Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., what are you talking about? I do not understand. Let me read what the Goode amendment does. Repeals D.C. law I-185, which prohibits D.C. residents from possessing a firearm to allow D.C. residents the right to protect and defend themselves. Your speech does not reflect the substance of the amendment. This is a fundamental constitutional right. I appeal to all my colleagues. Why should we ignore the rights of individuals to have the opportunity to defend themselves? In fact, if you go back in the evolutionary cycle, it is a natural drive for all human beings for self-preservation. It is the most fundamental right of our human species that we should be able to defend ourselves against unwarranted harm. So the simple amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) is restoring the ability to say we can have a firearm in Washington, D.C., to defend ourselves. A study by Gary Kleck of Florida State University showed that in approximately 2 million incidents each year, citizens use a firearm for self-defense, usually a handgun. Mr. Chairman, it is a good idea, and the statistics are there. Please support the Goode amendment. Mr. Chairman, under the Constitution of this Nation, we have the right to be armed. However, if you choose to ignore the rights recognized under the Constitution, I appeal to you at another level. Any creature, from insect to human, has the natural drive for self- preservation. Self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings, and no individual should ever be denied the ability to defend his or herself against unwarranted harm. According to a study by Gary Kleck of Florida State University, in approximately 2 million instances each year, citizens use a firearm for self-defense, usually a handgun. Criminals need have no such fear in Washington, DC. The law-abiding, decent citizens of the Nation's Capital should have the right and the means to defend themselves, and that is what this amendment will do. Let's give the people of Washington the option to defend themselves and their families; support the Goode amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think, while I have my other speaker speak, I would like the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) to read the Federal Criminal Code. It is a Federal crime to even attempt to buy a firearm. Perhaps she would like to read 922. I do not think she quite understands the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are discussing today and tomorrow will be a major factor in demonstrating how this Congress addresses the concerns of our Nation. My amendment inserts a set of congressional findings into H.R. 1501 regarding enforcement of Federal firearms laws. Mr. Chairman, both the House and the Senate have heard hours of testimony regarding this current epidemic of youth violence, with both bodies examining the role that guns have played in the issue. One of the most striking facts to emerge from these hearings is a very small number of prosecutions for Federal firearm violations. Now, all of us in this Chamber remember the Brady Act which passed in the 103rd Congress. It was a law designed to prevent criminals or other ineligible individuals from obtaining firearms through waiting periods and background checks. President Clinton announced earlier today that since passage of the Brady bill over 400,000 sales to individuals prohibited from owning a firearm were prevented. Two-thirds of those were prior felons. Under current law, it is illegal to submit false information in attempting to purchase a firearm. However, Mr. Chairman, not even a tenth of those attempts were prosecuted. Let me just give a few statistics from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney on Firearms from 1996 to 1998. Out of all violations in the first phase of the Brady Act, only one person was prosecuted for unspecified violations under the Brady Act. Less than 100 were prosecuted since the beginning of the second phase; the instant check phase, there has not been a single prosecution. Now, let us compare the Brady Act to another program, one that was not initiated by Federal mandate and not initiated by this Congress, Project Exile out of Richmond, Virginia. This was initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, Virginia. Specifically, the program increased the number of prosecutions for felony possession of firearms when an individual was apprehended in possession of a gun. When an individual was apprehended in possession of a gun, he was exiled to prison for a minimum of 5 years. Law enforcement officers carried a laminated card specifying the types of criminals targeted under the program: Felons, drug users and fugitives. If a suspect was caught with a firearm, and it was determined that any Federal law had been broken, prosecution began immediately. In 1997, Richmond had one of the highest homicide rates in the Nation. Within one year, under Project Exile, Richmond's homicide rate was reduced by one-third. Furthermore, at the end of 1998, 309 Federal criminal gun law violations were prosecuted. These were prosecutions in one city, in one county. The Brady Act is nationwide and cannot even begin to compete with this program, Mr. Chairman. The administration in testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary stated that the number of prosecutions are not a good measure of the law's effectiveness. In fact, Attorney General Reno, in her May 5 appearance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, stated, ``I cannot promise improvement in the numbers of prosecutions.'' Prosecution is a key