Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we have reached the promised land for now. The Federal Government, for the first time, the first time since 1960, balanced its budget in the just-ended year without tapping Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office reported that yesterday. Now, this is very, very important. Those people who paid their money into Social Security in the form of taxes now can realize that they are protected, they are secure. Quote, ``We stopped the raid on Social Security. There is no going back,'' end quote. That is what our leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), said. And this is what Robert Reischauer of the Brookings Institution said, ``In a sense what we have done is we have reached the promised land and it will become an issue of who lost the promised land.'' Republicans are committed. Stop the raid on Social Security.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, here in Congress we must answer tough questions regarding the continuance of aid to Russia. We, along with the IMF, have pumped billions and billions of dollars into a corrupt system. Is it any wonder that the Russian economy is floundering? How can we stand by while this fraud continues? Was anyone surprised to learn that Moscow's government and the Russian Central Bank were not following sound banking principles? The indicators have been there since the fall of the Soviet Union that an organized crime establishment was thriving under a weakened Russian Government. Yet, the U.S. Government has continued to loan billions of dollars to this high-risk government. The amount of Russian aid and the numbers involved in embezzlement are staggering. According to Russian officials, capital flow from the USSR and Russia between 1985 and 1999 was over $120 billion, possibly as high as $200 billion. That is more than the entire foreign debt on the Russian Federation, in and up to 10 times more than the total foreign investment in Russia. Now, sadly, Madam Speaker, a significant portion of this money was plundered by self-serving Federal and local government officials. We in Congress must acknowledge this catastrophe and take steps to prevent this from happening again. Even more disturbing is that this money was siphoned off and funneled out of Moscow and mixed with the profit from activities such as prostitution and illegal weapons sales. Moreover, a Lugano-based engineering and construction company, Mobitex, allegedly opened credit cards and deposited large sums in private accounts for the benefit of president Boris Yeltsin, as well as members of his family and close associates, according to the Swiss authorities. Madam Speaker, as the scandal unfolds, we must re-evaluate our policy with Russia that has been pursued by the IMF and the Clinton administration. Congress should also review the lax standards applied by the U.S. Government and international financial institutions in the distribution of financial aid to post-Communist and developing nations. Earlier this year, the IMF and Russian central bank acknowledged the diversion of IMF funds to private companies. There were other reports that the World Bank loans were also misused or embezzled by Russian officials. In fact, one disclosure was a $250 million loan made by the prime minister of Russia and a close ally of Boris Yeltsin at the time. The extensive abuse of U.S. aid could not have happened had the President, Vice President, and other senior administration officials not aggressively pushed for multi-million dollar loans to keep Boris Yeltsin afloat. The question, Madam Speaker, occurs with regard to how much did they know. Were there reports about the abuse from the intelligence communities and the FBI? How could this administration continue to support pumping billions more into this flawed system? Another possibility is that the misuse was overlooked by bankers who had financial gains in assisting with the laundering of this money. They would potentially stand to gain the most if the United States and the IMF continued to prop up the Russian economy. Did political pressure from these bankers help keep the money flowing continually into the Russian economy? The Committee on Banking and Financial Services has the unique opportunity to stop the abuse associated with Russian assistance. Congress should assess the damage that has been done by this corruption. We must ascertain whether the law has been broken by any U.S. officials or banks. Within the IMF, what steps are being taken to improve obvious problems with Russian policy? Has the IMF bailout of 1998 significantly improved Russia's economy? I hardly see how the answer could be yes, since the $40 billion short-term bond market, GKO, collapsed, the ruble was devalued by 75 percent, and the rate of inflation increased from 6 percent annually to 60 percent. Where are the accountability measures? Where are the preventative steps to avoid this happening again? Are due diligence standards or risk assessments being applied to foreign loans? How could between $4.5 to $10 billion, not million but billions, go unnoticed? Congress must face the music and answer these questions. We cannot continue to line the pockets of corrupt officials.