Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Without question, the U.S. relationship with India has been undergoing tremendous improvements in the last decade. With the rising influence of Communist China over Asia, it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to solidify our friendship and cooperation with india. Not only is India directly threatened by the belligerent government in China, Pakistan gave military assistance to a band of terrorists who crossed into indian territory of Kashmir and began a military assault. The Indian military responded with equal force and fought to defend its territorial integrity. India was praised for demonstrating restraint and confined its military activities to recapturing its territory that was occupied by Pakistani-backed military forces. By adopting a proper and proportionate military response to the violation of india's borders, India took steps to ensure that the situation did not spin out of control and escalate further. The Burton Amendment would substantially cut critical U.S. humanitarian aid to India. Examples of humanitarian aid projects include: AIDS control, population and disease control, and rural development. In regard to trade, the U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. U.S. investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to $12 billion in 1998. Despite the collapse of various economies in Southeast Asia over the last two years, the indian economy continued to grow at a rate of 6% in 1998. India has been criticized in the past for human rights violations. The last two reports on human rights from the State Department praised India for the substantial progress the country has made in the area of human rights and, of course, as mentioned the creation of the independent National Human Rights Commission. As many of my colleagues know, this is the world's largest democracy. Elections have been held in this country in a fair manner and they have made tremendous strides towards their democracy. In 1997, in the State of Punjab open and democratic elections were held and there was a 67 percent turnout. Elections in India are regular. They are contested by numerous parties and scrutinized by a free press. Later this year, India will conduct the largest exercised democracy in the world. More than 250 million people are expected to vote. More than 100 national and regional political parties will be participating in the elections. India maintains an independent judiciary, a free press, and diverse political parties. The India press corps actively insists in investigating human rights abuses on a regular basis. So I understand my colleague. Every year he comes to the House floor and offers this amendment. But in this case, I think his differences with the government of India should not harm the Indian people, especially those who are in need of the aid.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I come here tonight, Mr. Chairman, just to request a simple study. None of the funds that are appropriated under this act, under the title ``peacekeeping operations,'' they should not be obligated or expended for peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, until the Secretary of State prepares and submits to this Congress a report containing a detailed description of the atrocities that have been committed in this case against the Serbians in Kosovo. Thirty-four churches, Mr. Chairman, have been bombed since the Air Force, since NATO has stopped their bombing exercise and we declared that we won the war, and of course recently 14 Serbian farmers were massacred on or about July 25, 1999; and my point this evening is that we are going to appropriate more money for peacekeeping operations, and I really think it is appropriate that we get the State Department under NATO, State Department working with NATO, to start to tell us what actually occurred. Are Serbians now seeing reverse cleansing at the expense of the Albanians? Now there was a recent U.S. Today article that raised so many questions about the Clinton administration talking about their numbers, and they said, quote, ``many of the figures used by the administration and NATO to describe the war-time plight of the Albanians in Kosovo now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces took control of the providence. Instead of 100,000 ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by the rampaging Serbs the estimate now is only 10,000.'' So I am hoping to bring to light through the study that I have in my amendment that before we go any further let us find out what has happened in Kosovo and about these 34 churches that have been bombed and the number of people that have been killed and talking about these 14 Serbian farmers who are massacred. Why not? Let us hear the straight scoop now that we are in control of Kosovo and find out the real story. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, and I will withdraw it. I just would like to make a final argument here. I think the gentleman has touched upon it, and my good colleague from Ohio has touched upon it when he mentions the word ``accountability.'' We need to take taxpayers' money and help people; I understand that. But in the overall understanding of this project, we need to have accountability for the taxpayers' money, how it is being spent. So with that in mind, and I am hopeful that the chairman will consider part of what I have in report language, if not at least to make the attempt to tell the administration that money will not be given, taxpayers' money will not be given until there is full accountability in this case and that we have balance and fairness.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a report that was issued this spring of this year from the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs called ``Weed and Seed Best Practices.'' I thought this was a very interesting report and in this report is featured an officer from my hometown of Ocala, Florida. For many of my colleagues, the ``Weed and Seed'' program, as they know, is a community-based crime prevention program. Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, community support services, local businesses, and ordinary citizens get together to weed out violent crime and drug use and plant the seeds to foster new community growth and, of course, stability in that community. The ``Weed and Seed'' program began with three pilot sites in 1991. As of today, there are over 200 pilot sites and one of those, of course, Mr. Speaker, is in my hometown of Ocala, Florida, which is in my congressional district. The article, as I mentioned earlier, is written by Ken DeVilling, a lieutenant with the Ocala Police Department, the Crime Prevention section. I would like to share what Lieutenant DeVilling's observations were and actually the eminent success of the Ocala Police Department and the surrounding community in their fight against crime. As Lieutenant DeVilling mentioned in his article, the City of Ocala was, of course, not immune to the effects of crack cocaine and the subsequent surge of crime. Additional resources were needed and the Ocala Police Department had the foresight to recognize the newly developed ``Weed and Seed'' program as a viable solution to rising crime in my hometown. So myself, and with the help of my other colleagues in Florida and the Florida delegation, they assisted me in getting Ocala as a site designated as a ``Weed and Seed'' program. A number of initiatives were created by the Ocala Police Department using the funds that were provided by this ``Weed and Seed'' program. One initiative was the creation of a community organization called the Community Council Against Substance Abuse which was comprised of members of the local Community Commission, the city council, school board, State attorney's office and of course other community organizations. As a result of these organizations getting together, Ocala recorded its lowest crime rate in 1998. Furthermore, in 1997, the city's homicide rate was only one, and in the previous decades it went as high as 20 per year. Another program that is cited in this article is called ``Problem- Oriented Policing.'' Under this program, officers identify possible areas which, quote, detract from good living conditions in the neighborhoods they patrol, end quote. These areas may be abandoned lots or houses that are abandoned or they might be areas that provide haven for drug trafficking and criminal activities. Once they identify these areas, a form is completed by the officer and is sent through the chain of command. The identified site is then referred to the city department best able to handle the situation. Let me quote from Lieutenant DeVilling in the article when he says, ``It is not uncommon for a police officer to identify a dilapidated building which is used as a crack House. Within a short time, the building is burned to the ground by firemen to practice and improve their skills. The property is then cleared and recycled. These recycled properties are frequently used for purposes such as building a brand-new home by Habitat for Humanity.'' Other programs operated by the Ocala Police Department include drug education for young people, drug abuse resistance education, and of course dealing with the gangs through education and training. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to be here. I commend the Ocala Police Department, the local and State officials, and all the organizations involved in this dramatic, dramatic success achieved in crime prevention. As we here in Congress attempt to find solutions to the violence that is sweeping this country and this Nation, it is comforting to know that our local law enforcement and community organizations working hard to combat this problem at its source and it is happening in my hometown of Ocala. They are succeeding. Mr. Speaker, I will submit to enter into the Record Lieutenant DeVilling's article as it appears in the Department of Justice's spring 1990 report, ``Weed and Seed and Best Practices Report.'' For brevity, Mr. Speaker, I will submit only that section dealing with ``Taking it to the Streets,'' which is a small part of this article explaining how the Ocala Police Department actually reduced crime in my hometown using the ``Weed and Seed'' program. My efforts this morning are also to recognize the fine things being done by the Ocala Police Department to reduce and eliminate crime in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. Taking It to the Streets The programs and projects conducted by the Ocala Police Department, Crime Prevention Section include: Drug Education For Youth (DEFY): This program was developed by the U.S. Navy and offered through the Department of Justice to local law enforcement organizations. The program at our level reaches out to under-privileged children and offers one-on-one mentoring for a full year. Most of the mentors are police personnel. We conduct a summer day camp and the local Army Reserve personnel attend and provide various instructional topics for the kids. We take the children on field trips to places offering educational and inspirational experiences. We also arrange for them to conduct their own community programs such as delivering fruit baskets to the elderly. DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): DARE is a well- known elementary school program which we have implemented in all of the primary schools in Ocalo with the assistance of the Marion County School Board. Our program reaches over 1000 school-children each year. GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training): the GREAT program is similar in concept to DARE, but it is directed toward an older group of students and offers a different message. Street gangs are becoming a serious problem in the United States. Some cities are already overburdened with ``after the fact'' abatement programs and additional police efforts to cope with the violence, destruction, and crime created by these groups. The Ocala Police Department and the Marion County School Board, with the help of CCASA have implemented the GREAT program in all seventh grade classes in the city schools. The classes teach anti-violence, drug resistance, gang resistance, self-esteem, conflict resolution, and other important topics. This program will soon reach 1000 students each school year. Other ongoing programs implemented through the Ocala Police Department are designed to address specific challenges in