Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President released his budget for fiscal year 2001, and with that begins another round of authorizations and appropriations. This afternoon what I want to do is focus on the issue of military readiness, a concept which the administration, until recently, has failed to embrace. In fact, the President has consistently proposed defense budgets which were completely inadequate. I am happy to see that the President has proposed a $11.3 billion increase in discretionary defense spending in recognition of the deplorable circumstances with which this administration has allowed our forces to deteriorate. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States military has been forced to do more with less. The defense budget has decreased by 8 percent, or $24 billion, since 1990, and is the only major spending category to steadily decline since 1994. In contrast, the non- discretionary spending and entitlements have increased nearly 60 percent, or $458 billion. Despite the reduced spending and force reductions, the pace of operations, other than war, has increased dramatically. Our forces are engaged in humanitarian, peacekeeping, civil assistance, and other areas of non-combat operations. In addition, the United States continues to engage in combat operations over Iraq and the conflict in former Yugoslovia. In terms of commitments abroad, the United States has about 260,000 personnel in over 100 countries, according to the Department of Defense. The Clinton administration has pursued a military policy of open- ended commitments to operations which have had no bearing on our national security at home or abroad. U.S. military forces have been deployed more times under this administration than they were throughout the entire Cold War period. This pace and scope of non-combat operations, the time away from family, and substandard pay and benefits have led to recruitment and retention problems. In fact, the Marine Corps was the only service to meet its recruiting requirements for 1999. Our forces are now coping with the inability to recruit highly qualified individuals, while at the same time losing the most experienced soldiers. My office has received letters from constituents, many of whom having proudly served in our Armed Forces, saying they were inclined to discourage young Americans from joining today's military force. Mr. Speaker, this is a demoralizing statement to hear. To add further emphasis, the Heritage Foundation, in its National Defense Report, concluded that our military is suffering the worst personnel crisis since the draft ended in 1973. The problem extends beyond personnel. Operations and maintenance accounts have suffered, and the lack of funding has resulted in spare parts shortages and the cannibalizing of existing equipment. Cannibalizing for parts, once considered a last resort to maintain combat capability, is now a common practice. Nations which may be potentially hostile to the United States are investing in advanced weaponry and technological upgrades to existing systems which can seriously impact our military superiority. For example, China in fact is working on a defense system that may be able to defeat stealth technology by monitoring radio and television waves for turbulence resulting from aircraft flight. In addition, smaller countries can invest in and upgrade highly capable and advanced surface-to-air missiles for a fraction of the cost of an offensive weapon platform. Such a high-volume air defense could spell disaster for current U.S. air forces. Mr. Speaker, these are but a fraction of the concerns facing military readiness. Last year, Congress recognized the need to halt the decline of our military. We provided for an increase in pay, retention bonuses, procurement, research and development and operations and maintenance, over $4 billion above the President's request. I look forward to examining the President's budget for 2001 to see exactly where his goals lie and how he plans to allocate the funding for our military. I sincerely hope he has realized inadequate funding leads to inadequate forces. I need not emphasize what drastic consequences inadequate forces would lead to.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I support the biennial budget process. That is that we should have: The budget process every 2 years and not every year. I have a bill, H.R. 493, to provide such a process. Senator Domenici, in the Senate, has a companion bill. Why is this an improvement over the current process? I believe that by adopting such a measure we would remove all this political in- fighting partisanship every year, plus all the pork barreling that occurs so often. What I would like to see is that in the first session we pass the first 13 appropriations bills, then in the second session we do oversight to find out what has happened with all this legislation that we passed. Is it working? The second session could also be reserved for looking at the emergency spending. I think the current process is very partisan and we should remove it. So please support H.R. 493, the biennial budget process.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, back in the 1970s when Canada unveiled its national health care program, it promised its citizens universal and free health care. In fact, in 1984 the Canadian Government promised that it would make available to all its citizens health that would be, ``universal, portable, comprehensive and accessible.'' Now, we can learn a lesson from Canada because the promises that were made have not been kept. Far from it. Before I elaborate on why I believe it is a mistake for this country to go down the same road, I wish to point out that we have several candidates who are running for president on a national health care program much like Canada's. Of course, they talk about it differently, but basically they want to have the same health care plan that Canada has, even though the Canadians are swarming across the border because the waiting lines are so long in their country. National health care often results in the rationing of health care itself. In his State of the Union address, the President outlined several new health care spending initiatives that would cost the taxpayers at least $150 billion. What troubles me about this is that the President's health care plan looks a lot like the plan they proposed several years ago. That plan would have put the Federal Government in charge of our entire health care delivery system. And, as we remember, this was soundly defeated by the electorate. By rejecting the Clinton administration's Health Security Act, the American people sent us a message. That message was that they did not want government-run health care. Countries such as Great Britain and Sweden are now moving toward privatizing their health care system because it has resulted in rationing of health care benefits. Let us review the promises that were made and the reality of Canada's health care system. The Canadian government promised they would provide universal coverage. However, two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, require that premiums are paid. And, if they are not, then the individual is not covered. In other provinces residents must register to be eligible for coverage. Studies show that in 1997 through 1998 approximately 170,000 people in British Columbia alone, that represents 4.2 percent of the population, were not covered. In touting its national health care plan, the Canadian government also promised portability. If I might interject here, we enacted legislation to address the portability issue in 1996 here in Congress. Now, suppose a resident of Quebec became ill in another province. They must pay out of pocket for their health care services. Quebec will reimburse for those services, but will only reimburse them for what that service will cost in Quebec. Does that sound like something we have heard before or something that we would like to have? The next promise was that it would be a comprehensive program. Let us take a closer look. Each province defines the services that are medically necessary and then only pays for those services. An interesting twist on this is that pharmaceutical and many surgical procedures are, for the most part, not covered for individuals under the age of 65, and only provide partial coverage for those above 65. Still not convinced? The last promise made was that national health care would be accessible. Since the government has had difficulty in funding this program, it has resulted in rationing of services. I would like to share with my colleagues some excerpts from an article that appeared in The New York Times on January 16 of this year. It was aptly titled ``Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South.'' The article led by reciting an incident involving a Ms. Boucher at a hospital in Montreal. She ate breakfast on a stretcher in a hall under a note on the wall that marked her patient spot. Sixty-six other patients without rooms also waited in that corridor. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is what the American people want. Another very telling example is in Ontario, Canada, Canada's wealthiest province. The waiting list for a magnetic resonance imaging test is so long that one man recently reserved a test for himself at a private animal hospital that had this type of machine. He registered under the name of Fido. This is not a joke, and it certainly is not meant to be funny. It just illustrates how bad the Canadian health care system is now that it is being run by the government. There are countless examples given in this feature story, and I ask my colleagues to review it. Mr. Speaker, I will ask the article to be made part of the Record. [From the New York Times, Jan. 16, 2000] Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South (By James Brooke) Montreal, Jan, 15.