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, in the next 3 weeks, we will see, perhaps, the best and worst of democracy in action; and that is why I have called for a biennial budget review process. I have a bill, H.R. 493, I hope my colleagues will look at this. I am a firm believer that, by adopting such measure, we will remove this inherent politics every year that so often occurs during budget negotiations. What I would like to see is the first session of Congress being dedicated to passing all of the 13 appropriations bills, then the second session of Congress would be dedicated to authorizing these bills, and then to look at oversight of the laws that we have passed. Let us investigate and evaluate all these laws we pass every year. The current way of doing business often leads to a stalemate where politics prevails. This country deserves better.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2990, the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act. The legislation promotes access to health coverage for the estimated 43 million Americans who are currently lacking health insurance. Approximately 85 percent of these individuals are employed and either opt to forego such coverage (healthy young individuals) or work for companies who cannot afford to provide such benefits to their employees. Most people who have health insurance are covered by a health insurance policy chosen for them by their employers. If they work for small companies/businesses that cannot afford to pay for health coverage, they often have no coverage at all. If they are fortunate enough to have employer provided coverage, the possibility remains that if they lose their jobs or decide to change jobs, this valued benefit can be lost. Individuals who are self-employed currently get a 60% tax credit for purchasing their own health insurance, unlike the major corporations who get a 100 percent credit for purchasing health coverage for their employees. Tax benefits should be moved out of the workplace and shifted over to the individual or family. Everyone--the self-employed as well as those who work for small firms--should get a tax credit to enable them to purchase coverage for themselves and their families. These credits should be larger for those whose medical expenses make up a greater share of their income. These credits should be refundable so that low- income individuals and families should get assistance if they have no tax liability. Under current tax law, third-party insurance is subsidized and self- insurance is penalized. Every dollar an employer pays for third-party insurance is excluded from employee income. When employee's try to save that money it is taxed. If we are to have true health care reform, we must provide individuals with the option of being allowed to create Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). These Medical IRA would enable consumers to use tax- free savings accounts to self-insure for routine, out-of-pocket medical expenses. By empowering consumers with choice and individual responsibility, a healthy competition among insurance companies to compete for the consumers' health care business would be generated. One of the proposals in H.R. 2990 to expand access to health coverage is through the establishment of HealthMarts which would shift the decision making power over to the individual or family. Everyone--the self-employed as well as those who work for small firms--should be allowed to purchase coverage for themselves and their families. The consumers would be given the ability to making their own choices. This gives consumers a sense of empowerment and a sense of responsibility which will encourage them to wisely use medical services. H.R. 2990 provides for the establishment of Association Health Plans (AHPs) to allow national trade and professional associations to sponsor plans. This would also allow them to buy into plans and pool together for themselves and their employees. This bill also allows Community Health Organizations to form networks to give community health centers greater control of their resources and to provide comprehensive coverage to the people they assist. Community health centers offer a valuable service by providing primary health care in our rural and urban communities. I have toured these community health care centers and know full well the valuable services they provide and it is one of the most cost-effective programs in which our government invests to meet the growing demands of the uninsured and underinsured. I support this important bill that would provide those individuals, many of whom are the working poor, who do not currently have access to health care insurance an opportunity to purchase such care for themselves and their families.

