohibit individuals, organizations, and corporations from receiving or spending soft money for national political parties or political committees. The attempt to limit the free rights of political parties would clearly be unconstitutional, and the courts of course, most likely would strike down these restrictions. Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, strong majorities have supported protections for the expenditures of money for political communications. I do not believe government restrictions on issue ads can be reconciled with the first amendment. No matter how they are dressed up, such restrictions will still involve government regulation of political speech, which we do not want. Furthermore, such a concept of campaign finance reform is both counterproductive and, as I mentioned earlier, unconstitutional. Moreover, the bill's relative impact on the two major parties is decidedly out of balance, in my opinion. That is why I voted for the bipartisan Hutchinson-Allen substitute, which unfortunately failed on the House floor. This bill is simple in its path towards strengthening our system and increasing public trust in the elected Federal officials. Congress would implement full disclosure laws, treat soft money and hard money the same, and make all campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission available to the public electronically through the Internet and through other electronic sources within 48 hours after those reports are filed. That is what the Hutchinson-Allen substitute would do. That is the proposal I supported. I also believe that strong bipartisan support exits for an array of the reforms that could pass if Shays-Meehan were set aside. These include technological improvements in disclosure, strengthening enforcement, greater safeguards against the entry of foreign money, and possibly tax deductions to encourage small in-State donations. While any effective and feasible solution to campaign fundraising may be out of reach in this Congress, I am confident that next year, after the Presidential election and congressional races, this body can once again focus its attention on reforming our campaign finance laws.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in all deference to my colleague from Oregon, the zero rating that he cited for Secretary Cheney in his voting while in Congress was from a group that is really very socialistic and makes its decisions based upon emotion and not upon science. Governor Bush is dedicated to making decisions on the basis of science and economics and not just emotions when it comes to our environment. So I ask my colleague to review the record of Governor Bush and look carefully at the votes of Secretary Cheney with that in mind. Mr. Speaker, I came down here this afternoon to speak about a bill, H.R. 5109, which is a bipartisan bill. It is called the Veterans' Affairs Health Care Personnel Act of 2000. I chair the Subcommittee on Health and Veterans' Affairs, and we passed this bill. Tomorrow we are going to have a full markup. I want to bring this bill to the attention of my colleagues because I think all of them will want to cosponsor this. About 10 years ago, the professional nursing corps at the Department of Veterans Affairs' was in a crisis. VA was losing critical, even irreplaceable, assets from its clinical base. The Nation's hospitals in general were suffering acute shortages of trained nurses, and indeed the VA itself was viewed as a major recruitment source by these hospitals. Because of the nature of the payroll system for Federal employees, it is sort of a ponderous civil service system. VA was powerless to react in a highly competitive, volatile arena. The quality of care was in danger. In the 101st Congress, we went ahead and tried to correct that, but we did not quite complete the job. So we had a hearing in the subcommittee earlier this year on the status of VA's work with special focus on the pay situation of VA nurses. Mr. Speaker, what we found was very disappointing. In fact, we learned that many VA nurses had not received any increases in pay since our 1990 legislation 10 years ago. While those initial pay increases were in many cases substantial, in the course of time, other VA employee groups had caught up because of the annual comparability raises available to every Federal employee. So the nurses of the VA found themselves in a situation that they were not competitive, they were at a disadvantage, and some were leaving to go to the private sector. And this is again creating a crisis. We in the Veterans' Affairs cannot afford to lose these specialized individuals. Therefore, in addition to the guaranteed national pay raises for nurses that was put in our bill, the subcommittee has crafted necessary adjustments to the locality survey mechanism, which is a special formula that is set up to take care of nurses and their pay increases to ensure that data are available when needed and to specify that certain steps be taken when they were necessary that lead to these appropriate salary increases for their nurses. Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses recommendations of the VA's Quadrennial Pay Report concerning VA dentists. Now, this is another area where we are losing specialized people. We want to bring their pay up to contemporary balance with compensation of hospital-based dentists in the private sector, or we are going to lose all the dentists in the VA system. This is the first change in 10 years in VA dentists special pay. Our bill also addresses a very important area dealing with Vietnam veterans. At the instigation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who is the ranking minority member of the full committee, he brought up the idea of reauthorizing the landmark 1988 study of posttraumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans. Our bill would reauthorize this study. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) on passage of this bill. The bill also requires the VA to record military service history when VA veterans come in to talk to physicians about their health care history. This will aid any veteran who subsequently files a claim of disability, especially given our newfound acquisition of knowledge with the Gulf War Syndrome, and that military combat causes stress, exposures may be associated with pesticides and other things, and all this might lead to disease later in life. So I want to commend the Vietnam Veterans of America for bringing this proposal to me. It is a valuable contribution to this bill. Finally, I want to talk about another very innovative idea that is crafted in this bill with the help of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). His proposal will set up a pilot program involving not more than four VA clinic service areas. Within these areas, enrolled veterans in need of uncomplicated hospital admissions would be referred to community hospitals rather than being sent to VA Hospitals. So if there are far distances from these hospitals, they will be able to go to a local hospital. We found out that this saves 15 percent in cost savings. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support my bill, and I look forward to its passage on the House floor. Our bill is bipartisan and major provisions of it are already endorsed by several organizations, including Vietnam Veterans of America, the Nursing Organization of Veterans Affairs and the American Dental Association, and the largest federal union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), among others.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I commend the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for his leadership on this issue. The bill, of course, as mentioned earlier, authorizes the Air Force Memorial Foundation for an additional 5 years to accomplish its mission. Frankly, it is a mission that is long overdue. I think it has been pointed out, the Air Force is the only branch of America's Armed Forces without a memorial in the Nation's Capital. Could this be? The time has come for this city to dedicate a memorial in honor of the commitment and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Air Force, and I think it is long overdue. It will not only honor the millions of patriotic men and women who have distinguished themselves in the United States Air Force, but its predecessors, such as the Army Air Corps, which we should also remember. The memorial will also salute the vast technological achievements that have been made by the Air Force, which has made it the most formidable air power in the world. This has had a profound impact on the transformation of this entire world over the last century. From biplanes to the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the Air Force has evolved from a fledgling aeronautical division of the United States Signal Corps to a powerful 21st century expeditionary aerospace force. So we are beholden to honor the aviation pioneers of yesterday, the technological achievements of today, and the distinguished service of those men and women in blue. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve to learn about Captain Eddie Rickenbacker. I do not know if a lot of people know about him today, but he would be recognized, the first U.S. trained ace pilot; Colonel Billy Mitchell, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his foresight in aviation; General Hap Arnold, the architect of U.S. air power; Captain Chuck Yeager, the first man to break the sound barrier; the Tuskegee Airmen, African American pilots and personnel of the 332nd Fighter Group, which earned a Distinguished Unit Citation for an escort mission to Berlin in 1945; the Women's Auxiliary Corps in World War II, which included women pilots; and the Air Force's first graduated female pilot class of 1977. These are the things that Americans should know about and that this memorial would point out. As with other armed service memorials, the Air Force Memorial would not only honor those who have served and those who continue to serve, but I think in the end it would inspire future generations to serve this country with pride. I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleague from Massachusetts my sentiments and my concern and surprise about our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), who evidently collapsed and is now deceased. I think all of us in the House are totally shocked. We have had lunch with him. We have walked the halls of Congress. We recently have heard his wisdom. And all of us will agree his personality has uplifted us all. He will be sadly missed. And I know all of us will be speaking more about his death, but I share with my colleague from Massachusetts what an extraordinarily likeable, friendly, and uplifting individual this was. I give my best sentiments to his family and his friends.