Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I appreciate the Chairman's acceptance. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to finish my statement. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is fitting that we address a crisis that our military is facing tonight. Each branch of the military is facing this same problem. It is having a very tough time attracting the number and quality of recruits needed to staff our military. The military, in fact, is suffering its worst personnel crisis since the draft ended in 1973. My colleagues, sadly, over a thousand high schools nationwide restrict military recruiters access to their high schools. This barring keeps recruiters from its number one source of recruits, graduating high school students. The precedent has been set in the past that recruiters be given the same access to post secondary institutions as businesses or companies that are allowed to do so. For example, the jewelers that come to give the high school rings are allowed. There are lots of different companies that come in, but not our military. This ban not only hurts our military but it also places students who may face difficulty financing college at a disadvantage from learning of the opportunities that the military could offer them in bonuses to help them with their education. Service in the military is honorable, and we should encourage our young people to consider the possibility of serving in our Armed Services. My amendment establishes that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to prohibit military recruiting at our secondary schools. This amendment still allows for local control but permits Congress the opportunity to express the importance of allowing military recruiters access to our high school campuses. With all-time lows in recruiting for our military, Congress should make a statement tonight to encourage schools to honor military recruiters' requests for access. For federally-funded schools to ban any access for military recruiters defies logic and, of course, patriotism. Several school districts are banning military recruiters for social reasons. For some reason they just do not believe in the ideology of a military. So, therefore, they rob students of the privilege of hearing about the opportunities available in the Armed Services. If school board members wish to oppose the military in their private lives, of course, in this Nation, they have the freedom to do so. Ironically, they have that freedom because men and women, of course, have served in the military and have sacrificed their lives for Americans to have this freedom. But to impose their personal ideology, their views, on a federally-funded public school is not right. The Washington Times, on May 29 this year, reported about a resolution passed by the San Francisco Unified School District during the height, during the height of the Persian Gulf War, while our men and women were putting their lives at risk. It said, ``Unbridled military spending in the last 40 years has, in large part, been responsible for the growing national debt and for inadequate spending on education and other necessary social services.'' This resolution was coupled with the school board's determination to deny the military all access to their school campuses or student lists. School board members should take their views to the polls, not restrict access to public schools by our military recruiters. The United States Navy missed its recruiting goal by nearly 7,000 sailors in 1998, forcing many ships to be deployed understaffed. In response, the Navy's leadership decided in 1999 to accept a higher percentage of recruits without high school diplomas. That same year, both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force also missed their recruiting goals.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a great achievement by the Gainesville Gators, a girls fast pitch softball team from North Central Florida. The weekend of May 27th and 28th, the Gainesville Gators won the ``Commotion by the Ocean'' National Softball Association Tournament. This victory qualifies the Gainesville Gators for this year's National Softball Association National Tournament. I would like to congratulate the Gators and all of the other teams that provided such fierce competition in this tournament. Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Barry Adams, wrote an article describing the Gainesville Gators' win, which I will make part of the record at this point. The Gainesville Gators Ride the Wave to a Win in the Commotion by the Ocean NSA Tournament. The weekend of May 27 and 28th saw the start of the summers first fastpitch softball tournaments. The winner from this tournament would qualify for this years National Softball Association National tournament. The day started out at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, with the first game between the Gainesville Gators traveling Softball Team and the North Florida Beach All-Stars. The game was won by the Gainesville Gators 3-2. The next game would pit the Gainesville Gators against the Noreasters, the local host for this tournament, and started at 12:00 p.m. This game was won by the Noreasters 4-3. This now had the Gainesville Gators at 1-1 for the tournament. The third game started at 4:30 p.m. between the Gainesville Gators and Tsumani, who the previous week won their first tournament. The Gainesville Gators would prevail with the score being 5-2. The Gainesville Gators record was now 2-1 and would seed them as number 3 for the Sunday tournament Championship games. Sunday