--Dressed in her orchid pink bathrobe and blue velour slippers, Edouardine Boucher perched on her bed at Notre Dame Hospital here on Friday and recounted the story of her night: electric doors constantly opening and closing by her feet, cold drafts blowing across her head each time an ambulance arrived in the subzero weather, and a drug addict who started shouting at 2:30 a.m., ``Untie me, untie me.'' But as nurses hurried by on Friday morning, no one though it remarkable that Ms. Boucher, a 58-year-old grandmother awaiting open heart surgery, had spent a rough night on a gurney in an emergency room hallway. After all, other hallways of this 3-year-old hospital were lined with 66 other patients lying quietly on temporary beds. To explain overflowing hospitals here and across the nation, Canadian health officials are blaming the annual winter flu epidemic. But, at the mention of flu, Daniel Brochu, the veteran head nurse here, gave a smirk and ran his pen down the patient list today: ``Heart problem, infection problem, hypertension, dialysis, brain tumor, two cerebral hemorrhages.'' On Thursday, he said, crowding was so bad that he was able to admit one patient only after the ambulance crew agreed to leave its stretcher. When Canada's state-run health system was in its first bloom, in the 1970's, Americans regularly trooped up here on inspection tours, attracted by Canada's promise of universal ``free'' health care. Today, however, few Canadians would recommend their system as a model for export. Improving health care should be the federal government's top priority, said 93 percent of 3,000 Canadians interviewed last month by Ekos Research Associates. In another poll last month, conducted by Pollara, 74 percent of respondents supported the idea of user fees, which have been outlawed since 1984. ``There is not a day when the newspapers do not talk of the health crisis,'' said Pierre Gauthier, president of the Federation of Specialist Doctors of Quebec. ``It has become the No. 1 problem for Quebecois and for Canadians.'' In Toronto, Canada's largest city, overcrowding prompted emergency rooms in 23 of the city's 25 hospitals to turn away ambulances one day last week. Two weeks ago, in what one newspaper later called an ``ominous foreshadowing,'' police officers shot to death a distraught father who had taken a doctor hostage in a Toronto emergency room in an attempt to speed treatment for his sick baby. Further west, in Winnipeg, ``hallway medicine'' has become so routine that hallway stretcher locations have permanent numbers. Patients recuperate more slowly in the drafty, noisy hallways, doctors report. On the Pacific Coast, ambulances filled with ill patients have repeatedly stacked up this winter in the parking lot of Vancouver General Hospital. Maureen Whyte, a hospital vice president, estimates that 20 percent of heart attack patients who should have treatment within 15 minutes now wait an hour or more. The shortage is a case of supply not keeping up with demand. During the 1990's, after government deficits ballooned, partly because of rising health costs, the government in Ottawa cut revenue-sharing payments to provinces--by half, by some accounts. Today, the federal budget is balanced, but 7 hospitals in Montreal have been closed, and 44 hospitals in Ontario have been closed or merged. Ottawa also largely closed the door to the immigration of foreign doctors and cut the number of spaces in Canadian medical schools by 20 percent. Today, Canada has one medical school slot for every 20,000 people, compared with one for 13,000 in the United States and Britain. With a buyout program, Quebec induced 3,600 nurses and 1,200 doctors to take early retirement. And across the nation, 6,000 nurses and at least 1,000 doctors have moved to the United States in recent years. At the same time, demands on Canada's health system grow every year. Within 30 years, the population over 65 is expected to double, to 25 percent. Unable to meet the demand, hospitals now have operation waiting lists stretching for months or longer--five years in the case of Ms. Boucher. As a result, Canada has moved informally to a two-tier, public-private system. Although private practice is limited to dentists and veterinarians, 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the United States, and many people are crossing the border for private care. Last summer, as waiting lists for chemotherapy treatments for breast and prostate cancer stretched to four months, Montreal doctors started to send patients 45 minutes down the highway to Champlain Valley Physicians' Hospital in Plattsburgh, NY. There, scores have undergone radiation treatment, some being treated by bilingual doctors who left Montreal. Business has been so good that the Plattsburgh hospital, which was on the verge of closing its cancer unit, has invested half a million dollars in new equipment. And on the Quebec side, the program has allowed health authorities to boast that they have cut the list of cancer patients who have to wait two months or more, to 368 today from 516 last summer. In Toronto, waiting lists have become so long at the Princess Margaret Hospital, the nation's largest and most prestigious cancer hospital, that hospital lawyers drew up a waiver last week for patients to sign, showing that they fully understood the danger of delaying radiation treatment. With the chemotherapy waiting list in British Columbia at 670 people, hospitals in Washington have started marketing their services to Canadians in Vancouver, a 45-minute drive. A two-tier system is also being used for other kinds of operations. ``I would like to buy mother a plastic hip for Christmas, so she doesn't have to limp through the year 2000 in excruciating pain,'' Margaret Wente, a newspaper columnist for The Globe and Mail in Toronto, wrote last month. ``I could just drive her to Cleveland, which is fast becoming the de facto hip-replacement capital of Southern Ontario.'' Allan Rock, Canada's health minister, disapproves of such attitudes. In an essay in the same newspaper, he wrote sarcastically: ``Forget about equal access. Let people buy their way to the front of the line.'' In defense of Canada's state health system, he wrote, ``Its social equity reflects our Canadian values.'' Mr. Rock, who hopes to become prime minister one day, said that health delivery could be improved through better, computerized planning. He attacked a proposal in Alberta to allow private hospitals, warning readers, ``The precedent may be set for American for-profit health-care providers looking to set up shop in Canada.'' But the idea that there may be room in Canada's future for private medicine is gaining ground. ``We have no significant crises in care for our teeth or our animals, largely because dentists and veterinarians operate in the private sector,'' Michael Bliss, a medical historian, wrote on Wednesday in The National Post, a conservative newspaper. ``So we have the absurdity in Canada that you can get faster care for your gum disease than your cancer, and probably more attentive care for your dog than your grandmother.'' In Ontario, Canada's wealthiest province, the waiting list for magnetic resonance imaging tests is so long that one man recently reserved a session for himself at a private animal hospital that had a machine. He registered under the name Fido. To Ms. Boucher, who jealously guarded her 15 square feet of corridor space today, such cocktail circuit anecdotes were not amusing. Glumly eating her cold breakfast toast, she said, ``It scares us to get sick.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the next session of the 106th Congress, we are going to engage in another heated discussion regarding normal trade relations with China. In exchange for attaining membership in the World Trade Organization, China has made a number of commitments in regard to its trade policy. Among those commitments are improved market access, tariff reductions, elimination of nontariff quotas, open service sectors and elimination of export subsidies. While many people are celebrating this alleged win for American businesses, I come this morning to question the actual benefit for the United States of America. China is the fourth largest supplier of U.S. imports and the thirteenth largest buyer of U.S. exports. In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with China has risen from $6.2 billion in 1989 to $57 billion in 1998. Furthermore, China has a dismal record of complying with prior international agreements, and I think this is an important point. A blatant example concerns intellectual property rights. The United States Trade Representative can specify under the 1974 Trade Act which countries are violators. They are the ``Special 301 Priority Foreign Countries,'' sort of a designation and those countries that violate U.S. intellectual property rights are so designated. So let us look at the list when it comes to China. In 1991, China was named a Special 301 violator for intellectual property rights. They sat down with them. They reached an agreement a year later and China said: We will agree to strengthen our intellectual property laws and improve protection for U.S. products in our country. But did they? In 1994, the United States Trade Representative again identified China as a violator. At this time, many factories in China were pirating compact disks while China trade laws restricted U.S. market access. So an agreement was reached a year later again with China to stem this piracy and enforce the intellectual property rules. But again in 1996, another year later, the USTR, the United States Trade