to the law's effectiveness. The Brady Act may have prevented 400,000 illegal purchases but knowing that two-thirds were prior felons, how many of those then obtained guns illegally? If they were prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm as the law requires, we would not have to ask that question. Mr. Chairman, my enforcement amendment simply states that this body recognizes that our country has over 40,000 firearm laws at all levels of government, and there has been less than adequate prosecution of these 40,000 laws. It acknowledges the success of Project Exile through vigorous enforcement and prosecution of current laws. Finally, Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that enhancement and aggressive prosecution of gun crimes is the best deterrent to gun violence. Enforcement and prosecution is the key to curbing gun violence and protecting our children, and I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and would respond to my good friend from Massachusetts, who was not here earlier, that my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) did offer an amendment to provide $50 million additional money for prosecution. At any rate, let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying if the general public understood the truth about crime and guns, there would be virtually no support for the gun control measures that are continually posed here in Congress. Crime and criminals are what the public is really concerned about. And the uncomplicated truth is that under existing Federal laws any violent felons or drug dealers who pick up any firearms are committing serious Federal crimes, crimes punishable by long prison terms. The law can work, but only, I say to my colleagues on that side, if it is enforced. It has been, with great success, enforced in Richmond, Virginia, under a program we talked about earlier, Project Exile. Project Exile adopts a zero tolerance for Federal gun crimes with Federal, State and local law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have the opportunity to close, as I understand.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just would remind the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, that the Brady bill was not passed just to persuade people not to get firearms. It was put in place to actually enforce people who were felons. As I pointed out earlier to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), in the Federal Criminal Code, on Rule 922, unlawful acts, it is unlawful to attempt to buy a firearm if one is a felon. We have had plenty of data to show that occurred, and it was not prosecuted. So if that side of the aisle wants to make the case and excuses that they do not want to prosecute, that is their case. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, good morning. Today I want to talk about a bill that I have sponsored, the bill is H.R. 2116, the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. I am pleased this is a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) on the Republican side and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) on the Democrat side, as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member on the subcommittee, have all cosponsored this legislation. Last week, on June 9, we held a hearing and marked up the legislation, and it was favorably reported out of the full committee. What this legislation does is offer a blueprint to help position VA for the future, and I think it is appropriately entitled the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. Foremost among the VA's challenges are the long-term care of our aging veterans population. For many among the World War II population, long-term care has become just as important as acute care. However the long-term care challenge has gone unanswered for too long. It is important, therefore, that just last month the VA committee held a hearing on long-term care. The bill I have introduced would precisely address this issue and would adopt some of the key recommendations of the blue ribbon advisory committee. But my bill goes further than that in providing VA important new tools for access to long-term care. The bill also tackles another challenging issue. Mr. Speaker, the GAO findings showed that the VA spends billions of dollars in the next 5 years to operate unneeded buildings. They testified that one out of every four VA medical care dollars is spent in maintaining buildings rather than caring for patients. A lot of these buildings are over 40 years old. Now, this is just not an abstract concern. This could be a savings of almost $10 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, I think it is no secret that the VA administration is talking about closing old, obsolete hospitals. In some locations, that may be appropriate. The point is that the VA has closure authority and has already used it. In fact, we could expect closures of needed facilities under the disastrous budget submitted by the President last year. Mr. Speaker, my bill instead calls for a process, establishing a new process so that decisions on closing hospitals can only be made on a comprehensive planning basis with veterans' participation. And this 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. No, it must reinvest the savings in a new, brand new, improved treatment facility or improved services in the area. The bill responds to pressing veterans' needs. It opens the door to expansion of long-term care, to greater access to outpatient care, and to improve benefits including emergency care coverage. In turn, it provides for reforms that would help advance these goals. As