Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in a press conference in March of this year, the President was asked, ``Can you assure the American people that under your watch no valuable nuclear secrets were lost?'' The President answered, ``Can I tell you that there has been no espionage at the lab since I have been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred.'' Mr. Speaker, on May 3, The New York Times reported a secret report was given to top Clinton administration officials, including the National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, in November of 1998 that warned, ``China posed an acute intelligence threat to our government's nuclear weapons laboratory and that computer systems at the labs were being constantly penetrated by outsiders.'' If the President stated in a press conference not more than 2 months ago that, ``no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing'', while the top national security adviser in the Clinton administration received a classified report about Chinese espionage just 6 months ago, are we to assume that the President was never briefed upon this report? Energy Secretary Bill Richardson acknowledged on Meet the Press this past Sunday that, ``There have been damaging security leaks.'' Obviously, National Security Adviser Samuel Berger was aware of the security leaks of the intelligence report warning the administration. What is the truth, Mr. Speaker? The administration cannot have it both ways. Either Mr. Berger failed in his responsibility of notifying the President or the President in March misled our Nation about reports of espionage. The Times further reported that, ``In April of 1996, Energy Department officials briefed Mr. Berger on the case and how it related to China's nuclear strategy. Mr. Berger took no action and did not inform the President of the matter, White House officials have said.'' That is what we believe. How is Mr. Berger still on the job, Mr. Speaker? There are many troubling issues involved in the suspected spy case emanating from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and I think one of the most troubling is that the suspected Chinese American spy, Wen Ho Lee, was under investigation by the FBI back in 1997. They wanted to monitor Lee's telephone conversations and to access his computer, but the Justice Department denied this request. Why? This case may be the worst espionage committed against our Nation, and the Justice Department quickly denied our chief policing and policy and domestic counterintelligence agency the tools to conduct a proper investigation. Why? Intelligence officials privately state that a denial of such a request is extremely rare. It hardly ever happens. Why did it occur in this case, when the evidence indicated that efforts were under way to steal our most classified information about our most deadly nuclear weapons? What is even more shocking is that the FBI told Energy Department officials in April of 1997 that they could transfer Mr. Lee to a less sensitive job. What did these officials do? They, instead, gave Mr. Lee the job of updating a computerized archives of nuclear secrets. Here we have a suspect possibly passing information about our most secure weapons and the Energy Department places him in charge of their computer upgrades. In addition, the Energy Department allows Mr. Lee to hire his own personal assistant. The person he happened to hire was a Chinese graduate student who has, since this story has broke, disappeared. The FBI has determined that in February of this year Lee tried to delete evidence that he had improperly transferred more than 1,000 computer files containing nuclear secrets. Mr. Speaker, what is going on here? The Justice Department, the Energy Department, the administration all had this evidence. There have been no arrests, and the administration continues to drag its feet in the release of the Cox report. Have we allowed our judgment of China's conduct to be clouded by our desire for trade with China? Have we allowed the White House to compromise the security of every man, woman and child in our Nation for the desire for more profits? I earnestly pray that this is not true. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the recent AP story from Sunday entitled Richardson Says China Stole Secrets on Clinton Watch. [From Reuters, May 9, 1999] Richardson: China Stole Secrets on Clinton Watch Washington--Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said Sunday the Chinese government had obtained nuclear secrets during the Clinton presidency--something the administration had previously denied. Speaking on NBC television's ``Meet the Press'' show, Richardson admitted security breaches had occurred during the Clinton presidency, despite denials by the president. ``There have been damaging security leaks,'' Richardson said. ``The Chinese have obtained damaging information . . . during past administrations and (the) present administration.'' In a March news conference, President Clinton denied the Chinese had secured nuclear secrets during his presidency. ``To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs, during my presidency,'' Clinton said then, referring to allegations of security breaches at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. But The New York Times reported a week ago that counter- intelligence officials had told the Clinton administration in November that China posed an ``acute intelligence threat'' to nuclear arms labs. The Times disclosed in March that a scientist at Los Alamos, Wen Ho Lee, was suspected of helping China obtain arms secrets. China has repeatedly denied the charges and the scientist last week rejected the accusations against him. The Senate intelligence committee said in a report last week that China gained technical information from U.S. companies during satellite launches which will improve its missiles and could threaten the United States. The report capped a 10-month investigation by the committee into the impact on U.S. national security of advanced satellite technology exports to China. Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the intelligence committee, said Sunday, ``This is probably the most serious espionage we have had in this country in modern times.'' Shelby said his committee's investigation uncovered ``very suspicious banking relationships'' which would need further investigation. The Republican from Alabama said millions of dollars were funneled to a small bank in the United States from China, possible as political campaign donations. Bob Kerrey, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, agreed there had been leaks at the Los Alamos lab. ``I have no doubt there has been Chinese espionage at these nuclear labs,'' the Nebraska senator said. ``I have no doubt the efforts to reduce the risk of that espionage was sloppy and not well coordinated and as a consequence has been damaging to the people of the United States.'' Despite the breaches, Kerrey said, the threat to Americans was not on the scale suggested by Shelby. ``This is a very serious case of espionage, a very serious breach of security at the labs, but its very important for us not to overestimate the threat,'' he said.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to come down here to yell and scream, I come down here to speak in a more practical sense. Mr. Chairman, I support the emergency supplemental bill, and I reluctantly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). Let me just say to all those members on this side of the aisle who are thinking about supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). This is a crucial question we have to think about. We have already had the vote with the Goodling-Fowler amendment. It was very clear how Members felt when they supported it: No deployment of ground forces, of the United States Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, et cetera, et cetera. It is very clear. Members have had their vote on this side of the aisle, so Members do not have to go out and make their strong stand on this, because there is a much larger issue we are talking about. When we read the Istook language, the Goodling-Fowler has the word ``deployment'' and Istook had implementation. They are very, very similar. Do Members think they have to make another stand on an emergency supplemental appropriations that is going to affect our military? Mr. Chairman, let me just say, our forces have been engaged in 26 different engagements over the past 8 years, while the U.S. forces had only been engaged in just 10, just 10 from 1961 to 1991. There has been obviously a dramatic escalation of the number of missions, and it has stretched our military dangerously thin, to the point where our military's ability to conduct a two-war strategy is now in question and our entire military readiness is in question. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if they are going to support the Istook amendment, they must realize that those colleagues like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and others who are going to vote against the emergency supplemental are going to effectively stop the military from having its resources. In other words kill this funding for the military. So I do not think the day in court on the deployment or the implementation of forces in Yugoslavia is at this point, at 6:10 tonight, that is not the question. The question is, do we want to support our military. Mr. Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, said, ``without relief, we will see a continuation of our downward trend in readiness next year, and extension of the problems that have become apparent in the second half of this fiscal year.'' The Army Chief of Staff talked about the degradation, complete degradation, of our military. Mr. Chairman, the fight on the budget for our military between us and President Clinton and the administration is not on the Istook amendment tonight. No tonight, it is a vote to support our military. For those who go back to Ronald Reagan and other great conservatives, they are standing tall this day and for this evening for our military: to provide a clear message that we are going to help increase our readiness, and we are not going to get caught in the technicalities on a vote that we have already voted on by saying we are going to draw the straws and defeat this emergency supplemental because the Istook amendment passed. I urge my colleagues to look at this matter in a practical sense, in a broad view here. We stand for increased military readiness, and this is a vote on military readiness. It is not a vote on deployment of the troops. We have already had that vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that our nation's security cannot be ignored, no longer. If Members, my Republican colleagues, decide to support the Istook amendment at the expense of perhaps bringing down the whole entire emergency supplemental appropriations bill, that is not going to be good. If Ronald Reagan was here tonight, I think he would urge my Republicans colleagues by saying, let us defeat the Istook amendment. Think of our military and their readiness.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to what President Clinton promised would be the most ethical administration in the history of our Nation. The Washington Times lead story today details how special envoy to the President, Richard Holbrooke, in the middle of critical negotiations with Yugoslav President Milosevic in 1998, broke off those talks to deliver two speeches in which he was paid $40,000. Now, there is a pesky Federal ethics rule that says for government employees, including unpaid presidential appointees, they are barred from accepting side compensation that relates to the employee's official duties. Quote, just as his talks reached what Mr. Holbrooke said was a dangerous moment, he flew to Athens to give a speech about Kosovo, picking up $16,000 in payment. A few months later, Mr. Holbrooke did the same thing, abandoning diplomatic efforts in the middle of an air- strike deadline to deliver a speech in New York for $24,000. Mr. President, honestly, based upon past comments, he would be the perfect candidate to be Ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week in the Committee on Commerce we are going to have a hearing Thursday, May 6, at 9:30, concerning amendment to the Clean Air Act. I am going to paint a little bit what the problem is, and it is centered at the EPA. In their efforts to really clean up the air what has happened is they have polluted the water, and it is a very interesting, but sad, commentary, and the Governor of California is coming here to testify, and almost all the Members of Congress from California are on the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), which is H.R. 11, and we are going to be holding a hearing on this bill. And let me just give my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of background on this because this shows the unintended consequences sometimes of what we do here in Washington and what the EPA extends further to do. So, if my colleagues will bear with me, imagine a city suddenly faced with contaminated drinking water. The elected officials desperately search for the