issue areas at various times. These projects may be operated for only a short time (one to two days) or for extended periods (a full year). We employ a concept of dynamic approach and response to community needs in order to provide our services in a timely manner. Programs can be implemented and discontinued as community needs indicate. The following activities and events are only part of those conducted by Crime Prevention Section and the Ocala Police Department family as part of their regular duties: Business Police Academy. Citizens Police Academy. Citizens Police Academy Alumni Association. Bicycle Safety Rodeos. ``Cops'' Kids & Firemen Day. Crime Prevention Week. Neighborhood Watch. Business Watch. Safe Halloween. Community Clean-up Days. Special Olympics Picnic. DARE and GREAT Skate Nights. ``AMI'' (Aid to the Mentally Impaired). Police Explorers Post. Neighborhood Cookouts. ``SAFE HOME'' Program. Police Recruit Academy. Scholarships. Community Resource Center. Crime Prevention Programs. Security Surveys. McGruff Program Activity. ``Crash Dummies'' Program. ``Casey'' the talking car. Operation ``Kid ID'' Project Graduation. Host Statewide DARE Day. HUD Summer Programs. Red Ribbon Campaign. Vacation Bible School. Health Fairs. The future of law enforcement is already here. Crime prevention has proven to be successful and will continue to be the foundation of progressive law enforcement as we move into the 21st century. For more information contact: Lt. Ken DeVilling, Phone (352) 629-8290, Fax (352) 629-8391.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration proposed a dismal VA medical care budget earlier this year. It is shortchanging our veterans. We have heard from VA officials that an additional $1.1 billion is needed just to maintain current service levels. Deep concerns regarding the administration's proposal for veterans' medical care led our Committee on Veterans' Affairs to call for an additional $1.7 billion in funding for the upcoming fiscal year. The new funding being suggested by the Vice President over the weekend will not cover the needs of our veterans. He proposed an additional $900 million for medical care. But based upon the administration's own figures, the cost for pay increases and inflation alone will cost $900 million. The administration's budget fails to cover the costs of treating hepatitis C, a ``silent epidemic'' afflicting many veterans, and fails to cover the cost of emergency care. Mr. Speaker, we need to provide for our veterans. It is a moral obligation.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It states that nothing in this act prohibits the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of Columbia from using funds for automatic external defibrillators. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, seeks to highlight how invaluable AEDs are to use to save personal lives. This is endorsed by the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American College of Cardiology, the Citizen CPR Foundation, and the International Association of Firefighters. These are just a few people that support the idea of making AEDs available in Federal buildings. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this amendment in no way seeks to dictate to the District of Columbia how they should spend their money. An AED of course is a device that is a little larger than a laptop computer. It automatically analyzes heart rhythms and delivers an electric current to the heart of a cardiac arrest victim. AED can restart a heart that has stopped beating. Passage of this amendment simply reaffirms that the District of Columbia should have access to the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art equipment. Like AEDs, they can restore a normal heart rhythm in persons suffering from sudden cardiac arrest. Mr. Chairman, frankly, it does not require a lot of training. Just turn it on and it tells someone what to do. It allows a great number of people to be able to respond to medical emergencies that require defibrillation. They are essential to strengthening this chain of survival for anybody that has a cardiac arrest. The four links to this process, of course, are dialing 911 as a first step, early resuscitation, and then defibrillation, and then, of course, early and advanced life support. While defibrillation is the most effective mechanism to revive a heart that has stopped, it is the least accessed tool we have available. So I think putting AEDs in Federal buildings is much like the argument for putting firefighting equipment in the buildings. Studies show that 250 lives can be saved each and every day from cardiac arrest by using the AED device. Those are the kinds of statistics that no one can argue with. No one knows when a sudden cardiac arrest might occur. According to a recent study, the top five sites where cardiac arrests do occur of course are at airports, county jails, shopping malls, sports stadiums, and of course golf courses. I believe we would all do ourselves a favor and great comfort in knowing that in any one of these Federal buildings or, for that matter, any District building, that we have in Washington, DC, that the most up-to-date equipment is available and that folks are now trained to use it to help all Americans. They are being produced today very inexpensively. They are easy to maintain, and so I think between those two things, the state of the art is bringing costs down for the AEDs and they afford a wider range of emergency capability for trained and equipped personnel. So I think with all of the tourists we have here in the District of Columbia each day, I think it is important that all of the Federal buildings, as well as the District of Columbia, have these available. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the gentlewoman who represents D.C. on this matter, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. STEARNS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I have worked out the language with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and as I understand, if she would confirm this, that she accepts the report language that I have, and then, by unanimous consent, I will withdrawal my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compliment and I am always glad to work with the gentlewoman. The report language in a sense is that we should conduct a study about the need for placement of the automatic external defibrillators in the Federal buildings and District buildings, so I think it is a first step for this country to recognize that AEDs are an important survival technique, and we are taking that step this afternoon here on the House floor. I thank the chairman of the D.C. Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). I feel pretty strong about this. I think Members on both sides of the aisle should realize that in my home State of Florida there is a case pending challenging the State of Florida because it has a similar ban as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has in this amendment on such adoptions. So in my State it is the law. The Largent amendment is trying to make it a part of the D.C. appropriations. This particular lawsuit was developed in a full-fledged war over cultural values. And that is what we are talking about, make no mistake about it. On one side, we have the ACLU that has filed a class-action suit last month challenging the State's ban on such adoptions. Two years ago, a lawsuit by them similar in nature was filed in which the couple won. However, our State's Supreme Court overruled it. So now the ACLU is filing again. I would like to read from the article in the newspaper about the justification for the Supreme Court when they actually decided to rule in favor of the existing law in the State of Florida and which supports the Largent amendment. The analysis was done by psychologist Paul Cameron. This is what he said, among other points. He said, ``The children raised in homosexual households experience more emotional problems, suffer more from unstable home lives, and struggle more with their own sexual identities later in life.'' He goes on to say, ``Children need and deserve the best environment possible in which to learn and grow. The traditional mom-and-dad family provides this, while homosexual relationships do not.'' Now, this is a clinical psychologist who has said this. And he said that this supports the Supreme Court's decision. So I think it is clear to my colleagues that what we are talking about, the real question, is, do we want to have this appropriations allow a back-door approach to push for the legalization of same-sex marriages by allowing them to adopt children? So I support my colleague from Oklahoma in what he is trying to do. It simply prohibits funds from being used to allow joint adoption by persons who are unrelated by either blood or marriage. That is pretty simple. I do not think there is anything in the motion to object to. To my way of thinking, a family is not made up of unrelated individuals that just happen to be in the household who happen to be living together and then suddenly want to adopt a child. Neither Congress nor the legislature of any of the States have authorized joint adoption by unrelated individuals. So I think his amendment is very simple. I think it should be supported by my colleagues. I hope it will pass.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support House Joint Resolution 57, to disapprove the extension of what I call most- favored-nation trading status for China. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I say that we as Americans are not being true to our heritage if we continue to do business with people who are tyrants, who trample upon all that we hold sacred. Let me repeat that, we are foolish to do business with tyrants who trample upon all that this great Nation holds sacred. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, and we all use it as a guide in trade relations. He quotes three reasons to put up tariffs and protect American companies. One is for retaliation of unfair trade practices, which has been occurring. Two is to phase out trade tariffs in our country to protect obsolete industries. We should do this as a moral imperative. Lastly, it is to protect a nation's national security. I submit to this body today, the question on this resolution is one of our national security. We cannot continue to do trade with a country that is arming itself to the teeth with our money, has provided missiles to Iran and nuclear technology to Pakistan, has fired missiles towards Taiwan to intimidate its government, has launched the greatest military buildup in Asia since Japan in the 1930s. It is continuing to warn Japan and trying to intimidate it. Mr. Chairman, this is a country that is arming for war. It has stolen U.S. satellite missile technology, has targeted 13 of its 18 intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States of America. It has ignored our protests of the persecution of Christians and political dissidents. Are we being prudent? Are we going to turn our back on all the sacred heritage of our country for the dollar sign? I submit that China itself is dysfunctional, it is going to have a currency collapse soon and we should not go forward with this most favored nation status for China. In the sixth century B.C., Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote, ``The opportunity to defeat the enemy is often provided by the enemy himself.'' Are we providing China this opportunity? I urge the approval of this resolution. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think, like others, I am coming down here to urge the Committee on Appropriations to restore the needed funding for the F-22 in their upcoming conference. I think the F-22 advanced fighter aircraft represents, of course, the next generation of superior American military aircraft; 1974 was the last time we started with an advanced fighter aircraft. There is no alternative to the F-22 in the Air Force inventory for future combat operations that can provide or evolve to provide the capabilities that are inherent in the F-22, nor is there an alternative in development. Richard Hallion writes in today's Washington Post, ``Failure to procure the F-22 would mark the first time since World War II that the United States has consciously chosen to send its soldiers, sailors, and airmen into harm's way while knowingly conceding the lead in modern fighter development to a variety of foreign nations that may sell their products on the world's arms market.'' America needs the F-22 and it needs it now. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the most fundamental component of America's future defense needs in maintaining our air dominance during military combat--the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft. I cannot speak on behalf of the F-22 any better than Richard Hallion has done in an op-ed that appears in today's Washington Post. Mr. Hallion writes that, ``It takes more than a decade to develop a fighter, and it is imperative that we make the right choice. The hallmarks of a dominant fighter are the ability to evade and minimize detection, transit threat area quickly and exploit information warfare to react more quickly than one's foes. Only one aircraft contemplated for service today can do that: the F-22. The F-22 advanced fighter aircraft represents the next generation of superior American military aircraft. The F-22 combines ``radar-evading stealth with the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds and to exploit and display data from various sources to better inform the pilot about threats and opportunities.'' The U.S. Air Force has become victim to their own military success. The action by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee to cut funding for the procurement of the F-22 comes on the heels of the Air Force's dominant performance against the Yugoslavian military and their air defense systems. The Yugoslavian success has been the third consecutive military campaign since 1990 that the U.S. military has been able to dominate the air. Mr. Hallion writes that, ``exploiting dominant aerospace power is the irreplaceable keystone of our post-Cold War strategy for successful quick-response crisis intervention.'' ``Seeking air superiority should never be what we choose to live with. Rather, air supremacy should be the minimum we seek, and air dominance our desired goal. Control of the air is fragile and can be lost from a variety of causes, including poor doctrine and tactics, deficient training, poor strategy and rules of engagement. But worst of all, it can be lost through poor aircraft.'' As a rest of the world continues to develop advance military aircraft and continues to develop high-quality surface-to-air and other missiles, America's ability to continue to dominate the air in military engagements with the existing arsenal of aircraft will be greatly diminished. There is no alternative to the F-22 in the Air Force inventory for future combat operations that can provide or evolve to provide the capabilities inherent in the F-22. Nor is there an alternative in development. The F-22 will clear the skies of enemy aircraft and destroy enemy air defenses. The F-22 will breach enemy defenses, bomb highly defended strategic targets and interdict enemy forces. No other aircraft in the U.S. inventory or in development can meet that need. The actions to withhold sufficient funding for the F-22 by the Appropriations Committee will in fact increase the cost to the American taxpayer. The reduction of the FY 2000 funding for the F-22 has a net impact of terminating the current production program and increases total Air Force costs by $8.4 billion or roughly the current cost of 85 additional F-22 aircraft. Finally, I would like to close with more words from Richard Hallion. ``Failure to procure the F-22 would mark the first time since the Second World War that the United States has consciously chosen to send its soldiers, sailors and airmen into harm's way while knowingly conceding the lead in modern fighter development to a variety of foreign nations that may sell their products on the world's arms market. America needs the F-22, and needs it now. I urge Chairman Young, Chairman Lewis and all future conferees to the Defense Appropriations bills to accede to the Senate position on fully funding for FY 2000 for America's most significant next generation fighter aircraft that will preserve America's national security and protect our national security interests around the world. Work to protect the F-22.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this individual got one poor evaluation. But her evaluations before that were outstanding, and one she had was the highest in her department. When she was escorted back, she said, I just want to get my picture frames. I just want to get my personal effects. Oh, no, you have got to have a security armed guard.

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

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. I thought for the benefit of my colleagues I would read this to them. Quote, it is a sense of this Congress that employees of the Department of State 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. So I think my colleagues should realize that this is a sense of a Congress that is basically protecting whistleblowers. In this great Nation of ours, we have laws to protect Federal civil servants from political manipulation. We also have Federal laws to protect whistleblowers who, in the performance of their Federal jobs, must report to Congress outside of the official channels within their bureaucracies information pertaining to their work. Now, we have seen the case of the White House Travel Office, where with great controversy and there was accusations. We have seen the Department of Energy under Secretary Richardson, where whistleblowers were very uncomfortable and threatened. Now I think we have a case again of a dedicated, honest, trustworthy civil servant who has been unfairly and illegally removed from her Federal position. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking of Ms. Linda Shenwick, a professional State Department employee who has been serving at the U.S. mission at the United Nations since 1987. She has held various positions during her career at the United Nations while becoming a noted budgetary expert on the United Nations finances. During her employment, Ms. Shenwick has provided a valuable service to the United States Congress by providing to Congress information concerning budgetary reforms at the U.N. and information about waste, fraud and mismanagement there. Ms. Shenwick has been labeled as a malcontent by the administration, especially within the State Department, because of her decision to perform her job as she saw fit, which required her to notify Congress of budgetary details at the U.N. and to notify Congress of waste, fraud, and mismanagement there. So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Shenwick provided Congress with information that the United Nations and the administration did not want made public. For instance, Ms. Shenwick reported in February of 1993 to her superiors that she had seen pictures of large amounts of U.S. currency stored openly on tables in Somalia. Her reports were ignored. She then provided Congress with this information, and it later became public in April of 1994 that $3.9 million of U.N. cash was reported stolen in Somalia. Now, this report and others like it helped Congress force the United Nations to create an Office of Inspector General to end such fraud and mismanagement as had occurred in Somalia. Between 1987 and 1994, Ms. Shenwick received the highest personal evaluation, employment evaluation, four times and the second highest once. Her job performance has not been based on political consideration or political favoritism. In 1992, Ms. Shenwick reported that President Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, Thomas Pickering, had misused government aircraft for personal use and committed other improper activities. When she began to report problems at the United Nations in 1993, her employment evaluations started to turn negative and the threats that she would be removed from her position began. Ms. Shenwick has now been forcibly removed from her position at the United States Mission. When she attempted to return to her office, she was banned from entering her own office. When she attempted to collect her personal belongings in her own office, she was told that she would have to be escorted by uniformed and armed security officers. As of this time, she has lost her Federal position, and her attorneys have notified my office that her salary has been terminated. So I ask my colleagues this afternoon, how can this happen in our great country to a civil servant who has done such a great job? The way she has been treated is outrageous and against Federal employment guidelines. We have Federal laws to protect whistleblowers, but somehow the bureaucrats at the State Department have gotten away with this personal vendetta against a Federal employee. It is not right. It is not fair. My amendment is a simple ``sense of the Congress'' amendment that states, as I pointed out earlier, that this should not occur. So I urge my colleagues to support my sense of the Congress, do the right thing, add their voice of support for this great public servant.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to look at this graph. The folks on this side of the aisle say the tax cut is for the wealthy, but let me show my colleagues: the yellow line is before tax cuts, the red is after tax cuts. If one is making $10,000 to $20,000, one is only paying 2 percent of the overall taxes for this country and that is the same before or after our tax cuts, and if one is making $100,000 and above, one is paying 46 percent of the tax burden of this Nation, before tax cuts or after tax cuts. So our proposal that these folks are saying are for the wealthy makes no difference in how much these folks pay after or before our tax cuts. So in the main, one has to realize that the burden of this tax is going to those folks that are very wealthy, who are making between $100 and $200,000. So when we hear on that side of the aisle that this is tax cuts for the wealthy, I say that the wealthy are going to continue to pay 46 percent of the tax burden before our tax cut or after our tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Democrats, can someone on this side of the aisle tell us what part of the tax burden they should pay?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody this morning has heard all about the surpluses we have here. We have had the Office of Management and Budget, which is the arm of the White House, indicate that there will be $1 trillion in surpluses over the next 15 years, and we have heard information from the CBO, which is the arm of Congress, also saying there will be a huge amount of surpluses. My concern this morning is that the spending that we are talking about here in Congress is increasing, and I hear all the new programs that the President is proposing, so I am concerned. I thought I would bring my concerns to the floor today to discuss with my colleagues a couple of things we should concern ourselves with. When the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget made their forecast, they used the assumption that none of the spending increases would break the budget caps; that is, the spending limits set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement would be held intact. I think we all know here this morning that we have already broken the budget caps in some ways, and many of us feel that, in certain areas, we should. But there are several factors that must be in place in order for these optimistic forecasts that CBO and OMB have projected to become reality. Besides holding within the caps from the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, there is a built-in assumption in both these organizations that the economy will continue to chug along with a growth rate of 2.5 percent a year until the year 2008. In other words, there is nothing built in in that case that we have a recession. Maybe we will not have a recession, but there is a possibility that if we do not have a recession, at least the economy will slow down. Madam Speaker, today we have two assumptions that are built into the CBO and the OMB's projection; one, that we will stay within the budget caps, and two, no recession or economic downturn will occur over 10 years, possibly 15 years. My colleagues, both of those assumptions are difficult to believe under today's realities. The 1997 budget agreement set tight spending controls on the growth of discretionary spending. Discretionary spending accounts for a great deal of the spending by the Federal Government, and the portion of the budget that the folks here