I mentioned earlier, it is bipartisan, and we have the support of both Democrats and Republicans. I also would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for introducing H.R. 1762. This is legislation that expands the scope of VA respite care. The language in his bill has been incorporated into our bill. My legislation also requires that the VA provide needed long-term care for 50 percent service-connected veterans and veterans needing care for service-related conditions. H.R. 2116 would also expand access to care to two very deserving groups. It would specifically authorize priority care for veterans injured in combat and awarded the Purple Heart and provide specific authority for VA care of TRICARE-eligible military retirees not otherwise eligible for priority VA care. In such cases, DOD would reimburse the VA at the same rate payable to the TRICARE contractor. The measure would also authorize VA to recover reasonable costs of emergency care in community hospitals for VA patients who have no health care. In other words, this is needed. There is no other more important component in this than this long-term care I have mentioned earlier. But I think there is another segment that we are forgetting about, and that is the homeless veterans. This bill addresses that by awarding grants for building and remodeling State veterans' homes and providing grants for the homeless veterans. To summarize, Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2116, provides new direction to address veterans' long-term care needs; expands veterans' access to care; closes gaps in eligibility laws; and establishes needed reform to improve the VA health care system. Our veterans population is in need of this reform.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce a bill adopted unanimously at markup this morning by the Subcommittee on Health of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This important legislation tackles some of the major challenges facing the VA health care system. In doing so, it offers a blueprint to help position VA for the future, and I think it is appropriately titled the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. Foremost among VA's challenges are the long-term care needs of aging veterans. For many among the World War II population, long term care has become as important as acute care. However the long-term care challenge has gone unanswered for too long. This legislation would squarely address this issue and would adopt some of the key recommendations of a blue-ribbon advisory committee, while going further to provide VA important new tools to improve veterans' access to long term care. Similarly, the bill tackles the challenge posed by a recent 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. This is not just an abstract concern. It is no secret that VA is discussing closing hospitals. And in some locations, that may be appropriate. The point is that VA has closure authority and has already used it. In fact, we could expect closures of needed facilities under the disastrous budget submitted by the President this year. This bill instead calls for a process to be sure that decisions on closing hospitals can only be made based on comprehensive studies and planning. That planning process must include the participation of veterans organizations and employee groups. In short, 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 ``re-invest'' savings in a new, improved treatment facility or improved services in the area. Overall, the bill has four central themes: (1) to provide new direction to address veterans' long-term care needs; (2) to expand veterans' access to care; (3) to close gaps in current eligibility law; and (4) to establish needed reforms to improve the VA health care system. The bill's key provisions would: (1) require VA to maintain its long-term care programs and to increase both home and community-based long-term care; (2) mandate that VA provide needed long-term care for 50% service- connected veterans and veterans needing care for a service-related condition; (3) require co-payments for long-term care for all other veterans, based on ability to pay and with such payments helping to support expanded services; (3) establish limits and conditions for considering closure of VA medical centers or parts of medical centers (such as ceasing to provide acute hospital care at a VA medical center), and would require that VA re-invest savings from a closure to establish new outpatient facilities and other improved services in any affected area; (4) authorize VA care of TRICARE-eligible military retirees who are not otherwise eligible for priority VA care, subject to DOD reimbursing VA, as well as provide specific authority for VA care of veterans who were injured in combat and earned the Purple Heart; (5) authorize VA to pay reasonable emergency care costs for service- connected, low-income and other high priority veterans who have no health insurance or other medical coverage, and who rely on VA care; (6) authorize VA to (a) increase the copayment on prescriptions drugs; and (b) establish reasonable copayments on other costly items provided for care of a nonservice-connected condition (subject to exemptions on copayments in existing law), and provide that these new revenues would help fund VA medical care; (7) require that, if the Federal government prevails in a suit against tobacco companies to recover costs incurred by the Government attributable to tobacco-related illnesses, VA shall retain the amount of such recovery attributable to VA's costs of providing such care for use in providing medical care and conducting research on such illnesses; (8) reform the criteria for awarding grants for construction and remodeling of State veterans' homes; (9) extend VA's authority to make grants to assist homeless veterans; and (10) authorize the VA to carry out a three-year pilot program in up to four of VA's networks to provide primary care services (subject to reimbursement) to dependents of veterans. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill which major veterans groups have praised and endorsed. The work on it has been a real bipartisan effort. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson stated, ``I can assure the American people that their nuclear secrets are now safe at the labs.'' Somehow I do not think the American people believe him. In fact, the unanimous conclusion of the Cox Committee is also at odds with the Secretary's reassurance. The committee concludes that ``such thefts almost certainly continue to the present day.'' I am quite distressed at the reaction of the administration's spokesmen who even to this very day are downplaying the significance of the Cox report finding. And, of course, they are changing the subject. The big news is not that our nuclear secrets were stolen. The incomprehensible news is what this administration has done about it when it was discovered in 1995 that the crown jewel of our nuclear arsenal, the W-88, was stolen by the Communist Chinese. No one told the President. The Justice Department denied the FBI's request for a wiretap on the clear and obvious suspect. The issue, my colleagues, is what was done in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take notice of a special citizen, Retired Colonel Alice Gritsavage. She is a one of a kind person that deserves special recognition. Ms. Gritsavage resides in my hometown of Ocala, Florida and she has had a remarkable life. Ms. Gritsavage served our nation as a nurse in both World War II and the Korean War. In fact, her outstanding record as an executive Army nurse in World War II influenced General Douglas McArthur to request that she be named to his staff as Chief Nurse of the Far East Command at the start of the Korean conflict. I would like to quote from the congratulatory letter Col. Gritsavage received on the date of her departure from the Korean Command on May 28, 1953 from General Mark Clark, Commander in Chief of the United States Army at that time. General Clark wrote: You had been in the theatre only a short time when the Communist aggressors threatened world peace by their unprovoked invasion of South Korea. This event required a tremendous build up of medical and hospital facilities, both in Japan and Korea, to care for the wounded of the United Nations. Since that time the standards of the Army Nurse Corps in the Command have reached a level unparalleled in the Corps. Your untiring efforts, outstanding leadership and devotion to duty have set a brilliant example and have been directly responsible for the excellent services performed by our gallant Army Nurses in this, the United Nations first armed bid for world peace. Col. Gritsavage's dedicated service to our nation led our local chapter of Korean War Veterans to name their chapter after Ms. Gritsavage. At the time of this dedication in 1995, the Ocala chapter was the only one in the nation to be named after a woman--reflecting the importance of Col. Gritsavage to our community. I thank Colonel Gritsavage on behalf of my district and on behalf of our nation for her wonderful service in her remarkable life.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about prescription drugs. There has been a lot of talk lately about how expensive they are and how many people who need them cannot afford them. I understand these concerns, but like my colleagues, while I want to make sure that our constituents have greater access to prescription drugs, I am concerned about the debate that is evolving about prescription drugs here in the House. Fixing drug prices could very well mean reducing discounts to the veterans and other Federal purchasers. In fact, a GAO study concluded that expanding access to the reduced prices could lead in fact to higher prices. This is what price controls do. The larger the market, the greater the economic incentive to raise prices to limit the impact of giving lower prices to more purchasers. That makes sense. Ultimately that move, Mr. Speaker, could put veterans' access to health care at risk. While this type of legislation, these legislative initiatives that are coming here, could put the veterans' health care at risk, there is no guarantee that it will significantly reduce the cost of medicine for Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, I believe we need to figure out how to expand insurance coverage for drugs, not attempt to give the government the ability to fix prices. Price controls never work. All they do is reduce supply or eliminate discounts that are available to some. We have all seen this idea before. Their great idea, the people advocating price controls for prescription drugs, is it will expand the government discount for everyone, give everybody a chance for lower prices, and everyone will have access for cheap drugs. That is the basic appeal. But, my colleagues, that is socialism. Let us not forget who is getting the benefit of these discounts, and of course, we could put others at risk who are now getting them. Last year there was a misguided attempt to expand the Federal supply discounts to State and local governments also. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that by expanding these discounts so broadly that makers of drugs would be forced to respond by reducing or eliminating the discounts they give to the Veterans Administration. The VA estimated this proposal would cost them as much as $250 million, or it would equal the cost of providing care to 50,000 veterans. And just so that we all understand, Mr. Speaker, if the drug companies are no longer able to give large discounts to the veterans, it means those very discounts will not be available to Medicare beneficiaries. I believe we should be doing everything we can to help Medicare beneficiaries improve access to the drugs they need, but not through price controls. One of the easiest things that could be done right away is for the administration to move forward on regulation to expand Medicare Plus Choice plans. Because of the way the current Medicare managed care plans are paid, many areas, including portions of my district, do not have managed care plans available to them. By simply enacting the Medicare Plus Choice program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that we passed, Congress sought to expand Medicare beneficiaries' access to prescription drugs by allowing them to join HMOs that offer these benefits. Congress' goal in the Balanced Budget Act was to extend to Medicare beneficiaries the same range of choices that exist for all working Americans. Choosing between competing health care plans provides greater promise than price controls, giving them greater access. It is better than telling the pharmaceutical companies that they have to meet a price. Mr. Speaker, the administration should no longer delay in expanding access to these plans. There was a bipartisan commission that developed a proposal that is really worth more discussion. It said that we should figure out how Medicare beneficiaries can take advantage of the change in health care delivery benefiting every privately insured person, including Members of Congress. That is the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. We have discount pharmaceutical drugs. Why not adopt a program like the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, something that we all have, Mr. Speaker, and the President and the Senators? So why are we talking about this? We should stop talking about socialized medicine and the age-old false hope of price controls that have never worked. Medicare beneficiaries need more from their Members of Congress than false promises of cheap drugs through price controls. We need to help them gain access to affordable prescriptions through insurance coverage and the truly effective price competition of an active marketplace. We also need to make sure that whatever reform we pass does not hurt those to whom we owe a great debt: veterans. Veterans should not be put at risk to give someone in this body a political win. Mr. Speaker, I am certain we can find an answer that will help our Nation's senior citizens while at the same time protecting our veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, rarely has a government program caused so much confusion and misled so many people and perhaps bedeviled so many of us here in Congress, so it is appropriate tonight that we establish this lockbox and go ahead and pass this legislation. I might point out to my colleagues who are complaining that this did not go through a committee, I have been here 10 years. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) knows, there are often times that the Democrats brought legislation that was good without going through the subcommittee or the full committee. So I think this has wide support. It will pass. I think it is appropriate that we bring this before the committee. Lastly, I would say that it is a great accommodation for us to be debating and completing this tonight. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would create a lockbox to ensure that Social Security surpluses be dedicated solely for the purpose they were intended to pay seniors their benefits. Today we can make history by standing up for not only what we believe to be right but what is absolutely necessary. If we are to make good on our promise to our country's seniors that we will protect the Social Security program, this can be achieved by putting future surpluses into a lockbox that could not be used to perpetuate the tax and spend policies of the past. In other words, the Social Security surpluses could not be used to pay for new spending projects or for tax cuts. Right now the Social Security Trust Fund is running a 126,000,000,000 surplus and it is used to mask the deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund other programs. And it should not be used to mask our Nation's deficit. Added to that is the irony that this very same fund is scheduled to go bankrupt soon after the baby boomers start to retire. And so this trust fund which will soon go bankrupt is now in surplus, hiding the true state of the Federal budget. Rarely has a Government program caused so much confusion, mislead so many people, and bedeviled so many policy makers. We have been very zealous in cutting wasteful spending and reducing the size of our Government's bureaucracy. We should keep up our efforts and continue to cut out unnecessary spending. Whatever surplus we may have is a result of lower taxes and less government spending. What would happen if the economy should start to falter? How would that affect the budget process if the surplus were to shrink--keeping in mind that the true state of our budget surplus is dubious at best. We can through the passage of H. R. 1259--finally stop this practice which started when President Johnson unified the budget in 1969. It was then that Social Security, and the other Federal trust fund programs, were first officially accounted for in the Federal budget. The ``Safe Deposit Box Act'' establishes the submission of separate Social Security budget documents by excluding outlays and receipts of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Program under the Social Security Act thereby preventing Social Security surpluses being used for any purpose other than for retirement benefits.