started early for the Gainesville Gators, the first game would be at 9:00 a.m. and would pit the team against the NF Beach All-stars, whom the Gainesville Gators had defeated in their first game. In this action the Gainesville Gators again prevailed by defeating the All- stars and would advance to the second game of the day. In this type of tournament if you lose you go home, so the mood of the team was to win one game at a time. Their toughest competition would be the next game. This would pit the Gainesville Gators against the undefeated Jax Attack team and the number one seed in the tournament, based on the previous days performance. This would be the second game of the day for the Gainesville Gators and the first for Jax Attack. In getting to the number one seed the Jax Attack had allowed less than 4 total runs in their previous 3 games. This would be a challenge for the Gainesville Gators. They accepted the challenge in defeating the Jax Attack 5-2 and would advance to the Championship Game between them and the Noreasters, the home team and the only team to defeat the Gainesville Gators during the tournament. The game was played with the results being in favor of the Gainesville Gators who would win 6-5 and in doing so assure themselves the Tournament Champions and an automatic bid to the NSA National Tournament. The Gainesville Gators had outstanding pitching by, Cassandra Sparks, Miranda Lovvorn, Annie Voyles and Kerri Stroh. The infield was stingy in giving up hits, with third base being covered by Jessica Howell and Shanna Gearner, Shortstop by Dana Osborne, and Montie Adams, Second base was bolstered by Jena Rowland and Cassandra Sparks, with First base being covered by Annie Voyles and Rekeesha Duncan. The outfielders provided many great plays and kept the Gainesville Gators in most of the games with their fielding. Right field was staffed by Alicia Gray, Melissa Fairbrother, Center field was covered by Melissa Fairbrother and Tiffany Goode, Left Field was covered by Montie Adams and Shanna Gearner. Catching was handled by Tiffany Goode, Alicia Gray and Annie Voyles. The coaching Staff, Head Coach Teresa Kraus, Assistant Coach David Sparks and Kelly Stroh were proud of the accomplishments of the team with the playing, hitting and overall skills displayed over the weekend. Rekeesha Duncan became the power during two of the games, with a fence clearing home run that sealed the victory over the number 1 seed, Jax Attack and a hit to the fence in the Championship game. All the players were successful in getting hits at critical times and stealing bases. Overall the team provided the hitting and fielding at the critical times. The Gainesville Gators finished the tournament with a record of 5-1. The team consists of girls from all over the surrounding areas of Gainesville. They run from Lawtey, Lulu, Starke, Gainesville, Bronson, Inglis, Williston, Archer, Providence and Lake Butler, Florida. The team Coaches: Head Coach, Teresa Kraus; Asst Coach, David Sparks; and Asst Coach, Kelly Stroh. Players: Montie Adams, Redeesha Duncan, Melissa Fairbrother, Alicia Gray, Shanna Gearner, Tiffany Goode, Jessica Howell, Miranda Lovvorn, Dana Osborne, Jena Rowland, Cassandra Sparks, Kerry Stroh, and Annie Voyles

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. American air superiority has reigned for over 40 years allowing our ground forces to conduct operations unmolested by enemy air attacks. To continue that protection, the United States needs a next-generation fighter to maintain our technological edge in combat. Air dominance does not mean we have more fighters than the enemy. It means, we have the fighters, the training, and the technology to overcome any hostile threat. Russian built Mig 29s and Su 27s can provide the enemy rough parity in the air, and in some instances, may be able to outperform current U.S. fighters. In addition, our fighters will face increasingly advanced and lethal air defense systems. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the cost of losing our air superiority in the future will vastly outweigh the cost of producing the aircraft to maintain it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on March 15th, I joined in celebrating the 72nd Anniversary of Sholl's Cafeteria. Sholl's is more than a business, it is a cherished institution here in Washington. One of the most important family rituals is eating together, joining together in a daily activity and discussing the events of the day and the plans for tomorrow. Sholl's provides this family atmosphere by providing a place for people to come together in an enjoyable environment, to share in taking a meal and to experience the sense of community. I would like to submit for the Record this poem by John Seitz which honors this Washington landmark. Ode to Sholl's Cafeteria (By John R. Seitz) Come bring along a friend to Sholl's. Liver and onions! Ah, the rolls! The chopped steak is the best in town. Meatloaf or blue fish share renown. Some folks favor the rhubarb pie, While pumpkin's what others swear by. Something lighter you might savor Is egg custard, rich in flavor. Water glasses catch the eye, Sparkling with ice as you go by. Coffee is smooth from cup to cup, Whichever time of day you sup. Is breakfast the meal you prefer? The eggs will suit without demur. The bacon's always crisp and done. Waffles, pastries, suit everyone! So grab a tray, and step in line. The wait's not long, and you'll do fine. Sit where you like, then dig right in, Your tasty meal waits to begin. Now you may hear, a threatening fear, That Sholl's could close and disappear. It's true; but Sholl's is open now. It plans to stay, and here is how. Patrons, diners, all who should Step forth for food that's cheap and good, Promote tradition with these goals! So ``S.O.S.''