Mr. STEARNS

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I support H.R. 2506, to reauthorize the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, I guess it is called the Health Care Quality Agency. This agency is an invaluable resource because the outcomes of research it provides improves the quality of health care for all of us. Under this reauthorization, the new agency would refocus and its responsibilities would be to promote quality by sharing information, building public-private partnerships, providing cost and quality care reports on an annual basis, supporting new technologies, and assisting in providing access to those in underserved areas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering adds a new section to section 916 entitled ``Certain Technologies and Practices Regarding Survival Rates for Cardiac Arrest.'' By adding this language, we are merely attempting to point out how valuable we believe automatic external defibrillators are, AEDs, to saving the lives of individuals who experience cardiac arrest. We are asking the Director to develop recommendations regarding the placement of AEDs in Federal buildings. Mr. Chairman, more than 1,000 Americans each and every day suffer from cardiac arrest. Of those, more than 95 percent die. That is unacceptable, because we have the means at our disposal to change those statistics. Studies show that 250 lives can be saved each and every day from cardiac arrest by using automatic external defibrillators, AEDs. Those are the kinds of statistics that nobody can argue with. The AEDs which are produced today are easier to use and require just absolutely minimal training to use and operate. They are also easier to maintain and they cost less. This affords a wider range of emergency personnel to be trained and equipped. One of the goals of this agency is to enhance the quality of health care. My amendment would help achieve this by directing the agency to develop recommendations for public access to defibrillation programs in Federal buildings in order to improve the survival rates of people who suffer cardiac arrest in Federal facilities. The programs should include training security personnel and other expected users in the use of AEDs, notifying local emergency medical services of the placement of the AED, and ensuring proper medical oversight and proper maintenance of the device. My reason for offering this amendment highlights that it is possible to prevent thousands of people suffering sudden cardiac arrest from dying by making the equipment and trained personnel available at the scene of such emergencies. I am hopeful that we can pass my bill in a larger sense which I have 66 cosponsors, H.R. 2498, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act, in its entirety in the 106th Congress. My bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop recommendations for public access to defibrillation programs in Federal buildings. The bill I introduced in this Congress differs from previous versions which primarily sought to encourage State action to promote public access to defibrillation. The States have responded to this call and many have passed legislation, over 40 States have since done it, to promote training and access to AEDs. So I think it is time for the Federal Government to catch up with the vast majority of our States and pass the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment I offered, which is fairly innocuous, will be passed and accepted by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, as we debate these motions to instruct the conferees on the juvenile justice bill, that I would like to just share with them some recent information on the decline of Federal firearm prosecution. I do not ever hear the other side talk about this, and I think this should be something that we should all be concerned about. Federal firearms prosecutions have dropped by 44 percent since 1992. And we know all too well it is not because criminals have started to obey the law, it is because our government does not enforce the law. We can sit here this afternoon and pass all kinds of gun laws, but if we are not going to prosecute, it does not matter. The Brady Act prevented 400,000 illegal firearm purchases. Let us take for a moment that those statistics are correct. Two-thirds were attempted by prior felons. Let me repeat that. Two-thirds were attempted by prior felons. But there is barely a prosecution of these 400,000 illegal firearms. So what I am saying this afternoon is that if we place our entire focus on gun control, which this side of the aisle continues to do, we miss the larger picture of this rampant violence. What is causing the depravity of our young people today? What makes one person's bad day turn into an act of taking another person's life? Until we focus on the underlying cause of these horrific acts, no Band-Aid gun control laws will prevent another occurrence. And, more importantly, whatever gun laws are on the books, we need the Justice Department to prosecute and not just sit there and talk about more gun control. So what we need to do is to instruct the Justice Department today to prosecute the laws that already exist on our books.