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider legislation to ensure that we will no longer use the Social Security Trust Fund for any other purpose than for what it was intended for. Now, my colleagues might ask, ``Why is this necessary?'' The answer is quite simple. Despite repeated efforts over the years, we have not been able to stop perpetual raids on the Social Security Trust Fund. We have attempted to stop this violation of the trust fund going as far back as 1990. Now, that year we enacted legislation, the Budget Enforcement Act, which removed Social Security taxes and benefits from the budget and from calculations of the budget deficit. That was done to prevent Social Security from masking the true size of the deficit and to protect it from budgetary cuts. The rationale was that if this was done, Congress would not use Social Security in devising the Nation's overall fiscal policies. Historically, the Social Security Trust Fund Board have invested surplus Social Security revenues in U.S. Government securities. These investments are honored just like investments from the private sector. Interest is earned on the monies invested, and returned to the trust fund to help offset long-term obligations to future beneficiaries. It was felt that without such an enforcement mechanism, this practice would continue unless Congress took action to prevent this dishonest bookkeeping from continuing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the 1990 law has not been fully adhered to, and to guarantee honesty in budgeting we must end the misuse of Social Security Trust Fund investments. This Social Security Trust Fund surplus should not be used to fund any other programs, and it should not be used to mask our Nation's debt. We have been very zealous in cutting wasteful spending and reducing the size of our government's bureaucracy. We should keep up our efforts to continue to cut unnecessary and wasteful spending. That is why I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for introducing H.R. 1259 which will, among other things, provide a mechanism to ensure that all Social Security surpluses are dedicated to saving the program and Medicare. I fully endorse this concept and believe we will be fulfilling our pledge to our Nation's seniors if we pass this legislation. We must stop this phoney bookkeeping and leave Social Security money alone. Right now, the trust fund is running a $126 billion surplus and it is used to mask the yearly deficit. In 1997, Congress passed the historic Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which of course reduced wasteful government spending. We believed it was a restraint on Federal spending that has led to a reduction in our yearly deficits. With our Nation's strong economy and fiscal responsibility, there has been a strong revenue growth in this country and it has helped the national Treasury. These two factors make it possible to stop the much-used practice of commingling the Social Security Trust Fund money with the general revenue. So, my colleagues, this week we can make history, make history by standing up for not only what we believe to be right, but what is absolutely necessary if we are going to make good on our promise to save Social Security and Medicare for this and future generations. We can pass H.R. 1259, stop this practice which started when President Lyndon Johnson unified the budget in 1969. It was then that Social Security and the other Federal trust funds were officially accounted for in the entire Federal budget. So this ``Safe Deposit Box Act'' establishes the submission of separate Social Security budget documents by excluding outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and disability program under the Social Security Act, thereby, Mr. Speaker, preventing Social Security surpluses from being used for any other purpose other than for the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare program. So I urge my colleagues tomorrow and this week to support H.R. 1259.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there is a trend going on in America today that is not talked much about, particularly on that side, at least on the national level. It is a phenomenon of party switching, and it is party-switching going in one direction and one direction only, from Democrats to Republicans. Over 390 elected Democrats have switched to the GOP since Clinton and Gore were elected in 1992. Well, the Republican Party would like to welcome the latest party-switcher, State Representative Rudy Bradley of St. Petersburg, Florida. Rudy Bradley is the only black Republican in the 160-member Florida legislature, for now. Here we have a lifetime proud Democrat who has finally come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party simply does not reflect his values or the values of his constituents. He is tired of the Democrats' constant demonizing those who disagree with them. He is tired of rhetoric that says one thing while governing as a tax and spend liberal. He is tired of the attacks on the traditional values that made America great to begin with. Rudy, welcome to the GOP.