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week we had a hearing in Congress into the recent recall by Ford and Firestone of over 6 million tires. These tires have been attributed to hundreds of vehicle crashes and at least 88 fatalities. Florida, my home State, is fourth in the number of crashes yet has the highest number of these fatalities, at 21. Just recently, I received a letter from a constituent whose son and his fiance were killed when their Ford Explorer crashed as a result of the rear tire tread separation. This is what the constituent wrote to me. ``Their deaths could have been prevented had Ford and Firestone taken action when they knew the potential for injury.'' That is the purpose of our investigations here in Congress. When exactly did these companies know there was a problem, and why did they wait until this summer to initiate a recall? My constituents demand accountability. So, my colleagues, it is time to have additional hearings and to find out why these companies should stop the finger pointing at each other and give us the tough answers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, remember back in 1992 when President Clinton was criticizing then President Bush for his travels around the world? And remember in the Democrat Convention they had T-shirts that said, ``George Bush's around-the-world tour''? Well, it has been 8 years. Let us look at the record. President Clinton has been one of the most widely traveled of all Presidents, according to the Washington Post. He has traveled with huge entourages. He has spent almost $300 million just in the last 3 years. And while his term is ending, President Clinton decided to go on one more worldwide tour while he still was on the taxpayers' tab. According to the GAO, Clinton and other government officials had been on 159 trips in the last 3 years. Mr. President, it is time to come home and tend to business.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Austrian philosopher Karl Krauss once wrote, ``When the end comes, I want to be living in retirement.'' Many Americans in this country feel that way. They put in countless hours anticipating the day when they will retire. Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration sees these benefits as a prime opportunity to grab more money for the Federal Government. In 1993, the Clinton-Gore administration decided to tax up to 85 percent of the Social Security benefits received by single seniors whose incomes were $34,000, and married taxpayers, seniors, with incomes exceeding $44,000. Worse yet, Mr. Speaker, because these incomes were not indexed for inflation, the tax effects were more dramatic every year for our seniors. This week the House will vote to end this burdensome tax and give seniors a well-deserved tax break. Seniors have paid their fair share of taxes. It is time we repeal the Clinton-Gore seniors' tax.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say to my colleagues before the vote here, this is a motion to disapprove of the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the U.S. Trade Relations Act. Right now, all of us can trade with China. There is no problem there. You or I could go out to trade with them. All corporations can trade with them. But under this motion, we are saying yes to disapprove of the President's waiver. What he wants to do is continue this waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment so that basically when businesses go into China, they are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, agricultural subsidies, Ex-Import Bank subsidies and a myriad of these subsidies that helps businesses when they go in. But when the taxpayer goes into business for himself, does he get support and subsidies from the government? No. So all we are saying today, vote yes on this motion to prohibit this waiver by the President of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and let these businesses continue to go in and continue to do business but not at the taxpayers' expense. I think we have heard plenty of arguments to show during this vigorous debate that there are human rights issues, that there are espionage issues, that there is the hiring of these Chinese technicians in this country to work on related military dual use technologies issues. Our relationship is moving along and in some ways it is bad and in some ways it is good, but I do not think the American taxpayers should be forced to subsidize businesses that go in. I ask for a ``yes'' on the motion to disapprove of the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair be kind enough to tell us the time remaining on each side?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we have a vigorous debate on the House floor. There are not a lot of Members here, but it is important. Again, China's Government seems to me making things more difficult for itself. It admits recent reports of missile technology aid to Pakistan and using the Commerce Department's less-than-secure measure of granting defense and computer companies permission to hire Chinese technicians to work on sensitive export control technologies. Again, earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the U.S. intelligence agencies have told the Clinton administration and Congress that China has continued to aid Pakistan in its efforts to build long- range missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. And just yesterday, The Washington Times reported that the Clinton administration has allowed the hiring of hundreds of Chinese technicians to work on military-related or dual use technologies. China is stepping up its espionage presence in the U.S. through all means possible and continues to expand its military complex with U.S. trade dollars. As said before, some see China as a strategic partner. My colleagues, I see China as a potential adversary. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate the American people on a remarkable achievement. We are now 112 months into the current economic expansion, the greatest period of prosperity ever. Thanks to the innovation and hard work of everyone in this Nation, we have built a $9.4 trillion economy. Just to put this in perspective, 112 months of continued economic growth. This economic expansion has lasted for over 9 years, starting during the Bush administration in April of 1991. The roots of this era of prosperity, however, reach further back, to 1991. Michael Cox, an economist with the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, traces this unprecedented expansion even further back, a total of 18 years. Since 1982 the U.S. economy has benefited from continued growth for all but 6 months in this 18-year period. That is right, over the last 205 months the economy has been in a slump for only 180 days. Now, many of us believe the architect of this expansion, this incredible economic force, was President Ronald Reagan. So we ask, why? Reagan pushed the idea of reducing taxes. He reduced the taxes from a top rate of 70 percent, and we forget about that today, down to 28 percent. He initiated stability of the currency and monetary policies; and the inflation rate was 15 percent and he brought it down to 3 percent in 1986, and then he launched deregulation of the energy, gas, transportation industries. Many of us believe this unleashed the creativity of the American people by allowing them to keep more of what they earned and saved. What are the fruits from this dynamic reduction in taxes? It has been announced recently, yesterday, that the Federal Government is forecasting a $4.6 trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years. This year, the Federal budget surplus will be the largest ever, $224 billion. That is 2.4 percent of our Nation's total economic output. Mr. Speaker, these surpluses have helped us to pay down the national debt by $140 billion over the past 2 years, and by a total of $400 billion by the end of this year. We are on a pace with our plan to eliminate the public debt by the year 2013. However, we should not forget the source of these dollars. The fact that we are running surpluses is one thing, but the fact is, the American people are being overcharged. Over the next decade, the people of this Nation could end up paying $4.6 trillion more in taxes than the Government needs. That amounts to an overcharge of $14,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. If we do the math, that turns out to be $56,000, and I assume every family out there would rather have this $56,000 than to give it to the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, only 4 months ago, the total surplus projected for the next 10 years stood at $2.9 billion. Interestingly, this revised increase of $1.3 trillion alone would be more than enough, more than enough to cover the tax cuts vetoed by the President last year and the $500 billion tax cut presented by the Vice President this year, combined. This newly anticipated windfall also would be enough for the tax cuts advocated by Governor George Bush of Texas. Does this mean that the whole $4.6 trillion should be earmarked for tax relief? No, I am not saying that. Mr. Speaker, $2.3 trillion of this surplus is expected to come from Social Security taxes, and those dollars should be set aside to meet the needs for older Americans. That is why the Republicans created a lock box to protect the Social Security surplus. However, Mr. Speaker, that leaves almost $2.2 trillion in non-Social Security surpluses; and a portion of that, I believe, should go to the rightful owners. As I mentioned, this year's surplus will run about $220 billion. Recently, we voted to end the death tax, a measure that the President has threatened to veto. This death tax raised $23 billion in 1998, one- tenth of the 2000 surplus. We recently voted to reduce the tax penalty on married couples. The cost of making the Tax Code more fair for families is $182 billion over 10 years. That is less than this year's surplus alone. Again, the defenders of big government say we cannot afford this. Mr. Speaker, I know the American people can spend their own money more wisely than the Government can spend it. We trust our citizens to vote to raise a family and to serve on juries; let us allow them a portion of their surplus, and I believe they will be better off.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am here to speak on a growing controversy, the controversy of who is to blame for the high gas prices, particularly in the Midwest, the high spikes. Some say it is big oil and others say it is the result of the EPA forcing through Phase II formulated gasoline. Let us this afternoon analyze the facts and begin to see where the responsibility lies. Let me cite from an internal Energy Department memo that proves that the administration knew that the new formulated gasoline, RFG, as required by EPA was a major reason for the spikes in the Midwest. The memo was circulated while the administration was publicly blasting the big oil companies for gouging Americans. The Washington Times obtained the June 5 memo that was written for Secretary Richardson of the Department of Energy by the Department's acting policy director, Ms. Kenderdine. This memo mirrors what analysts and oil companies have been stating; the mix of high demand and low supply has led to high prices for all gasoline. We all realize that; that makes sense. Of course, that is part of the cycle in a free market experience. The disturbing part of that memo goes on to say, and let me quote, Madam Speaker, ``the Milwaukee and Chicago areas supply situation is further affected by, among other things, an RFG formulation specific to the area that is more difficult to produce.'' Despite the clear-cut facts in the memo, the administration has claimed that the price hikes and spikes were unexplainable. In fact, they have openly speculated that it is probably big business beating up on poor citizens again. When, in fact, it is big government beating up on the American taxpayers again. Refineries have been working to capacity to produce a new EPA- mandated gasoline and have been strained to meet the summer demands. This has left reserve supplies in a dangerous position. According to the DOE memo, Chicago refineries do not have the capacity to step up production when there is a shortage and the specifically formulated gasoline mixed with the ethanol in the region could not be imported from other areas because few make the unique blend of fuel. The most damaging evidence is the conclusion in that memo from June 5 