Representative, designated China as a violator again for not complying. And only when they were threatened with a $2 billion sanction did China begin to comply. So China has shown an ability to exploit loopholes in agreements regarding the transfer of military technology. In 1992, China agreed to abide by the rules of the Missile Technology Control Regime and then turned and sold ballistic missile components to Pakistan. Though no technical violation was made, the transfer, of course, was contrary to the spirit of the agreement. China has also aided Pakistan, Iran, and Algeria in the area of nuclear technology and equipment. Another area of uneasiness is that China has made no attempt to conceal its aggressiveness dealing with military modernization. In addition to arms purchases, such as the Russian built SU-27 fighter, which holds near parity with our F-15 fighter, China has begun construction of two short-range missile bases which now can threaten Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, we also need not forget the enormous damage called by China's espionage activities resulting in the theft of U.S. thermonuclear design information. The Cox report concluded that elements of this stolen information would help China in building its next generation of mobile ICBMs. In fact, the Washington Times reported on December 6 last year that China is working on a new strategic missile submarine containing smaller nuclear warheads similar to American weapons. Upon completion, China will have the ability to strike U.S. forces anywhere it chooses. Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence is clear: this country is aggressively expanding its military complex, while at the same time blatantly disregarding international agreements and exploiting loopholes in others. China has a history of torturing some of its religious leaders and arresting peaceful opposition demonstrators. China has stolen U.S. nuclear secrets and attempted to influence the U.S. political process through what I believe to be illegal campaign contributions. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few illustrations I've outlined in the brief 5 minutes that I have here. There is a longer list of China's predatory tactics. Do we have assurance that China will keep its words the next time. I doubt it. I bring this to the attention of my colleagues now so that when we have the heated discussion regarding the normalization of trade relations with China they will remember.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it turns out that during the Christmas holiday season, when not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse, the Federal Communications Commission violated America's freedom of religious expression. You see, the FCC on December 29, last year, concluded that in order for noncommercial educational television stations to retain their licenses, stations must devote 50 percent of their programming hours to shows that are educational and cultural. However, the FCC decided that ``statements of personally held religious views and beliefs'' could not qualify as educational or cultural. Thus, broadcasts of religious sermons, simply the sermon, and church services, according to the FCC, would have no educational or cultural significance and would not count towards the 50 percent obligation. As a result, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the ``Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act,'' which reverses this decision.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Is this a perfect bill? The answer is no. There are several provisions contained in this measure that I do not and did not support in the past. However, there are also many provisions contained in this funding bill that I do support. They are as follows. The give-backs to Medicare that are included in H.R. 3624 are tremendously important to the people in my district. I want to compliment the conferees of the Committees on Commerce, Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee who worked so diligently to reach an agreement to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to health care services. This measure will be of assistance to those who rely on Medicare for their health care needs. I have worked closely with Chairmen Bilirakis and Bliley to ensure that Medicare+Choice receives an increase in funding because we need to make sure that seniors have the same choices available to them as other Americans. H.R. 3624 restores funding to the Medicare+Choice program. It also makes some positive changes that will offer Medicare beneficiaries more flexibility in a number of ways. First and foremost, it authorizes incentives for health care providers to enter counties that do not currently offer managed care plans. This is a key provision because I represent a rural area with very few HMOs. It also allows Medicare+Choice beneficiaries an open enrollment period when they learn their plan is ending its contract. In addition, it would slow down the implementation of Medicare+Choice payment rates to reflect the differences in enrollees' costs. Lastly, it would provide beneficiaries more time to enroll in Medicare+Choice or Medigap plans when health plans withdraw from the market. The bill is also endorsed by many organizations including the National Rural Health Association and the American Hospital Association. The bill contains specific provisions to correct many of the unintended consequences of the BBA that have adversely affected the rural communities. It also strengthens the Medicare rural hospital critical access hospital program and expands Graduate Medical Education opportunities in rural settings. Another important provision provides payments for orphan and cancer therapy drugs and new medical devices. I have focused on the issues my constituents said they wanted fixed, but there are certainly other improvements that I have not listed here today. The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act will provide much needed relief to Medicare beneficiaries and providers alike. It may not provide everything that has been requested, but it does address the issues with which my constituents have greatest concern. This appropriation package also provides for a study to be conducted on the role of Ft. King in the Second Seminole war. This is something I have tried to accomplish for several years and I am pleased that it is moving forward. Ft. King is an important historical site located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. I also want to thank Chairman Regula for his help in getting this language included in the Interior bill. I also was successful in securing funding for an aircraft training at an Aviation/Aerospace Center of Excellence project operated by the Florida Community College at Jacksonville utilizing resources at Cecil Field. This is an important instructional program that will prepare students to take the appropriate certification exams which are required by the Federal Aviation Administration for employment in aircraft maintenance. This is tremendously valuable since there is no such training program currently available in Northeast Florida. Another important provision that I was able to help get included is the prohibition on the Public Broadcast Stations from sharing their donor lists with political parties or outside parties without the donors consent. We must ensure that taxpayer dollars are not misused for political purposes. This measure also contains language allowing consumers choices when it comes to getting their television signals. As a member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee I worked to ensure that consumers can receive local television stations and further worked to ensure that they will not lose their distance signals. Notwithstanding all these things that are good within the bill, I am concerned about the process. This bill forward funds much too much money. Also, I am concerned with the whole process of not being able to read the five (5) bills. Putting all five bills together in one omnibus spending bill is not good and does not serve this House well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. President, come home and solve this final budget problem that we have here. We may again have an across-the-board reduction in spending to finally find the offsets to cover the additional spending the President wants to put forth. We need him to return from all of these foreign affairs trips he is taking. It is too bad I only have 1 minute here, because I could go on for hours about the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. He claims we cannot reduce by one penny out of $1 waste, fraud and abuse. Here is an example. Mr. Speaker, $14.2 billion that was for low- income tenants for privately owned apartments at the Department of Housing and Urban Development was kept in check and used in other Federal programs. In fact, $11 billion was used for additional spending in other programs that we did not even know where it went. This kind of management is simply outrageous. Mr. President, we need you to come home. We can find one penny's worth much waste fraud and abuse in every dollar we spend around here in Washington.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is talking about the home construction program. I certainly think the subcommittee would look favorably next year when we review the budget for the State home construction program, and to look for a recommendation for sufficient funds to meet the needs of States like the gentleman's, Texas, and of course States like mine, Florida, the Sunbelt, where we have these continued needs for facilities. We have an influx of veterans, more so than other places. For that, homes for veterans, that whole construction project will be looked favorably upon for more money. I assure the Member we will try and take that up in the spring.