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 883. This bill asserts that Congress under the U.S. Constitution has the power over federal lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act would give Congress the authority to review, not attack, existing Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site designations, in order to decide if such designations are necessary. I find it troubling that initiatives such as the United Nations Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites have been designated with virtually no Congressional supervision. Also, I find it disconcerting that all of these designations have had virtually no input from state and local officials. Private property rights are a cornerstone to the American heritage. Our founding Fathers protected the rights of land owners. Many people in the United States have found that their private property rights are being restricted because they live in proximity to biosphere reserves. Restrictive regulations that govern these reserves are the brainchild of the United Nations, not the United States government. Land management decisions should be made and reviewed by Congress, not arbitrarily by bureaucratic officials in the Executive Branch or international agencies. What do my colleagues from the other side fear from Congress doing their job? Why do they fear individuals, local, state and federal entities being involved in the process? Congress should not relinquish their duty of maintaining and protecting federal lands. We must ensure the rights of American private property owners at the federal and international level. I urge the passage of this important legislation. Vote yes on H.R. 883.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson successfully gained approval from Congress for a truly visionary project. This project was to become one of America's greatest explorations. Congress appropriated funds for the small U.S. Army unit, led by Lewis and Clark, to explore the Missouri and Columbia rivers. From this exploration, we gained invaluable information for future settlement. Exploration is as engrained into American heritage as freedom is. America is a nation that has been supportive of exploration from our earliest years. Congress is again challenged to appropriate funding for America's continued exploration. The return we receive from every dollar we invest in space exploration is an average of 9 dollars. Space exploration is an extraordinary investment. For the last ten years, I have had the privilege of aiding in the continuation of American exploration. The Space Program is one of the most important areas of exploration that we can support. The benefits of the space program to improving human life are innumerable. Two of the more important results to me personally are in the health field--pacemakers and laser eye surgery. Pacemakers have saved thousands of lives, including the life of one of my staff's father. The technology gained by electronics testing during space flights is priceless. The innovations implemented after space testing has revolutionized life for thousands with pacemakers. Another life improving benefit is laser eye surgery. Lasers being developed by NASA would aid in the early detection of eye disease and spot cataracts before they are severe enough to require surgery. Cataracts in Florida, especially among the elderly are a constant threat, but thanks to a NASA-developed laser light, opthamologists are beginning clinical trials on investigating the early formation, detection and treatment of cataracts. These examples barely scratch the surface. I could continue listing benefits, but time will simply not allow it. The technology created from the space program will improve the lives of all Americans--in many ways--and will be the basis for profound technological advances for generations to come. The space program deserves our continued support.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any group that is more respected and has more credibility when it comes to our Nation's veterans than the American Legion. Mr. Speaker, the Legion, representing over 3 million of our Nation's veterans, has gone on record against our involvement in Kosovo. I would like to share with my colleagues this afternoon a portion of a letter sent to the President by the American Legion about our involvement in Kosovo, and I quote: ``The American Legion, a wartime veterans' organization of nearly 3 million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of American troops participating in Operation Allied Force.'' The letter went on to outline resolution number 44, the American Legion's statement on Yugoslavia that was adopted unanimously by their organization on May 5, 1999: ``This resolution voices grave concern about the commitment of U.S. armed forces to Operation Allied Force unless the following conditions are fulfilled: One, there is a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to engage in Operation Allied Force. Two, guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy. Three, that there be support of the mission by the United States Congress and the American people. Four, that it be made clear U.S. forces will be commanded by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders. The Legion believes that at least three of these conditions have not been met, and if they are not all met, then the President should withdraw American forces immediately.