--``Support Our Sholl's!''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues come to the floor and vote, there are three questions that we must consider. First, will China comply with the agreements under PNTR better than they have done in the past? Two, will China continue to use its trade surplus with the U.S. to expand its military complex? Three, will democracy increase in China because of this agreement? Let us look at this first chart. I would like to point out that China has lowered its tariffs as part of its prior agreement. In fact, in 1995, they lowered it from 42 percent to 17 percent. But as my colleagues can see, the deficit increased dramatically. In fact, last year, it was $70 billion. So based on history, I questioned the real benefits of China's lowering its tariffs. I would also like to point out that while some agricultural products received very favorable treatment, others did not. So I submit that not everyone will benefit from this agreement. Remember, there are 700 million farmers in China, and we have about 2 million. In this chart, my colleagues will see that China consistently overproduces its agriculture commodities and actually exports some citrus products up to 300 times what it imports. Finally, can China be trusted? China, as we know, has violated both the letter and the spirit of past agreements, ranging from intellectual property rights to weapon proliferation. Furthermore, China's defense spending has grown roughly at the same rate as its economy. We can expect the trend to continue as China takes in more U.S. dollars. On a final note, our last chart, in 1989, students erected this statue in Tiananmen Square, the Goddess of Democracy, a model of the Statue of Liberty because the symbol of democracy was a movement in China at that time, that point. I ask my colleagues, in conclusion, is China closer to freedom than it was in 1989? Are they continuing to get more belligerent? The real question is, would it not be wiser to grant incremental agreements with China and then trust but verify periodically? Those are the questions you must answer honestly before you vote ``yes'' for PNTR.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, between 200,000 to 300,000 American lives are lost every year to sudden cardiac arrest in the United States. It is estimated that over 30 percent of these victims could be saved if they had access to immediate medical response, including defibrillation. A large number of sudden cardiac arrests are due to an electrical malfunction of the heart called ventricular fibrillation, VF. Now, when VF occurs, the heart's electrical signals, which normally induce a coordinated heartbeat, suddenly become chaotic, and the heart's function as a pump abruptly stops. Unless this state is reversed, then death will occur within a few minutes. The only effective treatment for this condition is defibrillation, the electrical shock to the heart. 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 congressional legislation to encourage the widespread use of automated external defibrillator devices to help save our lives. We have been successful, and that is why we are here on the House floor today. I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for his efforts, his coordination and his support and encouragement. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for his support in bringing this forward through the committee. My colleagues, automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, are small, portable medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, that can measure a victim's heart rate, determine whether the victim is suffering from ventricular fibrillation and if an electric shock is necessary, and can even instruct the layperson whether and when to shock the victim and when to perform CPR. I have a chart here called ``The Chain of Survival.'' Clearly, my colleagues can see from the chain of survival the four links are early access to emergency care, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation, early defibrillation, and early advanced life supports. While defibrillation is the most effective mechanism to revive a heart that has stopped, it is also the least accessed tool we have available to treat victims suffering from heart failure. My colleagues, these devices are very safe, effective, and they do not allow a shock to be administered until after the device has measured the victim's heart and determined whether a shock is required. Earlier this month, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a very moving hearing on H.R. 2498, and many of my colleagues said it was the best hearing they have ever seen. We heard from Dr. Richard Hardman, who helped design and implement an AED program in Las Vegas. Dr. Hardman helped train over 6,500 security officers to achieve an average internal emergency medical response time of less than 3 minutes. With over 200 sudden cardiac arrests occurring in covered locations in this region of Las Vegas, this AED program was able to save an astounding 57 percent of the victims. Dr. Hardman showed the subcommittee a videotape of an actual cardiac arrest victim, who was treated with an AED device from lay bystanders in the casino and was successfully shocked back to life within minutes. This could happen to any one of us. For example, we heard moving testimony from Robert Adams, a 