Mr. STEARNS. I think that would be a good approximation of what we will be looking at in terms of the gentleman's State, my State. In fact, I have received letters from other Members from their States, too. So looking at the balance of all this relatively, I assure the gentleman we will look at it in the spring.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend his leadership in pushing this bill forward. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), my ranking member. I also want to commend the staff, the senior member, Ralph Immon and Carl Commenator, who is chief of staff for the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for all of the diligence that they did; and many of us know a lot of these bills do not get put together until the staff is implementing them and does the details. I think it is altogether fitting this afternoon, as we honored America's veterans and fallen heroes last week, that we make this historic bill come to the House and get passage. I think it will be a day that we look back on and note that Congress took two historic steps during this first session of the 106th Congress. One, of course, was passing an additional $1.7 billion for veterans' medical care; and second, I believe, will be the adoption of this bill. It is a bold new step for our veterans for the next millennium, and I am very pleased that we were able to get bipartisan support. It covers a broad spectrum of veterans' benefits, some of the most significant provisions affecting the VA health care system, and I am proud to have introduced this bill. In working with the other body in conference, we set aside a few contentious issues, adopted a number of Senate provisions, and strengthened some of our own. At its core, however, I say to my colleagues, the conference report achieves a broad goal underlying the millennium health care bill that we voted on overwhelmingly here not too long ago. Most important, the bill provides a blueprint, as I mentioned earlier, for the next millennium. Like the original House-passed measure, the conference report has four central themes: one, to give the VA much needed direction for meeting veterans' long-term care; two, to expand veterans' access to care; three, to close gaps in current eligibility law; and, four, to make needed reforms that will further improve the VA health care system. This important legislation tackles some of the major challenges that we face with the VA health care system, and foremost among these are the long-term care of our aging veterans. The challenge has gone unanswered for too long. And of singular importance, this legislation would put a halt to the steady erosion we have seen in the VA long-term care program. It would establish for the first time that the VA must maintain and operate long-term care programs. It would require that the VA provide needed nursing home care to veterans who are 70 percent or more service-connected disabled and veterans who need such care for service- connected conditions. It would also provide for the VA to furnish alternatives to institutional care to veterans who are enrolled for VA care. Through these and other provisions, it would provide greater assurance that veterans who rely on VA for care would have access to needed services. The conferees devoted a great deal of time to the issue of long-term care because it is of such importance to our aging veterans population. These are very important provisions to our veterans, and we will certainly monitor their impact in the months and years ahead. There are a couple of things, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little disappointed about; and one is that we did not contain the question of the obsolete, unused VA hospitals. We had set a particular criteria, limits and safeguards. This was not adopted. Veterans and VA employees would have been better served by the protections we proposed. But they were not part of the bill, and that is for another time. The measure we take up today, however, helps address the VA's infrastructure challenge. In essence, the VA has an extensive facility infrastructure, and with it, the burden of maintaining thousands of buildings and extensive acreage at more than 180 sites across the country. While the conference report does not specifically address the inevitable need for the VA to deal with these obsolete facilities so that the money spent on them could be used to take care of our veterans, it gives the VA an important tool to improve the management of its capital assets, and I think that is important. It does so by providing VA facility managers considerably more flexibility and incentives to negotiate long-term leases under which unused or under- used VA properties may be developed. Given the capital resources at the VA's disposal, long-term care leasing could be used extensively. Importantly, veterans will be the ultimate beneficiaries of these projects. The VA health care system has improved significantly, I believe, in the last 4 years; and this comprehensive bill will continue the VA on the course of providing veterans better access to needed care. I am proud, and I believe this bill breaks brand-new ground in such areas as long-term care. Mr. Speaker, there are many other provisions in this bill. Let me just touch on one. For example, the bill arms the VA for the first time with the means to cover uninsured veterans who cannot reach a VA facility in a medical emergency. It provides assurance that a combat- injured veteran who has not previously sought VA compensation can get priority health care. It offers military retirees improved access to VA care. It extends and expands VA's grant program to assist in combating homelessness among veterans. It continues VA sexual trauma counseling program, it reforms the VA program of grants to the States to assist in the construction and renovation of States' veterans' homes; and lastly, it provides for new revenues which would help place the VA health care system on a sounder footing. So for all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this and adopt the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. It is altogether fitting that after honoring America's fallen heroes last week at Veterans' Day ceremonies across the country, we bring a historic veterans' bill to the floor today. I believe we will one day look back, and note that the Congress took two historic actions on behalf of America's veterans this session. First, it rejected an Administration budget plan which would have crippled the VA health care system. Instead, we added a record $1.7 billion for veterans' medical care. Second, we adopted this conference report. While the report covers a broad spectrum of veterans' benefits, some of its more significant provisions affect the VA health care system, and have their genesis in the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, H.R. 2116, which I am proud to have introduced. In working with the other body in conference, we set aside a few contentious issues and adopted a number of Senate provisions while strengthening some of our own. At its core, however, the conference report achieves the broad goals underlying the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. Most important, this bill provides a blueprint to help position VA for the future. Like the original House-passed measure, the conference report has four central themes: (1) to give VA much-needed direction for meeting veterans' long-term care needs; (2) to expand veterans' access to care; (3) to close gaps in current eligibility law; and (4) to make needed reforms that will further improve the VA for health care system. This important legislation tackles some of the major challenges facing the VA health care system. Foremost among VA's challenges are the long-term care needs of aging veterans. That challenge has gone unanswered for too long. Of singular importance, this legislation would put a halt to the steady erosion we have seen in VA long term care programs. Moreover, it would establish a framework for expanding access to needed long-term care services. And it could provide greater assurance than under current law that veterans who rely on VA for care would gain access to needed services. At the same time, we have approached this difficult issue with sensitivity to its costs, and will be monitoring its impact. To illustrate, in our conference with the Senate we substantially modified a provision in S. 1076 which would have required VA to provide an extensive array of services (specifically identified services constituting alternatives to institutional care) to veterans enrolled for VA care. Among the changes to that provision which were adopted by the conferees was language which makes it clear that, in the case of a veteran who has eligibility for such a service (home health care, for example) under another Federal program, VA has no obligation to furnish that service. The expectation, instead, is that VA would refer, or otherwise arrange for that veteran to obtain those services as beneficiary of that other program. The original House-passed bill confronted the challenge posed by a General Accounting Office audit which found that VA may spend billions of dollars in the next five years to operate unneeded buildings. In testimony before my Subcommittee, GAO stated that one of every four VA medical care dollars is spent in maintaining buildings rather than caring for patients. It is no secret that VA has discussed hospital closures (and has a closure proposal under review at this time). In some locations, changing the mission of a VA facility would certainly make sense. The point is that VA has