Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas talked about his desire to have it amended or changed to put in place the words ``acts or service of extraordinary service.''

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, and I would just say as a quick comment before I start my statement, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) a good friend who I respect, that his complaints about the veterans' budget should have been made to the President of the United States because the President provided a budget that was underfunded, as the ranking member of our Committee on Veterans' Affairs said of the Veterans budget, it is a house of cards, and both he and I know that all during the testimony that all of us felt that the budget was inadequate. I hope in the future that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) will take the time to sit in the Cabinet office and explain to Mr. Togo West, who is the Secretary of Veterans, how important it is to provide a budget that is properly funded. When the Secretary presents a budget to us all we should do is add or amend and not have to take a whole new rigorous approach and add more money like we did in our Veterans Committee. So I compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for taking the initiative in the face of many people in this House who think that our veterans are a declining population and they do not need additional services. But I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of H.R. 70, and commend our chairman for his leadership in tackling this question surrounding burial at the Arlington National Cemetery. The legislation we take up was developed on a bipartisan basis to set clear eligibility standards for burial at this hallowed national military cemetery. The House took up and passed a very similar bill in the last Congress. It is important, however, that the record be clear on what prompted that legislation. Arlington Cemetery was created for one reason, to honor the memory of those who died as a result of their military service. Yet, as an in- depth Committee on Veterans' Affairs' investigation disclosed, there have been two possible routes to burial at Arlington. One route was to meet strict eligibility rules. The other was through the grant of a waiver or exception. The use of waivers has allowed burial of the remains of individuals who never even served in the military. The waiver practice not only runs afoul of Arlington's historic roots, but it invites inconsistencies, favoritism and inequities. The waiver process has been a path for the very privileged and the well connected. Such a practice is not only intolerable in itself, but each exception deprives future survivors of a military burial at Arlington for their loved ones. The sad fact is that Arlington will run out of space for in-ground burials by the year 2025 unless it is expanded. So, Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting, therefore, that this bill eliminate the waiver exception and codify appropriate standards. Despite our committee's long work on this subject and a 412 to 0 vote on the 105th Congress, there are a few on the other side who said they want to amend this bill or change this bill, and perhaps in a way it is sort of a turnabout from that 412 to 0 vote we had in the 105th Congress. As they proposed, it would allow burial at Arlington for anyone whose act, service or contribution to the United States are extraordinary. That is what they would like to do. ``Extraordinary'' is the word they use over and over again. Now ``extraordinary'' can mean a lot of different things to a lot of people. For example, I mean just to take an exaggerated example, Tom Brokaw wrote a great book that is at the top of the New York Times best sellers' list about the heroic acts of World War II. Would he, if this book was very popular, be allowed because of extraordinary achievement in the journalistic world? And, to take another exaggerated example, if Madonna who went around and entertained veterans hospitals for many years, would she be allowed because of extraordinary service? Or even Steven Spielberg, could he be buried at Arlington because of a future Private Ryan movie? So, I think, as my colleagues know, those exaggerated examples show that this ``extraordinary'' status that is included in their language is really sort of a turnabout from what we are trying to specify here today. So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I urge support for codifying the current eligibility requirements as proposed in H.R. 70. They do not consider how famous a veteran was, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, they should not. Our country can find other means to honor those who make great contributions in the sciences, the arts, the letters, the politics, the sports and other fields, no matter how extraordinary they may be. But Arlington, Arlington Cemetery belongs to our veterans, and we should keep it that way.

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would yield just for another point, the point I was going to try to make in this discussion is we have never mentioned the word ``heroics,'' as my colleagues know. We are talking about individuals that had heroic behavior in the service, and I think we should recognize that is the purpose and the value of Arlington Cemetery, is to recognize people who have extraordinary heroic behavior. So that is the point I wanted to make, and I thank that gentleman for having yielded.