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as we move to the end of the closure for our budget this year, on almost every single bill, on almost every single amendment to every bill, this dispute between the Republicans and the Democrats comes down to the same thing. The Democrats want to spend more and more around here. Republicans want to spend less and provide accountability. In fact, any attempt by Republicans to limit spending is met by outrage, accusations by the Democrats that Republicans are mean- spirited. Yet, for 40 years while they were in the majority there was hardly a Government program they did not support, a Government program they did not expand, or a Government program they did not dream about building. Yet, now Democrats are actually trying to portray themselves as a party of fiscal responsibility. Please spare us, the American people, this rhetoric. Republicans were elected in 1994, and they forced the President to sign a balanced budget despite loud protests from the left that it would require savage cuts. The Republicans believe in fiscal accountability, and they are trying hard to value the taxpayers' money.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to share with my colleagues why I believe passage of the cardiac arrest survival act is so important to this country. If this bill becomes law, it would have the potential of saving thousands and thousands of lives each year. Passage of this act would go a long way towards making the goal of saving the lives of people who suffer sudden cardiac arrest possible. It would ensure that what the American Heart Association refers to as a ``cardiac chain of survival'' could go into effect. While defibrillation, which is number three on the list, 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. Let me tell my colleagues about an experience about a Navy commander, John Hearing's experience. He is a cardiac arrest survivor. On October 9, 1997, stationed in Fallon, Nevada, Navy Commander John Hearing was swimming as part of a semi-annual physical readiness test when he suddenly felt ill. He went to the base clinic and collapsed inside, where Corpsmen immediately started CPR. Although there was a hospital defibrillator available in the clinic, the emergency medical technicians were not trained to use it. So, of course, they called for help. A doctor arrived and defibrillated him. After 8 months of limited duty, he was cleared to return to active duty and is currently assigned to the Office of Secretary of Defense. Commander Hearing's outcome could have been tragic if the doctor had not been available. If the doctor had not been available, the EMTs, who were not equipped with an automated external defibrillator, AED, would have likely watched Commander Hearing die. Commander Hearing knows how lucky he is today. His experience stands in contrast to another incident at the Pentagon in March of 1998. Army Colonel Mike Moake was exercising in the Pentagon Athletic Club early one morning when he experienced a sudden cardiac arrest. Paramedics were called, and bystanders performed CPR on Colonel Moake. Medics arrived more than 20 minutes after his collapse and defibrillated him. They started his heart, but by that time Colonel Moake had suffered irreversible brain damage. Unfortunately, he died 2 weeks later. If an automated external defibrillator had been available in this case, Colonel Moake's chances of survival would have improved immeasurably. Partly as a result of Colonel Moake's tragic death, the Pentagon is procuring and installing several AEDs. After Commander Hearing's experience in Fallon, Nevada, the Navy procured AEDs for the clinic and ambulances at several other military bases. The American Heart Association and American Red Cross objective is to advance legislation like the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act so others do not have to die or barely escape death before AEDs are made accessible to them. Bob Adams also had a dramatic experience that I also would like to share, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues. This occurred on July 3, 1997. Bob Adams was walking through Grand Central Station in New York City when his heart suddenly stopped and he collapsed. He was 42 years old, a lawyer in a firm of 450 people, a husband, and a father of three young children. He was in perfect health and always had been. From the time he played collegiate basketball at Colgate College up to his current avocation as a NCAA basketball referee, health was a nonissue to him. Nevertheless, without warning, without any history of heart disease, he went into cardiac arrest the day before a holiday weekend, in a location through which half a million people pass every day. For Bob, timing was everything. On July 2, the day before he collapsed, the automated external defibrillator that the Metro North Commuter Railroad had ordered for use in Grand Central Station had arrived and the staff had been trained in its use. Bob's heart was stopped for approximately 5 minutes while the AED was put in place. It was unpacked from its shipping box and everyone hoped it had come with charged batteries. Thanks to the trained staff at the station and an EMT who happened to be present, his life was saved. Doctors have never discovered what happened to his heart. It simply stopped. Whatever it was, he and his wife Sue, along with their three children, Kimberly, Ryan and Kyle, are very glad there was an AED at Grand Central Station. Please join with me in cosponsoring H.R. 2498, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act, and help save lives.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I rise in support of H.R. 2116, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I believe we will one day look back and note on September 21, 1999, that the House took two historic actions on behalf of our American veterans. First, it added $1.7 billion for veterans' medical care; and, second, it adopted the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act, H.R. 2116. This important legislation tackles some of the major challenges facing the VA health care system. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, it offers a blueprint to help position the Veterans Administration for the future. Overall, the bill has four central themes: first, to give VA much needed direction for meeting veterans' long-term care needs; second, it expands veterans' access to health care; third, it closes gaps in current eligibility law; and, fourth, it makes needed reforms that will further improve the VA health care system. Foremost among vast challenges are the long-term care needs of aging veterans. That challenge has gone unanswered, Mr. Speaker, for too long. This legislation would put a halt to the steady erosion we have seen in the VA long-term care program, and it would establish a framework for expanding access to needed long-term care services. The bill tackles the challenge posed by the General Accounting Office audit which found that VA may spend billions of dollars in the next 5 years to operate unneeded buildings. In testimony before my subcommittee, the 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 the VA is discussing hospital closures and, in some locations, in some locations, that may be appropriate. The point is that the VA has closure authority today and, my colleagues, has already used it. We should not let tight budgets drive such decisions, however. This bill, instead, requires that decisions on hospital missions must be based on comprehensive studies and planning. The process must include veterans' organizations and the employee groups. In short, the bill puts in place numerous safeguards to help and protect veterans. Most important, it would specifically provide that the VA cannot simply stop operating a hospital and walk away from its responsibility to those veterans. It must ``reinvest'' savings in a new, improved treatment facility or improved services in the area. This is a very reasonable approach. The VA health care system has certainly improved significantly in the last 4 years. This comprehensive bill, my colleagues, continues the VA on the course towards improving veterans' access to needed care. I am proud that this bill breaks new ground. It is a bold step forward for our veterans in the area of long-term care, emergency care coverage, military retirees' care, and placing the VA health care system on a sounder footing. Now, we have worked closely with veterans' organizations in developing this legislation. It was not done in a vacuum. And they have recognized the important advances this bill would establish. It is important that the two largest veterans' organizations, representing millions of veterans, the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, have endorsed this bill. Many other organizations also support the bill, including AMVETS, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Retired Enlisted Association and, Mr. Speaker, the 26 organizations making up the Military Coalition. So I urge my colleagues to join with me and others here in passing this bill and supporting it on the House floor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight this afternoon about the Democrat accusations that the Republican tax relief package is huge, massive, gigantic, irresponsible. It starts very slowly, as a matter of fact, and it only goes forward if we have surpluses. Here are some figures that my colleagues will not hear from the Democrats: The tax cut for the first year, the fiscal year 2000, it is $5.3 billion. Now, out of an $8 trillion economy, that is not massive. The next year, 2001, it is $1.1 billion. Now, that is not huge. In the year 2002, it is $34.7 billion. In the year 2003, it is $53.1 billion. In the year 2004, it is $61.7 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, over the next 5 years, the tax cuts will total about $156 billion. That is not risky. That is not irresponsible. These are the numbers, and these are the facts. This approach by the Republicans is balanced, fair, prudent, and a great tax cut for the American people.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the tragedy in Waco, Texas left many unanswered questions for Congress and the American public. One question remains, of course. What happened? Where does the responsibility lie? In 1993, in April, Attorney General Janet Reno said, quote, ``The buck stops with me,'' end quote. She took responsibility then for the Waco tragedy, but of course, now, it is shifting blame. Where is her responsibility for the information supplied to Congress and the American people? It was reported in the Washington Times that the Justice Department omitted in its December 1993 report to Congress the one key page of information quote, ``documenting the use of 40 millimeter tear gas project tiles at Waco,'' end quote. Now, it appears the Justice Department is saying they gave this information 2 years later, in 1995. This latest revelation and other ones that will probably follow are just an indication that the Justice Department is not handling this situation well. There is incompetency in her department, and much of the information provided is not accurate. So I urge my colleagues to look at this question of responsibility and help us to get to the bottom of this matter. Attorney General Reno should take full responsibility and not try to shift blame.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is the geographic location, that the veterans are coming to the South more than the North. The funds have been distributed on that basis, as well as labor cost, research, and education; and we have set up a reserve fund. My question to my colleague, which he can answer on his own time, is why does he not go to the reserve fund and try to get his money for these individual problems rather than creating chaos by eliminating a system that a blue ribbon commission has looked at. This is a far- reaching analysis to come up with this redistribution of the funds for the veterans in the geographic locations that need them. The basic problem is, which we both agree, is that we need more funding for the veterans, and on that I can agree with my colleague.