the authority to take such a step and has already used in an number of instances. I am disappointed that the conference report does not contain a House-passed provision which focused directly on the question of obsolete, underused VA hospitals. That bill would have set some important limits and safeguards on the process VA employs in realigning its facilities. Veterans and VA employees would have been well served by the protections proposed in that bill--protections which are not provided under current law. In sum, that provision was not aimed at diminishing the services furnished America's veterans, but at improving them. The measure we take up today does, however, help address the VA's infrastructure challenge. In essence, VA has an extensive facility infrastructure, and with it the burden of maintaining thousands of buildings and acreage across the country. It maintains some 4700 buildings at more than 180 major sites. More than 40 percent of those structure are more than 50 years old; almost 200 of them were built before 1900. Many of its facilities were designed to provide care in a very different manner than the way care is provided today. While VA has made renovations to its older hospitals to keep them operational and safe, many are functionally obsolete. While the conference report does not specifically address the closure of obsolete facilities or direct VA to confront its infrastructure challenge, it provides VA an important tool to improve the management of its capital assets. It does so by giving VA considerably more flexibility, and incentive, to employ what has to date been a little used authority known as ``enhanced use leasing.'' Under authority created in Public Law 102-86, VA may enter into long-term (up to 35 years) leases under which VA could permit private development of VA property for uses that are not inconsistent with VA's mission, so long as the overall objective of the lease enhances a VA mission. Enhanced use leasing offers VA an opportunity to benefit from unused or underused capital assets. VA has employed this authority to develop such new uses as child care centers, parking facilities, and energy generation projects. Given the capital resources at VA's disposal, long-term leasing could be used even more extensively to improve VA's health-delivery mission. To that end, this measure would expand VA's enhanced use leasing authority. It would give VA the latitude to enter into such a lease-- not simply to enhance VA property with an activity that contribute to the VA mission--but to realize the broader goal of improving services to veterans in the area. So this leasing authority could be used to generate revenue from unneeded VA assets and apply such revenue to improve VA care. To foster that objective, the enabling legislation would be further amended to provide greater incentives for facility management to use this valuable tool. To that end, the measure provides that consideration under such a lease is to be retained locally and used to improve services. It would also expand the maximum lease term from the current 35 years to 75 years, thus overcoming a limitation which can be a formidable barrier to needed financing. It is noteworthy that VA has in some instances entered into enhanced use leases in which the lessee has obtained financing for the development of facilities through the municipal bond market. The availability of this source of low-cost financing for facilities developed on VA-controlled lands under enhanced-use leases has resulted in significant savings and revenues for VA, furthering its ability to serve veterans. The availability of municipal bond market financing has also encouraged VA to enter into mutually advantageous arrangements with state and local entities which, in turn, has fostered ventures which not only advance VA's mission but benefit local government entities and local communities. Accordingly, the Secretary is encouraged to pursue this type of financing for its enhanced-use lessees. Moreover, any facility, structure or improvement that is subject to an enhanced use lease should be considered a public project owned by and under the general control of the Department of Veterans' Affairs if such facility, structure or improvement was developed, constructed, operated, or maintained pursuant to an enhanced-use lease. In sum, the VA health care system has certainly improved significantly in the last four years. This comprehensive bill would continue VA on the course of improving veterans' access to needed care. I'm proud that this bill breaks new ground for our veterans in the areas of long term care, emergency care coverage, military retirees' care, and placing the VA health care system on a sounder footing. We have worked closely with veterans' organizations in developing this legislation; they have recognized the important advances the bill would establish. I particularly want to thank the many veterans organizations--representing millions of veterans--who supported and worked for this legislation. We and they have not achieved all our objectives, but we have taken a major step toward the new millennium in honoring our commitment to veterans. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join with the many veterans groups and support this important bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there are times when Congress must act to protect the interests of individuals, in particular Federal civil servants who have been unfairly harmed by the actions of the Federal Government. Recently, Congress acted to protect Billy Dale and the other employees of the White House Travel Office who were unfairly removed from their jobs and who were illegally targeted for investigation and prosecution. This Congress acted to protect those workers and to pay for their legal expenses. Another case has presented itself that behooves Congressional action also. The case I speak of is the case of Linda Shenwick. Linda Shenwick has been an exemplary public servant since she started working at the State Department in 1979. The Weekly Standard reported that Ms. Shenwick was driven by a sense of public service and an interest in foreign affairs. In 1984, Ms. Shenwick was transferred to the U.S. mission to the United Nations where she first was assigned to handle personnel and budget issues. She quickly carved out a reputation for diligence and hard work, which won her three consecutive outstanding ratings, the highest given, between 1987 and July of 1989. Her performance also won her regular promotions and in 1988 she was admitted to the Senior Executive Service, an elite corps of Federal civil servants. In August 1991 and again in November 1993, representatives of the other U.N. member states elected Shenwick to serve on the influential Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, which recommends how U.N. money and personnel should be allocated. These votes of confidence reflected the respect accorded to her by U.N. officials and her service on the committee helped her acquire a detailed knowledge of the Byzantine U.N. budget process. In her position, Ms. Shenwick repeatedly found evidence of deliberate waste, fraud and mismanagement in the United Nations. When she began reporting such evidence to her superiors at the start of the Clinton administration, her reports were ignored. For instance, Ms. Shenwick reported in February 1993 that she had seen pictures of large amounts of U.S. currency stored openly on tables in Somalia. Without any recourse to prevent such budgetary abuse, she began notifying key Members of Congress about what she knew. It later became public in April of 1994 that $3.9 million of U.N. cash was reported stolen in Somalia. Ms. Shenwick's work helped Congress force the U.N. to create an Office of Inspector General to end such fraud and mismanagement that occurred in Somalia. Mr. Speaker, how has the Clinton administration and the State Department rewarded the stellar career of one of the most valuable civil servants this Nation has known? They began to sabotage her career by threatening her directly with removal from her position, with threats to destroy her financially and by beginning a process of false accusations and unsatisfactory reviews to harm her personnel files. What they deliberately did to Ms. Shenwick was to set her up so that they could claim a cause for her removal. However, the evidence is abundantly clear that Ms. Shenwick was a remarkable civil servant dedicated to her job. She has proven to be an invaluable asset for our Nation in confronting U.N. waste, fraud and abuse and mismanagement. She has been unfairly and illegally removed from her Federal position in contradiction to Federal law to protect civil servants, in contradiction to Federal laws to protect whistleblowers. She should be reinstated to her former position, reimbursed for her personal expenses and have her personal files expunged of any unsatisfactory reviews or other false evidence to justify those reviews. In fact, I offered an amendment to the State Department reauthorization bill that provided State Department employees such as she who, ``in the performance of their duties inform the Congress of pertinent facts concerning their responsibilities should not, as a result, be demoted or removed from their current position or from Federal employment.'' That amendment passed handily by a vote of 287-to-136, with 72 Democrat Members' support. I believe we need to send a strong message by reiterating our belief that such injustices cannot be allowed to continue. Recently, 52 of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter to Secretary Albright requesting that the Ms. Shenwick matter be resolved. Mr. Speaker, we must take a stand against the abuse of a Federal civil servant who has