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of great concern for the direction of our Nation's foreign policy, as President Clinton is on the brink of placing our Nation at war against the independent sovereign nation of Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, let us not be mistaken. If the President issues orders to begin an air assault against Yugoslavia, the United States would, in effect, be at war with this country. What will this war achieve? The President has yet to explain what our strategy is aimed to achieve. Will we bomb this country in order to force them to agree with a peace agreement that is not in effect? What I fear is that this President has yet to think through the implications of an air attack and to think through a long-term strategy regarding this situation in Kosovo. Do Members of this body know what the administration plans to do if an air attack against Yugoslavia fails to force the Serbians to agree to a vague peace treaty? Does the United States with NATO further escalate the bombing to attack fixed military targets around the Yugoslavian capital of Belgrade? Do we escalate our actions by placing ground troops in a hostile situation on the ground in Kosovo? Do we try to seal off a largely landlocked nation? Do we try to use military troops in the non- NATO nations of Romania and Bulgaria to enforce an embargo? Mr. President, what happens if the Serbs in Bosnia react against any bombing and start attacking U.S. and NATO forces there? What if Russia reacts in some form in defense of Yugoslavia? Mr. President, what is the idea for success here? Not just an end game but how are we going to achieve success? What if an American flier is shot down and captured? Mr. Speaker, we are headed down a very dangerous road without any type of compass to guide our policy. To me, the lack of comprehensive foreign policy by this administration has led us to this hazardous point. The President must come before our Nation and tell our Nation three things: What is the long-term strategy of the United States in Yugoslavia? What is the end-game to achieve military success in this operation? What actions will the President take if military actions fail to achieve any stated goals or if military action devolves into the loss of American lives? Mr. Speaker, until the President communicates this message to the American people, the mission's success in Yugoslavia will be limited. I call on the President to let the American people know today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of establishing a national missile defense system. We live in a new foreign policy world where uncertainty instead of order reigns. That uncertainty has been exacerbated by the mismanagement of our foreign affairs by this Administration. The Clinton Administration has failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, long-term strategy of advancing American interests. The lack of such a policy has allowed the world's tyrants to increase their military capabilities, especially in the area of developing the ability to deliver offensive ballistic missiles against our nation, against our interests, and against our allies. It is foolish to think our nation can stand pat on our ability to defend our nation and our interests against such threats. Refusing to develop a missile defense for our nation would not be a mistake, it would be malfeasance of office. We have been elected to protect our citizens and our nation. Passing H.R. 4 will begin the process of developing the proper missile defense system.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation with strong bipartisan support that will not only save American consumers billions of dollars. It will also remove a significant federal barrier to a more competitive electric power industry. More than 20 years ago, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was enacted as one of the original components of the Carter Energy Plan. Convinced that we were running out of natural gas and that the price of oil would soar to $100 per barrel or even more by the year 2000, Congress passed PURPA to encourage conservation and promote the use of renewable fuels to generate electricity. It did this by establishing a special class of power generators known as qualifying facilities (``QF's'') and it required utilities to buy all the electricity that these facilities wished to sell at a price determined generally by federal regulators and specifically by state regulators. Congress sought, in drafting PURPA, to ensure that customers would pay no more for PURPA power than they would have to pay for other power. It did this by providing in PURPA that the maximum price for electricity from QF's would be the cost that the purchase utility would have incurred if it had generated the electricity itself or had purchased it from a source other than the QF. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case because government projections of utility avoided costs have been seriously in error. One recent study estimates that PURPA is costing electricity consumers nearly $8 billion a year in excess power costs. Since over 60 percent of PURPA contracts will not expire until after the year 2010, consumers will continue to pay these excess costs well into the future. PURPA also stands in the way of a more competitive electric industry. By granting special status to some electricity generators, but not others, PURPA encourages the creation of uneconomic projects just to qualify for PURPA benefits. Moreover, PURPA was premised on utilities continuing to be the exclusive suppliers of electricity to all consumers within their franchise territories. In many states today, customers have the ability to choose their own electric supplier. Requiring utilities to purchase new PURPA power when they may no longer have retail customers to whom they can resell power makes no sense. With 20 years of experience behind us, it is clear that PURPA has outlived its usefulness. My legislation would do three things to reform PURPA: (1) It would prospectively repeal PURPA's mandatory purchase obligation on the date of enactment, so that there would no longer be any new obligations to purchase this power; (2) it would respect the sanctity of existing PURPA contracts; and (3) it would ensure that purchasing utilities would continue to be permitted to recover the costs of existing PURPA contracts as