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me say, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Frankly, what would happen here is we are turning back the clock. They would be distributing funds where veterans are not located. The whole idea was to actually have the funds go where the veterans are located. In Public Law 104-204, it was mandated that the VA medical care funds should be equitably distributed throughout the country to ensure that veterans have similar access to care regardless of the region where they live. Responding to that directive, the VA developed the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, which we call ``VERA.'' In essence, this simply calls for distributing funds fairly based upon geographics, based upon the number of patients which VA medical centers in that region have treated. The VERA system recognizes that there is a variability within the VA health care system. It makes simple adjustments for variations in labor costs. So the opponents to this say it has not made these variable adjustments for labor costs, it is already in VERA. It is also for research and education. So all the factors are already in here. When I hear my colleague from New York say the people in the North are less mobile than the people down South, now, that is not true. The people down South have the same problems as the people up North. The fact is that there are more of them. This amendment from my good friend would bar VA from distributing fiscal year 2000 funds under a system designed to achieve equity and reward efficiency. The amendment does not answer the key question, and this is a key question: What would he replace with VERA? Presumably, its proponents want VA to reinstitute a truly inequitable system. So what they are asking for by supporting the Hinchey amendment is an inequitable system, not based upon geographics where all the veterans are going. They are ignoring population changes. There is not one person that is for the Hinchey amendment that cannot tell me there has not been a population redistribution to the South. Patient utilization and hospital efficiency. So this simply takes into effect all the factors of labor cost and research and education and basically puts the funds where geographically they should be located. If this amendment passed, we are talking about chaos in the system. Its proponents aim to bail out the one network which would have less funding in fiscal year 2000 than fiscal year 1999. To cure that problem, their amendment would create problems for veterans in virtually every region of this country. So, my colleagues, it is important to appreciate that, under VERA, VA has maintained a reserve fund, a reserve fund to alleviate special financial problems which individual networks encounter. No one has talked about this reserve fund. So I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) he can go to get that reserve fund and get some of the funds there to help the individual hospital. So I encourage him and others to pursue a remedy for this network, if needed, through the reserve fund. Go to the reserve fund that was set up under VERA to handle the problems that my colleague and people from New York and New Jersey are talking about. Do not unravel a system that is working, a system that is working for the veterans of this country, and the funds are now going where the veterans are going and it is geographically distributed.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there are times when Congress must act to protect the interest of individuals, in particular Federal civil servants, who have been unfairly harmed by the actions of the Federal Government. In this instance, the Federal employee is Linda Shenwick. I had intended to offer an amendment that would have presented the expenditure of the Secretary of State's entertainment account until Linda Shenwick was reinstated, reimbursed and had her personnel files expunged of negative information and evaluations. Unfortunately, this was difficult under existing House rules for appropriations bills. Therefore, I have drafted an amendment that will reduce the general administration expenses for the Department of State by an amount equal to $5 million in order to send a message that this body objects to the treatment of an innocent Federal civil servant. But, Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment after engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky for agreeing to work with us to attempt to defend Linda Shenwick and attempt to have her reinstated. In addition, I would like to encourage the gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, to conduct a hearing on how this Federal whistle-blower, Linda Shenwick, has been illegally removed from her position, and to create a solution to have her reinstated, reimbursed for her personal expenses, and have her personnel records expunged of negative information. In the performance of her duties, she came across time and time again evidence of deliberate waste, fraud and abuse in the United Nations. When she began reporting such evidence to her superiors at the start of the Clinton administration, her reports were ignored. So how has the Clinton administration and the State Department rewarded this stellar career employee? They actually began to hurt 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. She has been unfairly and illegally removed from her Federal position in contradiction to Federal laws to protect civil servants and in contradiction to Federal laws to protect whistle-blowers. It behooves us to concern ourselves with this case and Congress to act now to protect the interests of an exemplary public servant.