42-year- old attorney, younger than many of us, an NCAA referee, an outstanding college athlete, captain of his basketball team, in the prime of health, who had recently passed several extensive physical exams with flying colors; and yet he, too, suffered a sudden cardiac arrest on the July 3rd weekend in Grand Central Station in New York City. By the grace of God, fortunately, 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 packaging, still in the box, and they hoped and prayed that batteries were part and parcel of that box. They hoped they were installed and charged and ready to go. Indeed, they were and they shocked Mr. Adams back to life. Mr. Adams has three children, the youngest of whom was only 1 year old at the time. Those children would not have their father today had Grand Central Station not procured this AED and been willing to publicly install an AED device and, of course, that the unrelated bystanders been willing to use it to save his life. Let me move to this other chart, ``Every Minute Counts.'' This is a very important chart. We can see that for every minute that goes by, we can see the effects that it will have on a person who suffers from ventricular fibrillation; and surely, surely, if we can save this many lives with just having this very small inconspicuous device, this bill will promote and save lives. Do my colleagues know that for every minute of delay in returning the heart to its normal pattern of beating, it decreases the chances of that person's survival by 10 percent? Unfortunately, according to the testimony of Dr. Hardman and AED legal expert Richard Lazar, AEDs are not being widely employed because of the perception, the simple perception among us that would-be purchasers and users of AED would get sued. This is a lot like the debate with the fire extinguishers 100 years ago; but our bill, H.R. 2498 removes a barrier to adopting AED programs. If a Good Samaritan, like someone in the Bible, or a building owner or a renter of the building acts in good faith and he or she uses the AED to 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, my colleagues, if they are willing to do so, we should not put them at risk of being sued for unlimited damages if something goes wrong. This legislation directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop guidelines for the placement of defibrillators in Federal buildings. It is inexcusable that we do not have these live-saving devices widely available in Federal buildings across the United States. We need, Mr. Speaker, to be a role model for the private sector by demonstrating our commitment to protecting the lives of Federal employees, military personnel, and private citizens who are visiting our museums, our public buildings throughout the United States, including Social Security offices and, of course, parks and recreation areas. H.R. 2498 does not impose any new regulation or obligations on the private sector. It does not preempt State law where the State has provided immunity for the person being sued. Almost 150 bipartisan Members have now cosponsored this bill. This legislation passed in both the subcommittee and full committee by unanimous voice vote. We have received letters of support by the National Safe Kid Campaign, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and many, many more. Even President Clinton talked about it last week in his radio address and promoted the use of defibrillators and talked about this bill. I commend the President for recognizing and bringing it to the public's attention through his presidency. This helps saves the lives of almost 250,000 Americans who annually are affected with sudden cardiac arrest. So I hope my colleagues will support and pass the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2498) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for recommendations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the placement of automatic external defibrillators in Federal buildings in order to improve survival rates of individuals who experience cardiac arrest in such buildings, and to establish protections from civil liability arising from the emergency use of the devices, as amended.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her support and the support of my colleagues in the Committee on Commerce. I would just conclude by telling a quick story of a good and close friend of mine. He and his wife are a member of our church, and they have four children. He was in his early 60s and he went to the golf course. As my colleagues know, in Florida there are lots of golf courses; and people are there all the time. It was in the morning, and he was playing golf when suddenly he had a cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, there was not an automated external defibrillator there. He died. And I felt it was very sad for he and his family, and that made the commitment on my part and the people who supported this bill even stronger to get this through the House. Of course, after it is approved by the Senate it will then go to the President to be signed. So I think it is a great day for all the organizations that have supported us, been with us for these many, many years as we have garnered support and attempted to convince our colleagues that, one, the good Samaritan clause was innocuous, that there was nothing to worry about; that much like fire extinguishers the day has come for automated external defibrillators. We need to have these not only in the public Federal buildings but all the local buildings. And, of course, hopefully, some day they will be just as apparent and obvious as fire extinguishers, and they will save at least 50,000 lives every year. And remember, 50,000 lives is an enormous amount of savings of health care costs. So just this small little device that automatically tells someone what to do, is very safe, and for which the cost is coming down, could save any one of our lives in this House today. So I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2498.