done nothing but protect the interests of U.S. taxpayers and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to let the State Department know that they cannot continue to punish employees who are whistleblowers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the distinguished ranking member for bringing this important legislation to the House floor today. Obviously, I think all of us agree it is a very good first step for more competition and more openness in the global satellite telecommunications market. I just want to bring some concern to the Members, my colleagues, that I am hoping will be worked out in the conference report with the Senate. This bill imposes I think a condition on lifting the outdated ownership cap of COMSAT. One of the key elements to reforming and normalizing the operation of COMSAT is allowing its acquisition by Lockheed Martin. The satellite reform bill contains language that appears to allow the Lockheed Martin-COMSAT acquisition to be complete, but it attaches some conditions of implementing an FCC order on direct access to lifting these caps. There is some concern of mine that it is not clear whether the September 15, 1999 direct access order must be implemented or another future FCC direct access action must be taken. Either way, this is somewhat of a concern of mine. I think it is some type of restriction on the ability of Lockheed Martin and COMSAT to complete their merger, and of course this merger has already been approved by the Department of Justice. I think these two American companies have waited for over a year for the Federal Government to provide the needed regulatory and legislative approval for their transaction, but I wanted to express this concern. Mr. Speaker, the bill is excellent. This is just a concern I am voicing, of course. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts on this bill, and I hope that when it moves to the Senate, that the restrictions on the Lockheed Martin-COMSAT merger will be effective.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Conference Report to H.R. 1554 and its positive impact on consumers in the 6th District of Florida. This legislation restores television signals to those consumers who truly cannot receive their local television broadcast stations while also laying a framework for establishing local-into-local signals. And in smaller, more rural markets such as mine, it establishes loan guarantees to provide service in such areas. But I also support this Conference Report for the privacy protections it extends to donors of public broadcasting entities. As everyone knows by now, the public broadcasting stations engaged in swapping their donor lists with Democratic party. As a result, I introduced H.R. 2791, to prohibit public broadcasting stations receiving any funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from making available any lists of their financial donors. Though the Commerce Committee did not have time to mark-up my legislation, this Conference Report extends the protections of my legislation to donors of public broadcasting entities by prohibiting any funds to a public station which swaps lists with a political entity or disclosed donor names without their consent. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the report.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, not everyone likes pickles on their hamburgers. For many years that preference meant a longer wait at McDonald's, because if you did not want what was already under the heat lamp, they had to do a specialty order. All those burgers under the heat lamp had pickles on them. But you did get a fresher burger. People who like pickles on their hamburgers, on the other hand, usually did not have to wait. In fact the burgers were already waiting for them, so they were less fresh and lower quality. All that has been changing. McDonald's restaurants now prepare your meals when you order them. This means you get exactly what you want. It is a fresher, higher quality product. There are two simple truths inspiring the McDonald's reform: First, one size does not fit all. Second, quality matters. Let us apply these simple truths to education reform. Instead of mandating new teachers, let us give the States and local communities the opportunity to ensure higher teacher quality and to spend that money on what they know will work in their schools, because one size does not fit all, and quality does matter.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join with my Florida colleagues in paying tribute to John Lombardi, who stepped down today as president of the University of Florida. Although Dr. Lombardi is leaving the administrative side of the university, he will return to teaching in the school's history department. When I took office in 1989, I represented Gainesville and the University of Florida until 1992. Although no longer in my district, the university is an important resource for the people of Florida, and I have continued to be involved with the school. Over the years, I have had the privilege of working with John Lombardi and I am proud of what we have accomplished. In 1990, Dr. Lombardi became the president of the University of Florida. Through his hard work and dedication, the University of Florida has heightened its educational reputation and enhanced its commitment to excellence. Under the guidance of Dr. Lombardi over this decade, academic standards have increased, student performance has risen, graduation rates have improved, and the modernization of equipment and facilities have flourished. The 1990's will long be seen as an era of developing a premier institute of higher learning at the University of Florida. Although an outstanding administrator and educator, John has other attributes that I am pleased to point out. I recall one of my first meetings with him. A number of us were in Gainesville for a school dinner and waiting for President Lombardi to show up. I was looking down the road and saw and old, odd looking truck lumbering up the road. I though it was probably the landscaper coming in to complete some final touches before the event. Instead, to my surprise, President Lombardi stepped out of his truck. This truck has become a Lombardi trademark around campus. Yes, this noted scholar does not require the pomp and trappings of his office. He is equally comfortable conversing with the erudite as with the common man, and this egalitarian quality marks all that he does. As with the truck, John is also well known for the red suspenders he wears to the football games. In addition to the arrival of President Lombardi, 1990 marked a significant turn around in Gator football. Steve Spurrier was brought in as coach. In the previous 56 years, no Florida team has captured an official Southeastern Conference Championship--the Gators won three in the early 1990's. The arrival of John Lombardi enhanced more than the academic standing of the university, it initiated the rise of a sports powerhouse. John is also a family man, and I always enjoy the time I spend with them. His wife Cathryn and I share an interest in science fiction, and I always appreciate the chance to compare notes and to exchange recommendations. This is a wonderful American family with two children, and I had the pleasure to have one of them work in my office part time. In the first century B.C., the Roman poet Horace urged that man ``seek for truth in the groves of Academe.'' The brilliance of John Lombardi is exhibited through his efforts to seek the truth through learning. As president, he has taken many courageous stands--courageous because they have been controversial. However, the pursuit of enlightenment is not, and should not. always be easy. Avoiding controversy means accepting mediocrity--and that is not John Lombardi. Each of us is here in the world to accomplish something. During his tenure as president, John Lombardi has stood in the gap to make a difference. He has set an example of excellence in pubic and private service which should be an example for all. John, thank you for your friendship and for all that you have done for the University of Florida. We are sorry to see you leave office, but you have earned this return to the classroom where you will continue to help shape the minds of the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, how many times have you heard it from that side of the aisle, the Democrats, that Republicans voted against creation of the Social Security program back in 1935? That is flat wrong. If ever a vote has been mischaracterized, this is it. Here are the facts, and many of our colleagues might be surprised to know that 79 percent of the 95 Republicans who voted in the House voted for this important program; and in the Senate, 75 percent of the 20 Republicans who voted cast their vote in support of this legislation. What is even more interesting about this vote is that over a dozen Democrats voted against this measure. Following this line of reasoning, it could be said that Democrats did not support the Social Security Act when this was approved in 1935. The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats voted to enact this legislation to establish this important program. Let the record speak for itself.