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

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman means that sincerely, and I respect him, but this woman was removed before the investigation was complete. Generally the woman is kept in office, the whistle- blower, while the investigation proceeds, but the investigation started and then removed her, and they have not even completed the investigation. So I submit that that is not the kind of behavior that I am sure that the gentleman from New York condones.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the permission previously granted, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 385, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, all of us know that here on the Republican side we are trying to fight to increase the amount of money we give to the Veterans Administration because the President's budget was a flat line budget which did not provide enough money and particularly the fact that there are many more cases of hepatitis C. And we hope to increase cost of living for a lot of the employees, but I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to a GAO audit that was performed on the Veterans Affairs on July 22 that found over the next 5 years as much as $20 billion could be wasted. And I think that is a concern for all of us here in Congress. The Veterans Health Administration is spending one of every four medical care dollars just caring for buildings that are old and obsolete. They spend it to operate and maintain these major delivery locations, but these locations have very low occupancy and a lot of unused space. So as I mentioned earlier, there is $20 billion that could be saved over the next 5 years. I think many of my colleagues know that the Veterans Health Administration hospital utilization plan has been dropping because the number of patients has gone down. That is right, it has gone from 49,000 patients a day in 1989 to 21,000 in 1998. Almost half of this decline has occurred over the past 3 years. Not only has the hospital utilization dropped but the number of hospital admissions has decreased from over 1 million in 1989 to about 400,000 in 1998. So that is about a 40 percent drop, Mr. Speaker. By the VA's own estimates, the veteran population is now 25 million and will drop to about 16 million in the year 2020. So I am concerned, I think all of us should be concerned, about those facilities that cost so much to operate. More than 40 percent of the VA health care facilities are over 50 years old and we are just not getting a good bang for the buck for the taxpayers. It cost as much as $1 million a day to run these underutilized and unused facilities, according to the GAO; and I do not think we should continue to do that. That is why myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, have held hearings to discuss this and try to correct this egregious use of taxpayers' money. Let us not forget, of course, that veterans pay taxes themselves, so we want to make sure that the taxes they pay are effectively used also. The GAO found that the Veterans Health Administration has made limited progress over the past 4 months in implementing a realignment process. They also found that the VA contains a diverse group of competing stakeholders who oppose plan changes in the areas I have just talked about. The GAO has made suggestions. They suggested more independent planning by those with no vested interest in geographic locations. They also recommend that the VA consider consolidating services, developing partnerships with other health care providers, and replacing obsolete assets with modern ones that address the health needs of today's and future veterans. I have a bill, Mr. Speaker, that addresses part of these concerns. It is H.R. 2116. I am hoping that this bill will come to the floor. One of the major components of my bill, called the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, contains elements targeted at capital asset management issues, in fact, what I like to call enhanced stakeholder involvement for all of the veterans. My bill offers a blueprint to help position the VA for the future. The point is that VA has the closure authority. The administration can take those facilities that are obsolete and not being used and close them, but it does not seem to want to. I think what we need to do is allow a new process to get this started. So my bill calls for a process to be sure that decisions on closing hospitals can only be made based upon comprehensive planning with veterans' participation, and that is very important and very appropriate. The bill sets numerous safeguards in place and would specifically provide that VA cannot simply stop operating a hospital and walk away from its responsibilities to veterans. It must, quote, reinvest savings in a new, improved treatment facility or improve services in the area. I think the bill responds to the pressing veterans' needs. It opens the door to an expansion of long-term care, to greater access to outpatient care and to improved benefits, including emergency care coverage. So in turn, Mr. Speaker, I think it provides the reforms we need for the next millennium that could advance the goals of the GAO, and I think it is another important feature towards getting better efficient use of the money.