in Congress can control. It includes but is not limited to such items as the Department of Education, the FBI, disaster relief, and all these other programs. If we adhere to the spending caps, then everything will be fine, but that is a big if. As I mentioned earlier, the only problem is that Congress is already having a difficult time in keeping it within the limits set by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Is it realistic to think that in the year 2009, that is part of the projection of these organizations, that there will only be an 11 percent increase in spending? That is just a little over 1 percent a year. Let us go back in history and take a look at how that compares to what we did in the last 11 years. From 1987 to 1998, discretionary spending rose by 75 percent. That is just a little under 7 percent. So I say to my colleagues, even the projection that these organizations are providing and we in Congress are assuming, that discretionary spending will increase by 1 percent, is not accurate, because in the past it has been almost 7 percent. So we have some real difficulties that are looming before us. The appropriators have already indicated they cannot stay within the limits imposed by the 1997 budget. Therefore, if domestic spending should begin to rise, then the interest payments on the debt will not decline. If the surplus starts to decline, then the debt in turn will increase, and interest payments will continue to increase, also. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the two assumptions that CBO and OMB have used have great validity only if they come true. The first assumption is that we will stay within the budget caps. As we know, we have already broken the budget caps in certain areas, and I expect we will probably break them again. The second assumption is that there will be no recession in the next 10 to 15 years. That too is not realistic. I caution my colleagues that we need to try, as much as possible, to control spending because I think the Balanced Budget Agreement set us on the right course. I hope we will not deviate, and try to restrain spending. I call upon the President also. For every new program that he offers us, he has to come up with a way to offset it. We must hold the line on spending, and if we do these things, hold the line on spending and continue to reduce taxes, I think that we can look at surplus into the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week a lot of us became aware of the fact that public television stations around the Nation were exchanging their donor lists with the Democrat National Committee. I would remind everyone, of course, that public television is supported by American taxpayers' dollars; that is, the tax dollars of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, even people who do not vote. And the public broadcasting service is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It is owned by 350 noncommercial TV stations. Its mission, Mr. Speaker, is to provide over-the-air broadcasting that serves the public interested. PBS is partially funded by the Federal Government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB. This year, in fact, we were considering providing CPB with as much as $475 million a year. In turn, CPB provides public broadcasting stations with 14 percent of its funding. In fact, last year that amounted to more than $37 million. In addition, PBS received $4 million more than other Federal agencies. Public TV stations are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group, and as such, they are tax exempt. Being tax exempt, they are prohibited from supporting any political party or engaging in any lobbying or other partisan activity. I serve on the Committee on Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection last week, during consideration of the reauthorization of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a story came to light about a Boston public TV station which had shared 32,000 names with the Democrat National Committee. It reported that Sam Black, a 4-year-old received a fund-raising letter from the DNC. It appears that Sam's mother included his name with her own when she sent a donation to the Boston station WGBH. The first time this fund- raising exchange was reported, the station originally maintained that it was an isolated incident, a mistake by an ill-informed employee. Of course, the facts, Mr. Speaker, showed differently. WGBH first approached the Democratic Party in 1993. In that first year, the station received 5,000 names of Democratic campaign donors. The next year WGBH, in a sense, paid for new names by swapping the names of their contributors. The station also received a financial payment for providing 10,200 names. My colleagues and I on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection wanted to know more; specifically, if this practice was widespread or if there was just one station involved. We found, of course, that their stations in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and even here in the Washington, D.C. area that had been cooperating with the DNC in fund-raising activities for as long as 20 years. I am not concerned that the Republicans were excluded from this fund- raising effort. I am concerned that tax-exempt organizations are engaging in partisan politics. Since the beginning, there has been a close relationship between the Public Broadcasting Service and what many of us perceive as the liberal agenda. In the mid-1990s, the Media Research Center studied 73 PBS programs for political bias. It found there was a liberal slant on these shows. Now, more recently, Mr. Speaker, PBS decided not to air the President's videotaped testimony before the grand jury or to offer live coverage of the impeachment debate in the House Judiciary. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it ran Barney and the Teletubbies. However, it did find it appropriate and in the public interest to provide full coverage for the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. Now we have discovered that there is more than just an ideological connection between PBS and the Democratic Party. This financial cooperation is clearly in violation of our tax laws and could be of interest to the FEC and to the IRS. During consideration of the reauthorization for CPB, I prepared an amendment calling on the comptroller of the United States to conduct a study, a simple study, on this swapping of donor lists and to report what stations, which political parties, and the circumstances of this cooperation. However, the hearing on reauthorization has been postponed, but Congress needs to act now. The next step is for the GAO to launch an investigation into this matter. I also want to see the CPB take steps themselves to find out the extent of these joint fund-raising activities and to assure Congress and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection that this has ended and will not occur again. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the American people now endure the highest level of taxation in this Nation's history. These hard-working people should not be sending their tax dollars to help support public TV stations which are working with the DNC to enrich their respective organizations. Public TV stations should be serving the public interest and, of course, not any partisan political interest.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I also rise on behalf of this coalition, in support of this amendment, as one of the cosponsors to limit the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Mr. Chairman, this sounds a little complicated, but it is not. It is basically that the President has the ability to spend money without Congress' approval. Last year, Mr. Chairman, we offered a similar amendment, and we were accused at that time, you are trying to take advantage of the Asian economic crisis. The administration even felt threatened by it. Last year the former Treasury Secretary, Mr. Robert Rubin, sent us a letter saying that the President would veto the appropriations bill because of our efforts. We are back, and we think it is so important that I hope my colleagues will listen to this debate carefully. We are pushing this issue for one reason and only one reason: Each of us believes that the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund by our president without congressional authorization is simply unconstitutional. The ESF was established in 1934 solely, solely, Mr. Chairman, to stabilize the exchange value of the U.S. dollar. That was it. The ESF's purpose was to give the U.S. adequate financial resources to counteract the activities of the European fund. The fund was established essentially with $2 billion, appropriated from profits realized from the reevaluation of U.S. gold holdings. But slowly, through history, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has been perverted and altered from protecting the U.S. dollar, which would be its proper use, to bailing out foreign currencies. The ESF's purpose was changed, just the same as the IMF's purpose and mission was unilaterally changed from being one that was used to ease temporary currency exchange rate problems to one that is used to bailing out foreign governments. By our last count, the ESF had about $30 billion in reserve, ready to be used as a presidential slush fund without congressional oversight. Tonight Members are going to hear the proponents of using the ESF fund and the IMF fund typically say, using these funds are risk-free, we are going to hear that argument time and time again, because borrowing nations always pay back these loans. We have heard that. The proponents also treat such funds as if they are surplus accounts, free to be used by benevolent administrations. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the $30 billion in the ESF fund belongs to the American taxpayers, and only Congress, only Congress should have the power to disburse the ESF funds. Secondly, use of the funds is not risk-free to the American taxpayers. If a borrowing Nation defaults on a loan, it is the American taxpayers who lose, because it is their funds to begin with. There is also this myth that nations pay back such loans, when in fact they usually borrow more money from other sources in order to pay off the previous IMF or ESF fund, which simply increases their debt level again and again and again. Others will argue that we have only pursued this amendment because, well, this is a political shot. This is a bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has offered, so that argument does not hold water. Mr. Chairman, last year the amendment had restricted the President from using ESF funds beyond $250 million without our approval. This year we have upped it to $1 billion, which is still a moderate and I think a sensible amount to put as a condition before the President can spend the money. Unilateral executive authority on international financial matters is not what our Founding Fathers intended when they drafted the unique concept of separation of powers in the Constitution. It is once again time to reassert, Mr. Chairman, reassert our constitutional prerogatives that give Congress the rightful authority to authorize and to appropriate these funds. So, Mr. Chairman, this is one of a constitutional question. I ask all of the Members to support this amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week all of us will remember the President took a well-publicized poverty tour. More than 6.5 years into his administration, the President wanted to call attention to poverty, and I understand that. Although we are now in the eighth year of economic growth, the benefits of our strong economy have eluded too many Americans. Instead of setting up a public relations event, however, I urge the President to take solid steps to expand the scope of our economic well- being and develop constructive legislation with Republicans. One of the ideas we have as Republicans is to reduce taxes. Putting more money back into the pockets of taxpayers will spur investments and spending and generate, of course, more economic activity and ultimately help the poor. Our plan to reduce taxes, at the same time protecting Social Security and preserving Medicare, is the best means I believe for bringing the benefits of economic growth to all Americans. After all, it is their money, our money, and we can spend it better for ourselves than the Government can.