responsible parties, they want retribution and justice, they want their tainted water supply cleaned up, the guilty must be found, and they must be punished. Now this perhaps sounds like a Hollywood plot, a Hollywood movie, but it is not, and for many communities across this Nation, they are facing this situation. The guilty party is none other than the supposed protector, the Environmental Protection Agency. Tom Randall, a managing editor of the Environmental News, recently brought some articles to my attention. They detail a pollutant being forced upon the American public by the EPA. The pollutant is methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE. Now this may not be a common household word to many, but the EPA, oil companies which were mandated to produce it and many communities across this country are all too familiar with this water polluting gasoline additive. The problem began in 1990 with a misguided amendment to the Clean Air Act which led the EPA to mandate the use of oxygenates in gasoline sold in areas which are out of compliance with clean air standards. Many in this body assumed the EPA had done their homework. In California, they trusted the EPA enough to become the first to use MTBE statewide even in areas not mandated by the EPA. In doing so, they also became the first State to face a water pollution problem we may all face in this country all because the EPA did not do its homework and still has not to this day. These are the facts: There are basically two types of oxygenates: alcohol-based and ether-based. Alcohols are generally used in the Midwest where they are produced, but since they cannot be shipped through pipelines because they pick up water ethers, primarily MTBE, are the only economically feasible choices for the rest of the country. What the EPA apparently did not know back when their mandate went into effect, and they still will not admit, is that MTBE is a powerful and persistent water pollutant and, from leaks and spills, has made its way into groundwater of nearly every State in this Nation; the problem, of course, being worse in California, the harbinger of what will surely come to pass in much of the rest of this country. It takes only a small amount of MTBE to make water undrinkable. It spreads rapidly in both groundwater and reservoirs, and so far attempts to remove MTBE from water have proven difficult and costly. Has the EPA done anything to advance independent peer review research into this? Not at this point, Mr. Speaker. They have appointed a, quote, blue ribbon panel to study it, a panel composed in most parts in part of representatives of MTBE producers and environmental lobbyists which in my opinion have vested interest in protecting the use of this fuel additive. In the meantime, States, universities and the courts are scrambling to clean up the EPA's mess. It is time, Mr. Speaker, we move to help them with meaningful legislation to end the mandates for oxygenates which, by the way, many scientists contend do nothing to reduce air pollution from the majority of cars on the road today. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) have introduced corrective legislation. Mr. Bilbray has introduced H.R. 11 which the Committee on Commerce will be holding a hearing on this Thursday. H.R. 11 allows for California to use alternative methods other than only using the oxygenates in gasoline. I applaud their efforts and encourage State engagement rather than federal mandates. The bill of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), H.R. 1367, would effectively end the use of MTBE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support both of these bills, and I urge my colleagues to support them also.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues' attention to this graph I have here. It shows that the President has neglected the defense budget for the past 6 years, while stretching our troops around the world. There has been laxity, inattention, and actual negligence in guarding our most valuable nuclear secrets. I believe the President has created a national security emergency. There have been truly massive cuts in the defense budget in the area of weapons procurement, all this while using American troops in the role of social workers on humanitarian missions around the world. It is a recipe designed to leave our proud military in a state of emergency, unable to match resources with demands. American servicemen deserve better. Those who serve our Nation should not be put in harm's way when our national security interests are not at stake, and they should be provided with the resources necessary to carry out our mission in a dangerous world. The war in Kosovo has exposed for all the world to see our national security emergency.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, just to confirm what the gentleman is saying, throughout all our military they do not have that type of operations in their classified programs, they do not have that one-pass-fits-all, and I do not think any classified program of that delicate a nature should have be relaxed; in fact, they should have increased security.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just echo what the gentleman says. If nothing else, at some point we in the House should have an up-or-down vote to make the Cox report public if the White House continues to procrastinate on this, and at that point the House can redact or take out the things that they think would compromise some of our agents, but somehow we have to get this report public. So I think the gentleman's effort here this afternoon in trying to say to the American people, this is important to us, this is important to Congress, we have to get to the bottom of this, is right on target. As the gentleman pointed out earlier, the Department of Energy as well as the administration knew all about this a long time ago. They relaxed the security provisions, and that in itself is terrible. The fact that the White House did not move quickly to put in place more secure operations is a sad commentary.

Mr. STEARNS. It was reported on March 24 of this year, he was under investigation as a suspected spy for China to run a sensitive weapons program, and it is just outrageous that they would continue to take a person like this and put him in that responsibility. Then he was asked, as the gentleman knows, to hire his own special assistant. So he hired a special assistant.