long as these contracts are in effect. As I said upon introduction of virtually identical legislation during the last two Congresses, my only interest in introducing this bill lies in achieving the most efficient and most cost-effective means of electric generation for America's consumers. While it would prospectively repeal PURPA and would ensure that no new PURPA contracts would be required, it recognizes the legitimate current expectations of QF developers and utility purchasers. I believe that it represents a broad based consensus on this important issue and I would urge that this measure be included in whatever electric industry legislation might be considered by this Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of House Resolution 32. I would say to my colleagues, I also had a similar resolution in the last Congress, which was House Resolution 281. This had bipartisan support with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrbacher) and also the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney). I want to put into the record some of the things in this House resolution because I think Mr. Habibie might want to adopt some of the things that were in my House resolution, so just as a matter of record and courtesy, I would like to provide that. My House resolution expressed a sense of Congress that the United States should support a complete transition that will lead immediately to a democratically-elected nonmilitary government in Indonesia, which includes, one, the release of all political prisoners; two, legalization of political organizing activities; international monitoring of human rights conditions; roundtable all-party discussion; a transitional government of national unity; of course, democratic elections; a truth commission to address past political crimes; and recognition that past injustices require redress. As many have already pointed out, we are heartened by the transitional government of President Habibie and the fact that he has scheduled elections on June 7. I hope later this year he will schedule elections for president and vice president. I think many of us would have preferred elections earlier but I can understand the need for stability in the transition. Congress and the United States must speak with a strong voice. We are doing that this afternoon in supporting free democratic elections. This resolution does so, and I compliment the authors. The international community should understand the United States is serious here and we will make an investment of legislation and House resolutions to make our point. We need to continue to transmit our belief to Indonesia about Americans' constitutional history that places the power of government solely in the hands of democratically elected civilians, and the House and the Senate have an opportunity to communicate those principles by adopting this House resolution. I commend the authors, and I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for the time.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Today, Mr. Speaker, there is one issue that I hear an awful lot about from constituents in my district. I just finished eight town meetings. The question they ask me repeatedly is why are Medicare health maintenance organizations no longer available? It is not an easy question to answer because the issue is a complex one and there is no simple explanation. Today I would like to share with Members my understanding of some of the major reasons why HMOs have decided not to renew their plans in central Florida and elsewhere in this country. Thus far this action has affected over 440,000 Medicare beneficiaries across this country. Mr. Speaker, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 restructured the system for setting the rates by which Medicare pays HMOs. The Balanced Budget Act may have been overly ambitious in setting its deadlines and these ambitious deadlines may be having the opposite effect. HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, created numerous problems by issuing interim final regulations that contain overly expansive interpretations of the BBA and are frankly contrary to congressional intent. HCFA also has been rigid in its implementation of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, even though the act called for flexibility in implementing the new Medicare choice. Nevertheless, HCFA has chosen to be heavy-handed and these regulations have led to less rather than more options and choices for Medicare beneficiaries. Health plans must also be more flexible to the new Medicare program. The new payments, the requirement for implementation of a risk adjuster, new patient protections with their emphasis on quality and the user fee for providing information to beneficiaries all must be taken into consideration. However, Mr. Speaker, the primary question we are talking about this morning is the disparity in the payments to the various counties. I believe the payment methodology is the main reason why payments are falling behind the rate of medical care inflation and that is why the HMO plans are leaving the Medicare program. In addition, HCFA has decided to implement a new methodology for calculating the adjusted community rate (ACR). This is how health plans determine the minimum amount of Medicare noncovered benefits that they must provide and the premiums that they can charge for such benefits. The deadline may have been unworkable under the existing time frame. So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the most compelling reasons for HMOs leaving was that they were asked to file their adjusted community rate, by May 1. It was just not feasible. There should have been more flexibility by HCFA. I wrote a letter to the HCFA administrator to express my concern about the fact that the plans were required to submit proposals by May 1 instead of the traditional November 15 deadline based upon the regulations that were not issued until mid-June of that year. In central Florida, I have found that many of my constituents no longer have HMOs. They are concerned, I am concerned, and others of us on the Committee on Commerce have expressed deep concern to the administrator of HCFA and we are hoping that the flexibility that is required in the program will be implemented by the new administrator. The plans that withdrew their Medicare HMO coverage indicated they did so because of the new filing date for ACR's coupled with the knowledge that the risk adjuster proposal being designed by HCFA could result in less payments to plans. So, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others we now must act. We need to act in a bipartisan manner to help create real choice in Medicare which includes HMO's for all of our senior citizens.