that supplies were sufficient to meet overall demand at the time. The market was ``sufficiently tight,'' he went on later to say ``that any disruption in the distribution system could contribute to Phase II RFG shortages'' throughout the summer. So there we have it, that is where the spikes came from. The White House has attempted to rely on a strategy to deflect blame from the real culprit, themselves. Considering the gasoline problems facing Americans today, I am very surprised at the timing of the EPA and this administration to move forward with the implementation of this new blend, this RFG Phase II. I do not think the administration intentionally did this, but I am not sure. Where is their energy plan today? Where are the steps that could have prevented this from happening? Why did the EPA simply not postpone changing the gas formulas until such a time as the oil market had leveled off? Also, why did St. Louis, Missouri receive a waiver while, to my knowledge, no other city did? Another shocking piece of this show is on Friday, June 30, the EPA released in a proposed rulemaking a comment period on whether reformulated gasoline is needed to meet the air quality standards. In other words, they are saying is this even needed. What? I mean, here they are mandating they be put in place, yet now they are issuing a memo to say is it needed. You mean to tell me that they insisted on moving forward with Phase II of RFG without knowing if they even needed to keep the program? When will the EPA do their homework before they force regulations upon the American people? It appears to me from the evidence that the spiked prices in the Midwest were due to the EPA forcing a new formulation, a new blend of gasoline, during this time of high OPEC prices and low supplies. The EPA should accept responsibility for putting the public through the expensive process of reformulated gasoline without proof that the gasoline would help improve our air and should withhold moving forward with any other new RFG regulations in any other cities. Madam Speaker, the EPA and Department of Energy must formulate a plan and study to make sure their plan is effective before they gouge the American people at the pumps.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me say in the beginning, let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the good here. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his bill and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for crafting a compromise that we can support. So I hope all the folks will come on board here. We can mend this bill later on if they are not happy with it. Opponents of this legislation cry out there is special legislation here creating carve-outs for specific industries. And I say, Mr. Speaker, the carve-outs that they cite are not carve-outs. Rather, they allow for activity that is already lawful under existing law to continue. This legislation permits parimutuel wagering to operate as it has for many, many years under Federal and State laws. This legislation is mindful of States' rights and sovereignty and allows States their rights to regulate activity within their border, and that is currently legal. So there are no carve-outs here. As such, the bill does not expand or promote gambling on the Internet. Instead it allows for those activities as currently permitted by States to exist. This legislation has the support of a lot of groups. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, let me start off by stating let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act before us today is not a perfect bill. But it is a step in the right direction and I commend my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and my good friend from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, for crafting a compromise we can support. Some of the opponents of this legislation will say that this bill promotes or expands gambling on the Internet. Nothing can be further from the truth. The legislation before us today in no way expands gambling on the Interent. First and foremost, the legislation offered by my friend from Virginia prohibits gambling businesses from using the Internet to place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager. It does not create new government laws, or additional regulations on the Internet, it merely brings the interstate gambling ban up to date. H.R. 3125 in no way expands gambling on the Interent and permits only activities that are otherwise lawful and regulated by the states. Opponents of this legislation cry that H.R. 3125 is special favor legislation creating carve outs for specific industries. Mr. Speaker, the carve outs they cite are not carve outs, rather, it allows for activity that is already lawful under existing law to continue. This legislation permits parimutuel wagering to operate as it has for many years under federal and state laws. This legislation is mindful of states' rights and sovereignty, and allows states their right to regulate activity within their borders that is currently legal. As such, the bill does not expand or promote gambling on the Internet, instead, it allows for those activities as currently permitted by states. This legislation has the support of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Association of Attorneys General, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, as well as numerous other organizations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Though not perfect, ti certainly is a step in the right direction, and it is the first step in battling the proliferation of illegal gambling on the Internet--with future Congresses free to revisit this matter and amend this legislation as necessary.