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree with this position. The President has committed the armed forces of the United States in a joint operation with NATO, Operation Allied Force, but has not yet clearly defined what Americans' vital interests are in this region. The American people have a right to know why we are there. The President, in eight weeks of military action, has not properly defined what the specific objectives of NATO are, nor has the White House defined an exit strategy. And if my colleagues will remember, Mr. Speaker, the President promised our Nation that the U.S. military forces would be out of Bosnia in one year. Three years and six months later, U.S. personnel are still in Bosnia, and I expect that they will continue to be there for years to come. How long will our forces be in Kosovo? Will the President claim they will be there for just 1 year once again? I continue to be troubled with America's participation in this conflict. U.S. forces continue to carry the overwhelming share of the military burden, rather than our European NATO allies. Only 13 of NATO's 19 member nations are actively engaged in Operation Allied Force. American pilots are flying some 90 percent of the missions. It also seem to me that the Clinton administration continues to disregard attempts to reach a diplomatic solution. After a bipartisan congressional delegation met with the parliamentary leaders of Russia in Vienna recently to start formulating terms of a negotiated settlement to establish a cease-fire and establish peacekeeping operations, and after Reverend Jackson's successful trip to release the three American servicemen, the administration has not attempted to follow through on any of these overtures. Many of us here in Congress are veterans. We swore an oath to defend our country and her interests. But we must remember, wars are fought to protect national security interests, not for human rights. In fact, no major conflict has been waged solely for the purpose of defending a beleaguered people. The United States has a moral interest in Yugoslavia, but we have no national interest. This conflict violates the conservative principle that goes back to our American Founding Fathers: nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries, except to counter threats to our national interest. Our dedication to free markets and democratic institutions are exportable only by example, not by force. My greatest hope is that we can reach a diplomatic solution to this crisis and bring our men and women home safely. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the American people are suffering from what I call Clinton fatigue. They question our reasons for being in Kosovo, and they now question the bases for which the President is choosing his policy. I include for the Record the full text of the American Legion letter of May 5. The letter referred to is as follows: The American Legion, Office of the National Commander, Washington, DC, May 5, 1999. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: The American Legion, a wartime veterans organization of nearly three-million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of American troops participating in ``Operation Allied Force.'' The National Executive Committee of The American Legion, meeting in Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled ``The American Legion's Statement on Yugoslavia.'' This resolution was debated and adopted unanimously. Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never be committed to wartime operations unless the following conditions are fulfilled: That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities; Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy; That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders. It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions have not been met in the current joint operations with NATO (``Operation Allied Force''). In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States. Sincerely, Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller, National Commander.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, after the terrible tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing in America's public circles and in the media about violence and our youth. It has led to the President holding a conference Monday at the White House to discuss these topics. But are we truly surprised as a Nation about the atmosphere of violence that surrounds our children when our children are taught by our society that it is all right to kill the innocent unborn? A Nation that allows the lives of babies to be taken for convenience will breed a disrespect for all life in our children. But where is the discussion about the effects of abortion on our society? I did not hear from the White House yesterday, and I have not heard it from one talk show that discussed this matter. If we ignore the violence of abortion as a society, who really has the trouble of discerning fantasy from reality, our children or the adults in this Nation?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. If we expect American businesses to continue their global leadership in innovation, productivity and success to drive our economy and create new jobs, they must be given the tools to allow them to compete. One of the fundamental tools of success and competition in the American economy and the high tech community is being free from the burdens of opportunistic lawsuits which are clearly designed to harm American businesses. H.R. 775 does this by placing caps on punitive damages, creating a waiting period on lawsuit filings and establishing a loser pay system. Unless we establish liability protections, many if not most of American businesses will be hesitant to solve any Y2K problems for fear of lawsuits. Let us do what is the right thing here, Mr. Chairman, and pass this bill overwhelmingly.