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I will be introducing the Broadcast Ownership for the 21st Century Act with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). Our bill will broadly deregulate the confining ownership limitations imposed by the FCC on the television broadcast industry. As we approach the dawn of a new century, it is time to reform the antiquated rules and regulations of the FCC that they cling to in an effort to replicate the communications world of the 1950s. Mr. Speaker, today's entertainment choices are numerous and varied. There is cable. There is direct satellite broadcast. There is Internet. We are moving into high-definition television. Back in the 1950s, we had three, four, five channels; today we have over 200-plus channels, and many of them are digital. We must allow our American corporations in the broadcast industry to compete in the international area as well. So the objective of our bill is deregulate and allow competition. The FCC has failed to properly respond to a vastly different marketplace. This agency appears to be consumed with a regulatory model of government rather than the trimmed down, free-market approach that the American people would like and one that the rest of the world is beginning to embrace. The modern economics of free, over-the-air television is rapidly changing. The local broadcasters and networks continue to see steady decline in viewers who are attracted to cable and satellite programming, or who are using the Internet more and more as an entertainment option. In addition, the broadcasters and networks are faced with ever- increasing costs for programming, especially sports programming. Profitability and success hinges on their ability to create and own more and more of their own programming. The broadcast industry has also begun their conversion to digital by beginning to deploy digital facilities. They have already begun delivering a digital signal in America's top markets. The industry will spend the better part of the next decade creating digital programming and transforming their facilities to an all-digital environment. The estimated cost of one digital television camera alone runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. When all is said and done, each individual broadcaster will have to spend millions and millions of dollars converting to digital. Mr. Speaker, if we deregulate this industry, they will be able to compete and succeed. As everyone can see, the economics of the broadcast industry today are based upon increasing costs and shrinking profits. Unless that formula is changed, the era of free over-the-air television will never be the same. What the American people have come to expect as quality network and local programming may be altered to a world of syndicated reruns and limited original programming. The heart and soul of America's favorite form of entertainment will become one based on pay services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempted to provide relief for broadcast ownership. For instance, the Telecom Act asked the FCC to review all existing rules and regulations and eliminate those that were unnecessary. In addition, the act required the FCC to review the existing duopoly rules, which limit ownership to just one television station in a local market, in order to provide relief when needed. The act also specifically instructed the FCC to grandfather all television local marketing agreements, LMAs. Well, Mr. Speaker, three years later, the FCC has failed to act and we need to move forward. Let us get the FCC to act today. This bill will provide a great nudge. The Stearns-Frost-Oxley bill will revise the duopoly rules to allow UHF-VHF ownership combinations in the same local market and to allow UHF-VHF combinations in separate local markets that may have overlapping coverage contours, such as in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore markets. This bill will also permanently grandfather all LMAs. But, Mr. Speaker, within this bill, it still allows the FCC to have unusual powers. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that permitting such ownership, operation, or control will not significantly harm competition or will not significantly harm the preservation of the diversity of media voices in the television market, then it will allow them to move forward. Mr. Speaker, many nations prevent American companies from owning any percentage of their domestic broadcast industry. We must institute reciprocity and this bill starts this process now. Our bill will allow only those nations that will allow reciprocal ownership arrangements for American companies or individuals to move into American markets. So this legislation will fundamentally change the economic dynamics of the broadcast industry to continue its vibrant tradition. To provide reciprocity. To help broadcasters to eliminate duplicative efforts. To make them more competitive and decrease regulation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of the bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the past when we shut the Federal Government down, the government