Mr. STEARNS. After he was under surveillance, after he was working there. So he hired a researcher who was a citizen of China. Intelligence and law enforcement officials have confirmed this. The FBI has said that they wanted to put a wiretap on Mr. Lee. And so it is sort of flabbergasts the American people, I think, if they look at it, how this individual could get a top secret clearance and get access to so much information.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come down here to the House floor to compliment the gentleman for what he is trying to do, to educate the American people and also educate some of our colleagues, in fact, many of our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I served in the Air Force, and I was in a classified program dealing with top secret material, and the access we had to have to get into the room where we worked was coded, and the code would change, and we would have to punch it in. Then, when we had classified material on our desks, we had to account for this at the end of the day, and we had to account for it the next morning. There were very detailed procedures on how we handled it. What I read today in the paper, and in The New York Times yesterday, is very alarming, and I think the gentleman is talking about this scientist, Wen Ho Lee. It was reported in The New York Times on March 24 that he was already under investigation. Now, the gentleman may have said this and I might have missed it.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe we should send troops into the Balkans--then there is a clear pattern of how you should vote today. If you believe that the War Powers Resolution offers the best means for preventing the president from taking us to war--then you know the course to follow. What we are discussing today is the war in the Balkans. This region is a tapestry of overlapping ethnic rivalries where medieval and modern history are intertwined. As with the Middle East, the situation is very complicated. But where the Middle East resembles a game of checkers, the Balkan region is more like three dimensional chess. The central point is that the Balkans represent a process of history and memory which has created a multiplier effect for violence. It is not a phenomenon of ``modern hate,'' but a monstrous creation partially wrought by the collapse of the multinational Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. It is not a situation open to easy solutions. We are dealing with a primitive ferocity there. Today, we must decide if the President can take the United States further into the Balkan conflict without the approval of Congress. After all, the Constitution invests Congress with the power to make war. To my knowledge, no substantial war with the accompanying carnage has ever been fought solely on the basis of human rights. If they were, then surely we would be fighting around the globe in many countries. Yes, human rights are among the noblest of causes, but wars are fought over national interests. If the President had started this campaign in the right way, by using the full measure of our airpower, this conflict might have been resolved by now. However, this gradual approach has not worked. In fact, this approach has been a common strategic flaw in most of this Administration's military excursions. Who in America would willingly send their son or daughter to die in the Balkans based upon the President's explanation of the events? President Clinton has put our troops in precarious positions over and over again. We should say today that not one service man or woman should be placed in harm's way based upon the President's empty threats or hollow promises. Vote yes to prevent ground troops from being sent into the Balkans. Vote for the Goodling/Fowler Bill. When you find yourself in a hole, it makes sense to stop digging. We need a better policy in the Balkans than we now have, we need to stop digging.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Many people deserve credit for their efforts in getting this bill to the House floor, especially my chairman in the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Tauzin, and the ranking Member in the Subcommittee, Mr. Markey. Mr. Coble also deserves many thanks for his work producing this bill. As our colleagues in the House know, all of our constituents who subscribe to satellite services rightfully expert to receive their local television programming one way or another through their satellite carrier. Until today, our constituents have not had the ability to do so because satellite providers have not had the proper copyright authority to retransmit those signals. The heart of this legislation gives the satellite provider the legal authority to carry the local television signals directly into consumers homes. The other focus point of this legislation is how we manage the transition from today, where no consumers receive their local signals, to when they can. As our colleagues are aware, many consumers had been receiving network channels from television markets in other areas of the country because they could not receive their local signals. Unfortunately, many if not most were receiving those signals illegally because they were within the reach of receiving an over-the- air signal from their local stations. Under current law, as was upheld in federal court, satellite customers can only receive a distant network signals if they reside outside a Grade B signal area for local markets or if they cannot receive a local signal because of topographical barriers. But frankly, in our ever evolving high-tech world, being limited to yesterday's television technology is an anachronistic means of entertainment. The average viewer expects and demands to receive the clearest television picture and audio available. Over-the-air reception does not meet those expectations. That is why this legislation is critical for Americans subscribing to satellite programming. I have two concerns remaining with the legislation, one that is dealt with and one that will hopefully be dealt with. The first: If satellite providers started providing local signals today to consumers, they would not be close to being able to deliver every local channel in every local market. In fact, I believe that providers with their current satellite capacity would be able to deliver all the local channels in just a small handful of markets. These providers would basically have to pick and choose which local markets to serve, which will likely result in rural consumers not being able to receive their local channels. This legislation tries to ease this carriage burden by granting satellite carriers a transition period until January 1, 2002 to comply with must-carry rules, which requires providers to carry all local channels in markets they choose to delivery local signals. I