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago the United States and many of our NATO allies were engaged in an air campaign against Yugoslav forces. Next month will mark the 1-year anniversary of the agreement providing for the withdrawal of Yugoslavian troops from Kosovo and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we not forget the American troops who continue to languish in Kosovo, or those in Bosnia, and other fellow citizens scattered throughout the world on various deployments. We should also consider the cost of these deployments both in dollars and in reduction of our military capability. President Clinton's decision to attack Yugoslavia and to maintain peacekeeping forces in Kosovo were based upon the mistaken notion that military forces can turn ethnic and religious hatred into peaceful coexistence. As a participant in the Kosovo peacekeeping operation known as KFOR, the United States has 5,000 troops in Kosovo, 450 in Macedonia, and 10 in Greece. While working to achieve this harmony, U.S. troops have been fired upon and assaulted in many instances. Census figures collected by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the Yugoslavian government indicate that 93 percent of the population of Kosovo is ethnic Albanians now and 5 percent Serbs. In essence, American troops are in Kosovo to protect the Serbs from an angry majority. This makes the President's plan to build a peaceful, multi- ethnic state all the more daunting. This situation begs the question, when will our troops leave Kosovo? If the Clinton administration has its way, the answer is, no time soon. All we need to do is to look at Bosnia to explain this conclusion. Remember Bosnia? In 1996, the United States sent 16,500 troops to Bosnia and some 6,000 support troops to neighboring nations. The President stated that the deployment would last about 1 year. Mr. Speaker, the troops are still there, and the administration has requested $1.4 billion for the next fiscal year to continue this 1-year mission to Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, it seems that much the same is expected for Kosovo. Two American camps in that region are being expanded to house and support American soldiers for at least 3 to 5 more years. More troubling is the assessment of the top U.S. commander in Kosovo. According to the Boston Globe, that commander, Brigadier General Sanchez, stated that the mission will require NATO peacekeepers to remain there for at least a generation. Can we expect some of these NATO troops to be American? We should also consider the cost of these deployments. Up to last year, $9.08 billion has been appropriated for Bosnia operations. With the expenditure for this fiscal year and the next, the Bosnian mission will accumulate costs exceeding $12 billion. According to the Department of Defense, the Kosovo operation costs $3 billion last year, and the estimate for FY 2000 is about $2 billion. Our peacekeeping operation in the Balkans is approaching $20 billion in total expenses. In reading a Heritage Foundation report on this issue, I discovered that ``The Pentagon believes that it missed its procurement targets for the past 5 years because of unexpected costs associated with the military operations in Kosovo and Bosnia.'' This means that we have not met our goals for modernizing our weaponry because of our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. By making Bosnia and Kosovo safer for their citizens, we have made America less safe for our citizens. Is that really the policy results this administration is seeking? Congress must take steps to ensure that America's national security interests are paramount in conducting our military and diplomatic missions.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will just finish my presentation for the good of the House, and I thank the chairman for his kind acceptance. The Secretary shall submit a report on the findings of the study conducted to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services no later than March 31, 2001. So, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because it has been brought to my attention that acceptance of TRICARE patients presents a variety of problems, business concerns, to rehab providers. Because of these concerns, rehab practices are reluctant to accept TRICARE patients, and that is wrong. For example, most patients with a diagnosis of a stroke, for example, require two and sometimes three rehab disciplines, depending upon the severity of the stroke. Therefore, the stroke patient may require physical and occupational therapy and possibly speech therapy, if the speech centers of the brain are involved. The concern here is that only the physical therapy services are covered as reimbursable service without prior written authorization, while speech therapy services require prior written authorization. Confusing? That is what this study will determine, the proper way to go. Occupational therapy would not be covered, as it can only be covered in an institutional facility. In most cases this creates a significant inconvenience for patients who now must receive their physical and speech therapy in