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask a simple question: What has the support of the Republican party and the support of 80 percent of the American people? The answer is very simple, the repeal of the marriage tax penalty. This ridiculous tax provision forces 25 million couples to pay an average of $1,400 each in extra taxes every year just because they are married for a working family. This $1,400 would be used to buy a home computer or used for 3 months of childcare, but instead of using this money for their family, these couples are forced to give it to the government. Our Nation was founded in part because our Founding Fathers grew tired of unfair and ridiculous taxes. Well, I can think of no more unfair or ridiculous tax than the marriage tax penalty. This penalty must be repealed. Surely everyone can agree that married couples should not be subject to extra taxes just because they are married. Married Americans deserve to be treated fairly. Let us repel the marriage tax penalty today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for allowing me to have the charts here on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. It is basically asking for oversight on the Conyers-Campbell, Campbell-Conyers amendment. When we look across the landscape at different groups that have been exempted, labor unions, of course, as mentioned earlier, go to the National Labor Relations Board. If one developed a cooperative, a farming cooperative, they would have to go to the Secretary of Agriculture to certify that they did not have any monopoly practices and that they were not restraining trade. If one were an export association or a trading company or even a fishing association, even a fishing association, they would have to go to the Secretary of the Interior or to the Federal Trade Commission. If one is an insurance company and they tried to meet different people, insurance companies tried to meet, they would also have to be governed by antitrust laws. Newspapers, national defense contractors, throughout all of America, everybody has some oversight, but not in the Campbell-Conyers bill. Now, in Texas, Governor George Bush passed a bill which had similar language to the Campbell-Conyers bill, but it had oversight. In fact, when one looked at it, and many other States are adopting this language, provided for the doctors to be able to get together and to negotiate with HMOs; but it had oversight. One had to go to the State attorney general to certify that their plan and what they were doing were not antitrust, was not developing a monopoly. So basically my amendment, which is very simple, adds a few words. It says that when they go to the HMOs and when they develop their collective strategy, that it will be certified by the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department. So it is very simple. It brings in that trust but verify. So I ask my colleagues to say if they support the Campbell amendment, the Conyers amendment, why not have a little bit of trust but verify by having this group of doctors, much like everybody else in America, have some oversight; and they would have to go to the Federal Trade Commission or to the Justice Department to get certified for what they are doing? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues on tonight's vote, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, we know how controversial this is. We know that a lot of the people that went on the Campbell bill decided they wanted to get off but they could not get off, and they are hoping tonight that somehow this amendment would not be brought to the floor or possibly there would be some way that they would have to vote for it. My colleagues if we want a fair compromise to this bill and still retain our loyalty to it, then vote for the Stearns bill, because it allows you to have oversight of these doctors, without it, everything we heard from the other speakers could occur. It does not hurt to have some verification through the antitrust measures that are in this amendment, much like even the Fishery Association has, so I urge passage of the Stearns bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) just finished a very eloquent, emotional speech. The point is that a lot of the States are already enacting these protections for the physicians, and we do not need the Federal Government to go ahead and do it. For example, Texas passed, as I mentioned earlier, an antitrust bill that exempted physicians but had oversight with the Attorney General there in the State. Why not let the States throughout this country do what we are trying to do and let them be first? Negotiations in the States will proceed on an orderly manner, and in those States where it is not required, it will not go forward. Mr. Chairman, I have these charts that I want to show here briefly. The myth, the bill would grant doctors the same type of labor protections afforded other workers. Other workers can obtain a labor exemption only, only if they are employees, not independent contractors. Two, physicians who are employees are already entitled to the exemption under existing law, and, third, under H.R. 1304, physicians' collective bargaining would not be subject to the NLRA or any other NLRB oversight. I ask my colleagues, do we want to have them have that carte blanche ability? Myth, doctors cannot organize without the exemption. Antitrust laws permit physicians to perform large group practices and IPAs now. In many areas, these groups have considerable leverage over plans, particularly when they are organized around specialities. Three, doctors already can discuss qualities and other contractual terms with each other and with health care plans. My colleagues, let us have some oversight. They did it in the State of Texas. This bill would supersede Texas and all other States that are moving forward. So I ask you to vote for the Stearns amendment and let us have trust, but verify. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?