think must-carry is a fair burden for satellite providers because cable operators have to exist under the same conditions. My fear stems from a worry that come January 1, 2002, if these satellite providers continue to lack the capacity to serve every market in the country, they will choose to ignore the smaller and more rural television markets, such as my sixth congressional district in North Central Florida. With the efforts of Chairman Tauzin, this legislation includes a requirement that the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall conduct a study and report to Congress no later than July 1, 2000 primarily whether small and rural markets are being effectively served by their local signals. I thank Mr. Tauzin for including this study language and requiring them to report back to Congress by July 1 of next year, which will hopefully allow us time to make any necessary changes to aid consumers in these type of markets. My final concern is in regard to satellite consumers who own C-Band dishes. A C-Band dish is the big satellite dishes we often see in rural areas. These were the first consumer satellite dishes on the market. Unfortunately, these dish owners are not granted a similar moratorium date that will be given to other satellite consumers to have until the end of this year before they lose their distant network signals. There are over 70,000 C-Band owners in Florida alone and over a million nationwide. I hope as we move to Conference or before the bill returns to the House, this anomaly is corrected to allow an even moratorium for all satellite consumers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, deregulation of the airlines, natural gas, railroads, telecommunications, and trucking industries yields annual savings equal to nearly 1 percent of America's gross domestic product. This Congress, we will attempt to craft a measure that will finally and successfully unleash competition and savings from utility reform, electric deregulation. In recent years, competition has replaced regulation for the electric power industry in a number of nations, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Chile and Argentina. Many took a very long-term approach to this process. The United States faces a unique situation in that our electric power industry is largely already privatized. So we must focus on alternating our current system and effectively fostering more competition. This should not be done through a Federal mandate. Clearly, we would be wise to make the State-mandated restructuring more efficient instead of imposing a separate Federal mandate. I see the ideal measure as one that fosters competition, avoids Federal mandates and lowers rates for all consumers. To create this legislation, we must eliminate outdated laws, inject fairness into the process, and delineate the proper roles of the Federal Government and State governments. But do not misunderstand me: Reforming the electric industry is no simple matter. This is an enormous undertaking. Congress considers the livelihoods of entire industries constitutional questions and the interests of the entire rate-paying public in addressing this very complex issue. Accordingly, we must address these points to fully realize the benefits of energy reform. Every consumer must benefit from this deregulation, not just the large industrial users of electricity. I am concerned that any rush in reforming the electric utility industry could result in large industrial users seeing greater benefits while residential users and small businesses would pay for that benefit. We must honor past regulatory schemes and commitments and allow recovery of stranded investments. Electric utilities incurred ``stranded costs'' under a regulatory scheme not of their choosing. These utilities made long-term decisions based upon decades of regulation. To deny industry the recovery of these costs would go against the fairness I spoke of earlier. That being said, lower costs should be fostered by real deregulation and industrial and regulatory innovation, not by simply shifting costs. We should not merely ``reshuffle the deck'' to see who pays. A significant hurdle to deregulation is the diverse nature of power generators, including public power providers, municipalities, investor- owned utilities, and power marketing associations. Reconciling these disparate views will be a monumental task, yet fairness demands that we produce a level playing field for all energy providers and transmitters. So reforming the energy industry on a Federal level demands clarifying, simply clarifying the roles of the Federal and State governments. Where does the Federal responsibility end and the States' begin? The diverse situation among the States adds to these reform difficulties. Some States have always supported regulation, others have taken progressive stances, while still others, like my home State of Florida, enjoy the benefits of moderately priced electricity and see little need for major reform. Eliminating the barriers to entry into the electric market is fundamental to this reform. We must repeal the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, PURPA, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, to ensure that any transition to retail competition is truly competitive. The entire efficacy of PURPA centered on the supposition that producing electricity would become more expensive. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has become cheaper. Thanks to PURPA, Americans will pay $38 billion in higher electric bills over the next 10 years than they should. Deregulation of the electric industry requires consideration of a myriad of factors. The stakes are very high, but so are the benefits. To that end, I am introducing today a piece of Federal legislation that will change all that. It is called the Electric Energy Empowerment Act of 1999. It will not mandate the States to act, but instead will empower and encourage them to enact measures providing these customers retail competition and choice. My legislation amends the Federal Power Act to clarify jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal authorities, thus empowering the states to enact competitive retail electricity markets. As an incentive for the states to move forward, the legislation includes a reciprocity condition. Further, the legislation eliminates the existing federal barriers to competition: it encourages the establishment of independent transmission system operators, and it deregulates the wholesale market by making the FERC wholesale open access rules applicable to non- jurisdictional entities. I think everyone will agree that we are inevitably moving toward an electricity industry based on competition, market force, and lower rates. This is certainly my goal as I introduce this legislation today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce a bill of historical importance. My home, Ocala, Florida, is home to Fort King. This Fort played a direct role in the founding of Florida as a state. On December 28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of hostilities between the United States Government and the Seminole Indians. The Seminoles, were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This attack began the Second Seminole War, which lasted longer than any other United States armed conflict, except for the Vietnam War. Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. This bill would help preserve Seminole history in Florida. My bill authorizes a study by the Interior Department to identify a means of preserving and developing Fort King. Preserving our past for our children and grandchildren is imperative. Fort King is a historical gem that should be accessible to all. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important, historical bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the upcoming celebration this weekend of the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, of course, on the ongoing military operation against Yugoslavia. The NATO allies will also meet for its annual summit and formally welcome the three new members, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republics. I was watching Nightline on Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, and the subject was NATO and its 50th anniversary. In one segment of the program, they went around Washington, D.C. and actually asked different citizens what they believed the role of NATO should be. Most answered that NATO should be ``peacekeepers for any conflict,'' or that NATO ``should protect humanity,'' or they should stop genocide. With all due respect to their opinions, each of these Americans were not correct about what NATO's initial responsibility should be. NATO was created to be solely a collective security arrangement for the Western allies against Soviet and Eastern Bloc aggression. NATO came into being 50 years ago when the U.S. joined its allies in signing the treaty on April 4, 1949. The U.S. Senate went on to ratify the treaty on July 21, 1949. I am concerned with the current operations against Yugoslavia as a NATO operation. NATO does not have the authority under the current treaty terms to engage in the actions against Yugoslavia. By doing so, the stakes have been raised dramatically high. The President has allowed NATO to be put into a position that in order to prove its validity and effectiveness in a post-Cold War world, NATO has to win this war at all costs. This rigidity has prevented the administration and our NATO allies to take the sensible steps on seeking diplomatic solutions. In fact, the administration last week flatly refused to consider a possible diplomatic opening that Germany was trying to seek with Yugoslavia. Again, the President is intentionally raising the stakes in this engagement that makes anything less than our all-out victory a defeat. This strategy places U.S. prestige and ability to carry out our will in the world at tremendous risk. As stated before, this operation also brings into question the purpose of NATO in today's world. The current operation against Yugoslavia is draining our military capability. There are some reports that the Navy was down to 200 cruise missiles in the theater of operation. Nightline reported last night that out of over 6,000 sorties flown in the last 28 days, only 1,700 have been bombing missions. After 6 years of stretching our military too thin, the administration has placed our Nation's military abilities at dangerously low levels. The shrinking cruise missile supply, combined with our military having to convert our nuclear-tipped missiles to conventional warheads, places our abilities in a global scale at hazardous levels. If our Nation is faced with a second conflict, the security of the world is at great peril. During this weekend's NATO summit, the NATO leaders will discuss changing the strategic concept of NATO from a defensive organization towards a more proactive force to combat new global risks such as proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The administration seems to want NATO to be a global force ready to tackle any trouble in the world. If this administration seeks to change the basic concept of NATO, it would violate the U.S. Constitution. Here is why. The treaty signed in 1949 was to provide for the defense of Western Europe. Any change to that treaty would require a new treaty, and therefore confirmation by the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds majority. Mr. Speaker, it seems this administration is out to conduct a military action here. Secretary Madeleine Albright recently stated, ``The military are our regulars now, so this is their job. What else would they be doing if we didn't give them their battles to fight?'' Secretary Albright also recently testified before Congress and said, ``I would rather be up here defending myself for not having a plan than having to defend myself for not doing anything.'' So, Mr. Speaker, when we have this kind of rhetoric from the White House, choosing to use our military in a questionable war because the military has ``nothing better to do,'' or that their use without a strategy is better than ``not doing anything,'' is when events like Vietnam occur.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last year the Russians begged the International Monetary Fund and our Nation for further assistance. We provided up to $4.8 billion that was supposed to go to economic stabilization, but most of the $4.8 billion disappeared into the secret bank accounts of corrupt Russian officials who control Russia. Robert Novak writes in this week's newspaper, ``The monetary support for the country's currency allowed members of the Russian power structure to convert personal holdings into dollars. In that way, a substantial amount of the IMF funds ended up in numbered Swiss bank accounts.'' Now the Russians are begging for another $5 billion of U.S. taxpayer- backed loans and the Clinton administration is holding out the IMF carrot for Russia's help in dealing with Serbia. U.S. taxpayers' money should never be risked in these foreign loan misadventures that go directly into the pockets of the most corrupt.