one facility and have to travel to a separate institutional facility for occupational therapy services. Another good example, Mr. Chairman, concerns patients who are referred with a diagnosis of, let us say, a head trauma or upper extremity trauma. They would have similar rehab needs as stroke patients and, most likely, experience similar inconveniences. Providers are also concerned about the potential for interpretation of fraud by utilizing a physical therapy assistant in the treatment of TRICARE patients. That should not occur. In hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and outpatient rehab facilities it is common for the therapy staff to be comprised of physical therapists and physical therapy assistants. When the rehab staffing is compromised due to sickness, educational leave, vacation, et cetera, the rehab provider is limited to the staff who can treat TRICARE patients. These TRICARE patient appointments may need be canceled and the therapy interrupted due to the compromised staffing pattern. This situation does not occur in treating traditional Medicare patients. Neither does it occur with Federal Employee Health Benefits. The requirement for utilizing only registered physical therapists serves to create a more expensive model in which to deliver rehab services. In Florida, for example, physical therapy assistants, by their practice, can perform all of the therapy services rendered by a registered physical therapist, with the exception of performing a patient evaluation, changing a patient's plan of care or treatment, or discharging a patient. The risks associated with a TRICARE patient accidentally being treated by a physical therapy assistant presents a significant concern to all these rehab providers. So, Mr. Chairman, I think this study will try to determine how these problems can be resolved. My district has many active duty and retired military and their dependents who rely on this program for their health care. By having DOD conduct such a study, we would be provided with the necessary information to make a fair assessment about coverage of the rehab therapies by TRICARE. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, every now and then in a debate we need an amendment that everybody agrees on and everybody is happy about, and this is just such an amendment. And I think it is appropriate that we have this one after our previous debate. In addition, this amendment has been worked out with the Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of my amendment is to request that the Secretary of Defense conduct a study comparing the coverage and reimbursement for physical, speech, and occupational therapies for covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program to coverage and reimbursement for such same therapies under Medicare and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. So we are comparing what is provided under TRICARE with what is provided under Medicare and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. This study examines the following: The type of services covered; whether prior authorization is required to receive such services; reimbursement limits for services covered; and, fourthly, whether services are covered on both an inpatient and outpatient basis.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I plan to introduce a bill to allow health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expense to be tax deductible. Under current law, employers can write off the cost of health care coverage purchased for their employees. Why cannot individuals also be allowed the same opportunity to write off premiums and unreimbursed prescription drug expenses? The current Tax Code sets the threshold at 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before an individual can write off their medical expenses. This does not seem right to me. Currently in order to claim health care expenses, an individual must file an itemized tax return. I believe that all taxpayers should be allowed to deduct these out- of-pocket expenses, and we need to include a place where this deduction could be taken on the short form, such as a 1040EZ and 1040A. My bill also applies to the self-employed, because individuals who are self- employed will not be eligible for a 100 percent write-off until the year 2003. This type of relief is long overdue. Allowing individuals to write off certain costly health care expenses they may incur would be a tremendous benefit to them. The National Taxpayers Union supports my bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the biennial budget amendment being offered by Mr. Dreier. I became an original cosponsor of the biennial budget resolution because I want to see our budget process improved. As we all know, the budget process often results in gridlock. In the past we have witnessed train wrecks, government shutdowns, and continuing resolutions. Although establishing spending levels in Washington will always be contentious, there is strong agreement on adopting a two-year, or biennial, budget process. President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, and other congressional leaders have endorsed this streamlined system. Under a biennial budget the President would submit a two-year budget resolution during the first session of Congress. Congress then would consider and pass 13 two-year appropriation bills for the President's signature. The second session of Congress would be devoted to overseeing government programs, considering authorization bills, and working on other legislative priorities. Imagine, members of the