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Federal Government wastes billions of dollars every year through bureaucratic mismanagement. Add waste, fraud and abuse to the equation and we are talking about some pretty big dollars. That is money that could be used in a much more worthwhile way for strengthening the Social Security trust fund. We have a choice here in Congress. Do we want to continue the old Democrat practice of raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for big government programs while overlooking waste, fraud and abuse just as they did the last time they had control of this body? The answer is ``no.'' For too many years, Democrats in Washington raided Social Security while making no effort to hold government agencies accountable for how they spent the taxpayers' money. I am proud to say that the Republican Congress will hold the bureaucracy accountable. We will make them find ways to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. And better yet, we will stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, there are only 67 days left before we ring in the new year. Billions of people around the world will start to prepare to celebrate the first day of the year 2000 and, of course, I as many of my colleagues look forward to this day also. But this afternoon I am concerned about this next year with what all of us know as the Y2K problem, or millennium bug, the inability of many computer systems to process dates correctly beyond December 31, 1999. The problem results from computers programmed to process and use only the last two digits for the year field. Madam Speaker, I am confident that Americans are well prepared and well ahead of the game when it comes to being ready for any possible glitches resulting from the Y2K. Congress has directed the Federal Government to go through billions and billions of lines of computer codes in order to make computers Y2K compliant. It is also Congress that has worked hand in hand with State and local governments to ensure that they have the necessary tools to function properly. Congress, led by the majority here, is helping the private sector when it comes to the Y2K problem. We fought hard and have signed into law the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, which directs the Small Business Administration to establish a loan guarantee program to address Y2K problems for small businesses. And it was, of course, this Republican Congress which successfully fought and passed the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, setting limits on lawsuits against businesses and individuals for Y2K failures. But, Madam Speaker, my concerns are whether the rest of the world is ready. Hearings within the last several weeks held in both the House and the Senate have raised some serious concerns. Many nations have done little, if anything, to combat the Y2K bug. These nations lack both the expertise and the funds to upgrade and convert their computer systems. Take, for example, the government of Indonesia, which is preparing for the possible Y2K malfunctions. Their National Electricity Board strategy is to watch what happens at midnight on January 1 in Australia and New Zealand, to use those 6 hours to develop and implement suddenly their Y2K plans. Now, this would be comical if it were not so serious and disturbing. The worldwide ramifications of Y2K disturbances, of course, can have a domino effect. It is just not enough that the United States is prepared. Potential disruptions abroad caused by Y2K problems would impact millions of Americans who are living abroad, or who are traveling overseas. Though the Central Intelligence Agency is confident that the Y2K computer failures overseas will not lead to accidental launch of ballistic missiles by any country, according to the testimony by the Central Intelligence Agency before the House Committee on International Affairs last week, nuclear power plants in nations such as Russia and the Ukraine could be susceptible to year 2000 malfunctions resulting from power grid failures. Now, this is according to testimony presented by Lawrence Gershwin, National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology for the CIA, and this is what he said, ``In the worst case this could cause a meltdown and in some cases an accompanying release of radioactive fission gases.'' Furthermore, according to the CIA, Soviet power plants cannot even be tested for Y2K compliancy ``given the age of the computer system and the fact that many of the original manufacturers have all gone out of business.'' If the threat of another Chernobyl-like meltdown is not disturbing enough according to the CIA, there still remains the potential for Russia to misinterpret early warning data of ballistic missile launches resulting from the Y2K problem. That means during an international political crisis where tensions are already heightened, the Russians may misinterpret their missile data, leading them to believe and possibly to respond. As a result, I am pleased to say the United States and Russia have set up a joint program to share information on their missile and space launches to prevent any misunderstanding resulting from any Y2K malfunctions. I will not even begin in this short amount of time, Madam Speaker, to discuss all the possible problems with other countries not bringing their Y2K problem into compliance dealing with foreign energy and of course financial markets. I encourage other nations to expedite their conversions and look to the United States for leadership. Madam Speaker, I encourage other nations to expedite their Y2K conversions before time runs out. Our Y2K compliance and success is not only contingent on the fact that this nation's computer and information systems function properly and smoothly, but also on the fact that we not feel side effects from disruptions in other countries.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday and for the past week the folks on this side of the aisle, the Democrats, have said the Republicans are going to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget. Now, CBO, of course, issued a letter to the Speaker of the House on October 1, 1999 saying this was not true. Yet we have the Democrats continuing to say the opposite. Now we have in the Associated Press an interesting quotation. The Democrats admit a raid on Social Security. ``Privately, some Democrats say a final budget deal that uses some of the pension program's surpluses would be a political victory for them, because it would fracture the GOP by infuriating conservatives.'' That was October 19, 1999. The bottom line is that Democrats are using this whole thing of Social Security as a political gimmick. They are politicizing this whole process because they are trying to fracture Republicans. The bottom line is Republicans are not going to raid the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Kenneth W. Starr and thank him for more than 5 years of service of investigating and prosecuting crime and corruption at the highest levels of this Nation's government. What started out as an investigation of a land deal soon led down the road to lies and deceits. For the 5 years of his life Judge Starr devoted in his search for truth and justice, he encountered nothing short of roadblocks, spin control, lies, and ultimately perjury. His opponents decried his actions as a wild fishing excursion bent on criticizing the President. However, he obtained 14 convictions on guilty pleas. At the end, his work ultimately led to the impeachment of a sitting U.S. President for only the second time in this Nation's history. His tireless and relentless efforts brought in the Supreme Court, forcing them to answer constitutional questions never before considered but important to the ultimate protection of our constitution. He may look like Clark Kent but behind that mild-mannered persona is a modern day man of steel, fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, another tax-and-spend proposal from the President, 19.2 billion in additional Federal spending of course paid for by working Americans. It is primarily, of course, in the tobacco tax, 24 cents and 94 cents, roughly a 300 percent increase to get another $8 billion, and also, of course, new regulation for poultry and egg producers. And I would say to the President that increasing taxes either for poultry or egg producers or tobacco farmers, the main point is that the President, in a $2 trillion budget, surely he could find existing agencies to reduce spending. You do not have to go after people who are trying to earn their living to pay taxes. What about the Federal bureaucracy up here like the Department of Energy. You are telling me you cannot find any way to reduce the Department of Energy or the Department of Commerce. These are large agencies that have existed for many, many moons here, and I think if we look at the figures of those agencies, there surely is some waste, fraud and abuse, and some overregulation there. So, Mr. President, I think we have to say to you, do not increase Federal spending by taxes.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with you my concern with a letter I recently received from the Department of Veterans Affairs. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee of Veterans' Affairs, I am deeply concerned by any action that threatens the well- being of those Americans who have laid their lives on the line for our country. I know that many of my colleagues have signed on to a bill that promises to help senior citizens better afford their medicines. I refer to H.R. 664, which would extend favorable government prices for prescription drugs to retail pharmacies serving the Medicare population. Although this may sound like a win-win proposition, there would be some very big losers, namely, the nation's veterans. The letter I received from Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D., Acting Under Secretary for Health of the Veterans Administration reads, in part: We believe enactment of H.R. 664 would increase VA's annual pharmaceutical costs by $500 to $600 million. This could put the health of millions of veterans at risk because the VA would have to make up for those increased expenditures either by denying veterans needed medicines or by cutting back on other health care services. Our veterans deserve better than that. The purpose of this speech is not to pit veterans against seniors. Rather, it's to suggest that H.R. 664 is not the way to help either of these groups. It would extend price controls to more than 40 percent of the pharmaceutical marketplace. And price controls, throughout their long and dismal history, have never solved anything. Instead, they've created shortages, delays and rationing, which we simply can't afford in health care. We owe a debt to veterans and I intend to see that the debt is paid in full. We also have an obligation to help senior citizens gain better access to the benefits of modern medicines. Seniors deserve more from their Members of Congress than the false promise of cheap drugs through price controls. In a word, they deserve coverage. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work on legislation that would expand coverage options for seniors while protecting the well-earned health benefits of our nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, I insert this letter for the Record. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, August 11, 1999. Hon. Cliff Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter on the impact on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of H.R. 664, which would extend favorable government prices for pharmaceuticals to the Medicare population. We are very concerned that this proposed legislation would have an indirect, negative impact on VA pharmaceutical budgets. Section 3(c) of the bill would force covered outpatient drug manufacturers to sell to Medicare-affiliated pharmacies at the lower of the Medicaid reported best price or the ``lowest price paid for [the drug] by an agency or department of the United States''. The latter benchmark would include not only low Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and FSS Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) prices negotiated by VA for the Government, but also large volume committed use national contract prices obtained by VA and/or Department of Defense (DOD) in head-to-head competitive procurements. Perhaps most importantly, the ``lowest price paid'' benchmark would include many Federal ceiling prices (FCPs) already imposed on manufacturers by the Veterans Healthcare Act of 1992, Section 603 (Public Law 102-585; 38 U.S.C. 8126). By way of further information, through many recent inquiries by drug manufacturers regarding this bill, we have been informally informed that manufacturers may no longer offer lower-than-FCP prices to VA and DOD in BPA and national contract negotiations. They may also invoke 30-day cancellation clauses in FSS contracts and BPAs, to the extent allowed by Public Law 102-585, which would force Government healthcare agencies to buy drugs in the open market at much higher retail prices or AWPs (average wholesale prices). In summary, we believe enactment of H.R. 664 would increase VA's annual pharmaceutical costs by $500-600 million. We would be pleased to discuss this matter further with you. If you have additional questions, please contact me or Mr. John Ogden, Chief Consultant for Pharmacy Benefits Management, at 202.273.8429/8426. Sincerely, Thomas L. Garthwaite, MD, Acting Under Secretary for Health.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton in his press conference attacked the Republican Senators for their courageous stance against a poorly designed nuclear test ban treaty, a test ban treaty that was unverifiable. A lot of the nations had not signed it yet, and a lot of rogue nations never intend to comply with it. But, more importantly, during that press conference he posed a question, ``What will happen if the Republicans stay in office?'' I am here on the floor this morning, and I feel compelled to answer his question. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the President of some of the past accomplishments of the Republican Party here in Congress, which unlike the ill-advised test ban treaty are actually good for America. If we can be judged by our past, a lot of good things for America will occur in the future if we stay in power. Let me just take a few moments to talk about what we have accomplished. One of the first orders of business when we took over here in Congress was to declare that Congress would comply with all the laws and statutes which all Americans also have to comply with. We reduced the bloated size of committee staff here in Congress by one-third and added to that a ban on gifts from special interests here in Congress. We reformed the bloated inefficient welfare system, which held captive many Americans who only wanted a better life for themselves and their families. We provided welfare-to-work incentives for both individuals and businesses. And the Republican-led Congress has succeeded in dropping the welfare rolls to the lowest level in history. The majority here passed health insurance portability, guaranteeing working Americans that if they switched jobs or if they lost their job they could continue with their current health coverage. We reformed the Food and Drug Administration, giving people quicker access to life-saving drugs and medical devices and provided for better food quality. The Republican controlled Congress got tough on criminals by enhancing penalties for sexual crimes against children, and established a Nationwide tracking system for sexual predators. We also enhanced punishment for drug-induced rape. Education was enhanced by giving local districts more say in how the money that they had was spent on teaching their children. We also provided tax relief and allowed for health insurance deductions for small businesses. We developed medical savings accounts so Americans can better decide how to provide for their health care. We also protected elderly patients from being evicted from nursing homes. The Republican majority strengthened our national defense by increasing pay and retirement benefits, long overdue for our military; enhancing health care for veterans; and providing for a military which this administration has grossly underfunded and, I believe, forsaken. Let us not forget the budget. The Republicans passed the Balanced Budget Act and bound our appropriations bills to spending caps. Now, this is the first time in 30 years that this was done. The Congressional Budget Office last week released its monthly budget review and the Federal Government's on-budget accounts, which excludes Social Security, are running a $1 billion surplus for the year. Again, Mr. Speaker this, is the first time in 30 years. The majority party in Congress are to be commended. Now, this is probably not new to the average American family, who also has to balance their budget and make their payments without going into deficits every year. It is interesting that when President Clinton pushed the largest tax increase in history and passed that on to the American public, incidently he got it passed here very narrowly, that same year he could not balance the budget when the Democrats were in control in Congress. The Republican majority passed a lockbox measure, which declared $1.8 trillion of the Social Security surplus untouchable. But what is amazing is that the President refused to join with us in this budget process to protect this lockbox. He is proposing brand new spending at the same time we are trying to balance the budget and protect Social Security. Now, the Democrats, when they were in control, when they were in control, spent $837 billion of the Social Security money for new spending programs. Now they claim they want to save it. I remind my colleagues we have to remember when the Democrats were in control they spent all the Social Security surplus. In fact, the last year they controlled Congress they spent over $130 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund. We are trying to do a great deal around here. We need the help of the President. We have stood for much needed legislation on welfare reform, better health care, better education, tougher criminal penalties, tax relief, a stronger defense, a balanced budget, and, lastly, Social Security protection for our seniors. So I believe, contrary to what the President said in the press conference, the Republicans have done an excellent job for Americans in trying to save this republic and bring accountability. I need to remind the President that great things will occur for the American people if Republicans stay in office. And in the future, I think we can look for great things for all America, but I remind the President that we need his help too.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today's headlines are filled with two stories of great importance to our national interest and security. In the first, we learn that a military coup overturned the government of Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons. In the second, we see the other body voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Senate deserves our thanks for their correct and courageous vote to defeat the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The President and the liberals did their very best to convince the American people to rely on an unverifiable treaty for security. As we already know, the Chinese Communists have stolen the technology they need to skirt this test ban. If they have the technology, there is no doubt that the rogue nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iraq will have it as well. A better solution lies in a strong national defense. We recently have had successful tests of both strategic and theater systems. We need to move forward with enhanced testing and deployment. It is time to move beyond unverifiable treaties as the answer to our defense needs.