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. At least. So I think that this is a fair example of why we need to have this tax limitation amendment. Benjamin Franklin did say, as the gentleman from Texas said, that in the end it is all death and taxes; but the problem is, he goes on to say that this is a dead idea. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, they have passed this; Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington. So these are States that believe in this concept, and I think it is a time that has come to this House, just like the balanced budget amendment and like welfare reform. I remember this side of the aisle saying, oh, no, we cannot have welfare reform. We cannot have immigration reform. We cannot have balanced budget reform. When we look at our Constitution, we have had lots of amendments to try and improve it. In this case, a simple two-thirds vote by both the House and Senate for taxes is extremely important, because most Americans today are paying almost 40 percent of their income for taxes. In 1941, Federal taxes were 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product. During the 1960s, Federal taxes approached as much as 20 percent. So we need to set in place a system that we cannot have taxes without a supermajority, and of course, in the Constitution we had this supermajority standard for amending the Constitution, impeaching the President, ratifying international treaties. So why not have the same standard when deciding to take money, literally money, from the American people out of their pockets? So I think a supermajority is very necessary. Although the economy is in good shape right now, taxes are still the highest they have been since World War II. When I hear this side say that this vote is going to allow tax loops for the wealthy or this bill provides special provision for people, I do not know what they are talking about because basically whenever they start talking about tax cuts for the rich they are talking about increasing big government. It is just a cover for it. So all this amendment basically does is say, let us try to limit this Federal Government from taking more money out of our pockets. Let us have a supermajority to do so. I hope all of my colleagues will support it.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), happy birthday to her husband who is working all day today for the Federal Government, because he will continue to work all the way until the end of May to pay for all of his taxes that he has to pay.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the ongoing military action against Yugoslavia and the reservations that many of us have concerning U.S. involvement. Go back with me for a moment to Carl von Clausewitz, who probably has been quoted as the foremost military strategist in modern history, his writings were published posthumously on military strategy in 1832, one year after death, in a book entitled ``On War.'' One of the key principles advanced by him that I think has relevance today, even though it was written in 1832, was in regard to military action, what is the political objective and, more importantly, in regard to military action against Yugoslavia because he indicated that political objective is a prime organizer for war. He writes, quote: The political objective, the original motive for the war, will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires. What he was saying is that once you state what your political objective is to be, you then tailor your military strategy in order to achieve victory according to the original political objective, and this is the heart of my difficulties with our current military operation. The President has propagated ever-shifting political objectives. By my own calculations, he has had at least three different stated political objectives in Kosovo. The first stated objective by the administration was to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo by the Yugoslavian Serbs. So what was the military strategy created to achieve a victory by President Clinton? They decided we would bomb the Serbs in order to prevent the wiping out of the Kosovars. Mr. Speaker, the result has been failure. The administration's plans set the table for failure, and it resulted in the removal of at least 500,000 Kosovars from their homes and the killing of countless men and women and children. The sad fact is that intelligence sources have leaked that they warned the President and the administration beforehand that the likely result of bombing would be to trigger the Serbian assault on the Kosovars. So, did the President and his advisers take into account the advice of our intelligence services and create a strategy to achieve victory according to his first objective? No. They ignored their advice and began the bombing which resulted in the misery that has enveloped the Kosovars. Now the second objective, Mr. Speaker, was then to reduce the Serbs' warmaking ability. Again, the strategy was to continue bombing. Well, the results have been mixed. The United States Air Force has successfully punished Serbian forces, destroyed the infrastructure assets, and attacked political objectives such as a foreign ministry building in Belgrade. The bombing has yet, however, to weaken the hold on the power of Milosevic, and it is difficult to tell at this point how much maximum damage has been done to the Serbian Army. They still fully occupy the Kosovar province. Now the third objective was to repatriate the Kosovars back to their homes. The military strategy to achieve this objective apparently is to continue bombing. Many of us wonder whether bombing will accomplish this last objective. So the results are still to be determined, and to my knowledge the U.S. Government has not even begun negotiations with the Yugoslav Government to bring about the return of the Kosovars, end the bombing, and create some sort of political solution to give the Kosovars a limited autonomous state. The lack of diplomacy by this administration during this crisis has been counterproductive, and it has in addition greatly strained our relationship with Russia. The administration has even had a chance to have our three American soldiers released through a limited cease-fire during the Orthodox Good Friday, but the administration refused even to allow any discussions to take place to have our men released. So finally, Mr. Speaker, many in Congress are probably wondering why people on this side of the aisle are a little hesitant to support the President during this military conflict. We remember the President's lack of military service and his written opinion of his dislike for the American military. Many of us remember when the President denied American soldiers the proper equipment and placed them under non- American command in Somalia, which resulted in the gruesome deaths of 18 young Americans. So, Mr. Speaker, we are unsure that the President knows how to attain military victory in Kosovo against Yugoslavia.