House and Senate carefully considering legislative proposals and addressing major issues and emergencies at a deliberate and reasoned pace. The annual budget process has become a tool of political theatrics yielding poor policies. By adopting a biennial budget spending, decisions would be made in the year prior to an election year, putting policy ahead of politics. Annual budgeting also encourages using accounting gimmickry and wishful thinking. Lawmakers frequently adopt budgets with ambitious out-year spending restrictions; restrictions that rarely materialize. It is easy to promise to make tough decisions next year, beyond the reach of the current budget. Biennial budgeting doubles the period for specific spending levels and holds decision makers more accountable. Since 1950, Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for completion of all 13 individual appropriation bills. A two-year budget cycle will introduce greater stability to the funding process, decrease political manipulation of federal spending, and enhance the efficiency of Congress and federal agencies. It would also increase the public's confidence in the ability of the federal government to manage its responsibilities. That is the mark of good government. Adoption of a biennial budget makes sense because it would be an important improvement to our budget process.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let us go to October 17 of this year. We are here on the weekends, and it is 3 o'clock in the morning. The President has vetoed three or four of our appropriations bills. The Republicans meet, the Democrats meet. We do not know what to do. We are trying to get together. Sound familiar? That is what happened in 1999, what happened in 1998, what happened in 1997. What do we do? We put everything together in an omnibus appropriations bill for $500 billion. There is not one person in this body that knew what was in that appropriations bill. We brought it all on the House floor and everybody, exhausted, votes for it. Is that the way to run a government? That is not the way we should do it. There is so much in-fighting and partisanship near the end, particularly in an election year, that we need some failsafe method. This is what the Gekas amendment does, it fully funds 100 percent of the previous years's budget at the funding levels so we can go home and not have these omnibus appropriations bills that are so awful that all of us are embarrassed to go home after voting for them. I urge my colleagues to think in terms of protecting their constituents, protecting the integrity of this office. If Members do not pass the Gekas amendment for this continuing level, they are corrupting the process. We need to pass this today. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by Mr. Gekes--the Automatic Continuing Resolution, or CR. I do so because an automatic Continuing Resolution is a fail safe provisions that would automatically and fully fund the thirteen appropriations measures should any or all fail to be passed into law. In other words, we would be adding a common sense provision to this budget reform measure. the CR is a simply and reasonable effort to protect America from the kind of partisan political battle that resulted in shutting down the government and suspending essential government services back in 1995. None of us want this to happen ever again. Passage of this amendment would ensure the uninterrupted continuation of vital services like Social Security and Veterans benefits--the CR remove politics from the appropriations process. The CR provision is actually quite simple and generous: should any of the bills fail to become law by the end of the fiscal year, they would be funded at fully 100 percent of the previous year's funding levels. In other words, there are no cuts and no elimination of programs as a result of passage. Today, America is not in desperate need of a dire course of action, but one never knows what the future holds. For the good of our country and the peace of mind of her citizens, we should pass into law this common sense insurance mechanism. As an original cosponsor of this legislation and a long-time supporter of the sentiments behind the CR, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this worthy amendment. I also call upon the president to reconsider his position on this issue for the long-term good of the entire country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to today's front page story in The Washington Post entitled, ``Political static may block low power FM.'' The article paints a picture of what the new low power FM radio service may offer, but, Mr. Speaker, it does not properly convey why this Chamber, this House of Representatives, was compelled to overwhelmingly pass a bill introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). We did not pass a bill, as the article says, because of the influence of lobbyists or as a matter of politics. Quite simply, we passed a bill as a matter of good policy. That is why I am here this afternoon to point this out. When the FCC commission began its journey by adopting a notice of proposed rule-making designed to establish low power FM service, many of us voiced concerns about the potential interference larger commercial and public stations would face from this service. Surely, the FCC would not undertake and implement a service on such an important point as this without testing to be sure that interference was not involved. Well, our subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce earlier heard testimony that the FCC did just that, that they had not determined that no interference would occur between stations when they issued these low power FM licenses. So we think the FCC has rushed to judgment without resolving this critical part, which is the interference issue without fully consulting with us. Even the FCC witness testifying before our committee could not explain why the commission, the FCC commission, did not measure interference using signal-to-noise ratios. Simply put, the five technical studies analyzing the interference issue caused by low power FM stations have produced conflicting conclusions regarding interference on the third adjacent channel. The FCC, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, is pressing forward with its own agenda, all the while steamrolling over the legitimate concerns of existing broadcasters. Instead, broadcasters who have invested millions and millions of dollars into stations with the assumption that the FCC would ensure the integrity of their spectrum now have to worry about interference from a project that the FCC has no idea whether it will work or not. Examples of interference are already clear. Let us say all of us drive along the Beltway here in Washington near the intersection of I- 66 and Route 50. We all know where that is. You can hear for yourself what third-adjacent channel interference sounds like. For there, two local FM radio stations, three channels apart, cross paths, and the interference is clear and apparent. That is the reality that we do not want to replicate in any sort of low power FM proceeding at the FCC. By dropping third channel interference rules, the FCC is creating an environment whereby it is clear that interference will increase. How much? The broadcast industry says a lot. The FCC, very little. So the question is who is right? Well, now we are going to find out. The independent third party testing provisions of the legislation we passed in this House allow for a 9-month, nine-market analysis of low power FM. Not only will that analysis look at existing FM stations, but it will also analyze the impact on reading services for the blind, FM translators and the advent of digital radio. These are the issues that the FCC decided were not important, so it never tested any of them. It is a shame that the FCC was not more aggressive in doing testing itself. After all, this agency is supposed to be the guardians of the spectrum. But by measuring distortion rather than using the internationally recognized standard for interference, the FCC cooked its own results in a way that allowed for it to move forward. That decision came even as Congress was out of town in January, as if our views on this subject did not matter. The fact is that low power FM is a symptom of this agency that does not recognize its responsibilities to Congress. This low power FM action is simply the latest in a series of FCC actions that call into question the whole notion of accountability at the FCC. I am not opposed to low power FM. I do oppose the way in which the FCC decided to move forward, and I will be watching the results of the third party testing that this bill mandates to see if low power FM can, indeed, coexist with full power stations. The FCC appears to be bent on providing the service whether or not it causes interference or other problems for FM listeners. Our responsibility here in Congress is to those listeners, our constituents. I congratulate my colleagues in the House for passing legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. I hate to say is this, but listen to this quote. This is from the co- founder of Earth First. This is what he says: ``It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must recreate wilderness in large regions, move out the cars and the civilized people, dismantle roads and dams, reclaim the plowed lands, clearcuts, and reintroduce the extirpated species.'' They want to get rid of the people, get rid of cars, bring back the species, get rid of everything. In short, as humans, we do not even have a right to this land. Now the CARA bill is simply making their work easier. We can come on the floor and say this is a great bill, but frankly, we are not at the point where we can authorize more money because we are not even taking care of the land we now have. That is embarrassing. Almost one-third of the land in America is owned by the Federal government. If we add local and State government lands together, that percentage reaches 42 percent. Should half of us move? The CARA bill will not only fund the LWCF trust fund, the key vehicle for land acquisition, at $900 million, but most of the trust funds created by the other titles can also be used for land acquisition. That totals almost $2 billion. That means that State and local governments will have unprecedented amounts of Federal money to buy more private land. We can couple this with the Clinton-Gore acquisition plan, right? The second reason I am against this is because this bill allows the government to circumvent our existing programs, conservation needs. Both the National Park Service and Forest Service have reported billions of dollars in backlogged maintenance requests. So why are we adding more money when we have this huge backlog of maintenance requests? Mr. Chairman, as summer approaches, our parks will again swell with families and individuals enjoying our parks. But look closer and we will see crumbling facilities, deteriorating paths, families being turned away because the parks are unable to handle them. I encourage my colleagues, let us use some common sense here. Vote against this bill.