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I find there is much to disagree with in the Clinton budget, but I want to focus on two areas just in the 60 seconds that I have. First of all, when the President's budget came before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of which I serve and I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, said it was a pack of cards, house of cards. He recognized as well as all of the Republicans and Democrats that basically it was underfunded. The second point is that, not only was it underfunded, but the whole budget process in terms of where they thought they would get the money to pay for the items they were talking about was not really there. Smoke and mirrors. So the Republicans on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs supported increasing the amount of money for veterans, and we proposed an almost $2 billion increase. The Democrats on this side said they want to do $3 billion. We thought it out, and we decided that the compromise was $2 billion. We put forth that, and we passed it out of our committee. It passed with bipartisan support. There were about four Democrats who voted for the Republican position. So I think the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and others were courageous in their attempt to increase the veterans budget, and I am glad we did. Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, for bringing his FY 2000 budget resolution to the floor today. Thomas Jefferson stated: The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public money. These words still hold today. I support the Kasich budget because it does what I believe needs to be done. It establishes a ``safe deposit box'' so that Social Security funds cannot be raided, it provides for debt reduction, controls spending while increasing defense spending, and provides much-needed tax relief. Furthermore, it increases funding for education and provides an increase of more than 1 billion for veterans health care over the President's budget. I am troubled by the President's FY 2000 budget because it would increase domestic spending by $200 billion, increase taxes by over $100 billion, it would create 120 new government programs, and it would break the spending caps put in place in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Ironically, the President, who talks a good game when it comes to education, has proposed cutting special education (title VI block grants) by $375 million. Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of the President's budget would erode all the hard work and effort it has taken to cut wasteful spending and reduce the size of government. While I find there is much to disagree with in the President's budget, I want to focus on two areas in his proposal that I find particularly intolerable. As a veteran I find the administration's budget to be short of support for our Nation's men and women who served their country in time of need. The President's budget is a mockery and I believe that he must be held accountable for sending us such a woefully inadequate VA budget, especially as it relates to VA medical care. As chairman of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, I know all too well how difficult it is to meet the health care needs of our Nation's veterans. In fact, when VA Secretary Togo West presented the administration's budget, I suggested that he might want to resubmit a new one because the one he was submitting seeks no funding increase for VA medical care above the 1999 baseline level. That makes our job even more difficult. The President's budget doesn't address how the VA will find the money to pay for fixed cost increases of $870 million for inflation and salaries, at least $135 million in new costs for hepatitis, and estimated $250 million to meet emergency care obligations, increased medication and prosthetics of $150 million, and a shortfall of $100 million in medical collections. I have long believed that these third party payer collections should be a supplement to and not instead of guaranteed health care dollars. The other area of concern I have is with how the President deals with Social Security. During the last election we heard a lot about saving Social Security. The President criticized Congress for not doing enough to save the Social Security program. He pledged to and I quote, ``save Social Security first'' and to dedicate 100 percent of the surplus for that purpose. However, as is so often the case, what he says and what he does are sometimes at odds. The budget he presented to Congress uses not 100 percent of the surplus for Social Security. Not 90 percent, not 80 percent, not 70, but 60 percent of future surpluses would go to the trust fund. Now, Mr. President, which is it all of the surplus, 60 percent of the surplus, or will you change your mind again at some future date. I don't think we should play politics with the budget, especially when it comes to our Nation's veterans and seniors. They made our country what it is today and I, for one believe we owe them a debt of gratitude. Smoke and mirrors to pay for your new programs is one thing, but breaking a pledge we made with these individuals is another. I'm committed to making sure that our Nation's veterans and our seniors are treated with the dignity they deserve.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, remember in 1996 when the President stood right up there and he said the era of big government is over? Remember that? Well, he proposed this year 80 new spending programs. There are a number of folks, Democrats on this side of the aisle, who would like to take the Social Security money and use it to increase government spending, make the government bigger and more intrusive more than ever; and that is why Republicans are taking 100 percent of the retirement surplus and putting it into a safe deposit box for Social Security and Medicare. If my colleagues look at this chart, again, the President's budget cuts $9 billion from Medicare. It busts the budget caps by $30 billion and raises taxes by $172 billion. Republicans are trying to take 100 percent of the retirement surplus and put it into a safe deposit box for Medicare and Social Security. The choice is clear. More Washington spending or a responsible approach to the coming Social Security and Medicare crisis.