employees were not paid but Members of Congress and the President and the Senate of course were. So today I am introducing legislation to provide for comparable treatment of Federal employees, Members of Congress, and the President if there is a Federal Government shutdown. I think, in good conscience, if we are asking our Federal employees to suffer the consequences, then we in this House should, too. Maybe we would think more carefully about shutting this place down. If my colleagues believe, as I do, that it is only right and just that we also forgo our paychecks, then I hope they will join with me in asking Congress and the President to put our paychecks where our values are and not expect special treatment in the event we shut the Federal Government down. Show their support for Federal workers by cosponsoring my bill, which I intend to drop this morning. I look forward to the support of my colleagues.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 438, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act, which will begin creating a national, seamless emergency system. In today's world, a wireless telephone user cannot automatically, believe it or not, dial 911 in order to reach emergency personnel. For instance, if you go into the State of Nevada, a citizen would have to dial NHP, that is right, NHP. In Arkansas, a resident would have to dial 55. And somebody in Virginia would have to call 77 or put the star sign 77 or the pound sign 77 to get the 911. So, for many of us, we felt that was not right. So this legislation would require the FCC to designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number for both wireless and wireline calls. The bill also would require the FCC to provide support to the States in their development of their Statewide plans. As the Chairman knows, the House passed similar legislation overwhelmingly in the last Congress with my support and others. But the previous bill contained a glaring provision that should not have been included in the bill. The previous legislation unnecessarily co-opted local decision-making authority regarding access to Federal sites in deploying necessary equipment for the transmission of wireless networks. The previous bill wanted to establish an ability to fund the creation of a seamless 911 system, but frankly, in my opinion, it was done at the detriment of local officials playing a role at deciding the location of wireless towers. This mistake has been corrected in this version, which makes the bill more palatable, especially for our colleagues in the Senate. Obviously, it will likely pass the other body, I think, with ease. It is necessary this morning and imperative to allow our local cities and counties to play a primary role in tower siting issues that affect, of course, their local communities. Another important change in the bill is the provision to grant liability protection to wireless providers. The liability protection will establish a legal parity between wireline providers and wireless companies that have to carry emergency calls on their systems and help provide emergency services. Wireless providers should and will have equal protection under the law as wireline providers do. Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 438 would also grant privacy protection to wireless consumers by prohibiting carriers from releasing a user's location information. Location information will only be given to emergency personnel responding to an emergency call and will be given to family members to notify them of the emergency situation. Location information can also be distributed with the wireless consumers consent. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the work that the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) has done, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) has done, and also the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), and keep up the good work.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing legislation to require a separate vote before we raise the debt ceiling. A lot of my colleagues will ask, why is this legislation necessary? Because often we allow the practice of raising the debt ceiling, the debt limit, to continue without a recorded vote. It is hidden within the budget resolution and passes without notice and, of course, without a vote. Initially, this rule was added in the 96th Congress by public law and was originally applicable to concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1980. The rule was amended in the 98th Congress to reflect the enactment into law of a new permanent rather than temporary debt limit. The rule ties a passage of a concurrent budget resolution to an increase or a decrease in the limit of the public debt. Legislation to repeal Rule XXIII would simply force Congress to vote separately on any increase in the public debt limit. Repealing this rule would simply force a floor vote on an increase or a decrease in the public debt; and this is a positive move, I think, for all of Americans. Again I pose the question: Why is this so important we have such a vote? If we do not pass and repeal this Rule XXIII, we will continue to raise the debt limit with no type of accountability. I would like to share with my colleagues some statistics that I think will help them to understand the relevance of what I am talking about. In 1994, the debt ceiling of the United States Treasury was about $49 billion, and we had a population then of about 132 million people. That is roughly about $370 per person. Our population today is about 276 million people, and our debt now is approaching $6 trillion. That is about $22,450 per person. In the 58 years since 1940, the U.S. population has doubled. Yet the debt ceiling has risen to about 121 times its 1940 level. Now, when we start to talk about almost $6 trillion, that kind of figure is beyond the understanding of most of us. If we put it in inches, it is the distance from the earth to the sun. In terms of the population of all of the earth, it is about $1,000 for every person. It is a huge amount of money. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, House Rule XXIII stipulates, ``upon the adoption by Congress of any concurrent resolution, the enrolling clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare an engrossment of a joint resolution, increasing or decreasing the statutory limit on the public debt.'' In other words, simply passing a budget subsequently raises the public debt limit. There are no votes on the matter, no floor debates, no nothing. Rule XXIII simply states that a vote for the budget ``shall be deemed to have been a vote in favor of'' raising the public debt limit. It is way too easy here today and far too painless for us on the House floor to raise this public debt. It should not be easy, and it should not be painless, and we should have full debate. In fact, it should be very difficult; and, at the very least, it should be a publicly debated matter with a record vote. So, Mr. Speaker, to remedy this situation I have this legislation which I will be dropping this morning; and I urge all of my colleagues to support it and just to call my office if they would like to be a cosponsor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the recent State of the Union Address recognizes the Nation's obligation to our men and women in uniform, but the President was silent about the debt we owe them as veterans. Nevertheless, he disclosed a plan in his speech which could affect them. Specifically, he announced an intention to bring suit against tobacco product manufacturers to recover costs incurred by government health care programs. Members may not be aware that the VA health care system is spending more than $3 billion annually caring for veterans' smoking-related illnesses. The administration is certainly aware of that fact, but it has yet to commit to providing any recoveries from this lawsuit for veterans' health care. Surely any recovery under a suit based at least in part on the veterans' medical system should be used to strengthen that system and improve veterans' care. For that reason I am introducing the Veterans Tobacco Trust Fund Act of 1999, and I urge all my colleagues to be cosponsors. This bill would set in place a requirement that any tobacco settlement from the lawsuit also include an allocation of funds for veterans' health care. I hope the executive branch will support my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleagues this morning: How can the budget be in surplus if the debt went up last year by $109 billion? Indeed, how can the budget be in surplus if the debt is projected to go up another $101 billion this year, and another $90 billion the year after that? Did anyone question these numbers, numbers which were released on January 29 by the Congressional Budget Office? Mr. Speaker, is there a single Member in this body who can deny that the national debt will continue to rise until the year 2005? It is interesting that we have become too careless with our language, or perhaps crafty, that the next few years of budget surplus will result in billions and billions of dollars more in debt over the next 6 years. The reason for this situation, of course, is the social security trust fund. The temporary surpluses in the social security trust fund are masking the true size of the deficit. That is why I am introducing ``The Honest Balanced Budget Act of 1999.'' The intent of this legislation is simple: to guarantee honesty in budgeting. The social security trust fund surplus should not be used to fund other programs. 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, 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, misled so many people, and bedeviled so many policymakers. What is the lesson we should draw from this situation? Number one, our budget problems, despite all the talks about surplus, are far from over. Entitlement spending is still on auto pilot, and still growing by leaps and bounds. Medicare is still projected to go bankrupt not long after that. Social Security is still projected to go bankrupt not long after that, also. The national debt, which is the sum total of all the earlier budget deficits we have been running for so many years, the national debt is still at $5.6 trillion and climbing. This may be disappointing news to some, politically unwise to bring up to others, but it is the truth, the reality, the actual state of the situation. That is why we should pass legislation to require truth in budgeting, to require Members of Congress to acknowledge these facts and to require the media to point them out. We have been very zealous in cutting welfare spending and reducing the size of our government's bureaucracy. We should keep up our efforts and continue to cut unnecessary spending. Whatever surplus we may have is the result of lower taxes, controlled government spending and our balanced budget. What would happen, Mr. Speaker, 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? That is why I hope my colleagues will join with me by cosponsoring The Honest Balanced Budget Act, so we can bring truth in budgeting finally into the process.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the results of a recent poll conducted by the Princeton Research Association for the Center for Gender Equity. Mr. Speaker, the poll found that 53 percent of the females who responded thought abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This is up from 45 percent in 1996. Forty-one percent believe the issues that the Christian Coalition stands for would improve the lives of women, compared with 18 percent who said the group's issues make the lives of women worse. Seventy-five percent said religion is very important in their lives, compared to 69 percent just two years ago. And 46 percent said politicians should be guided by religious values, compared to 32 percent six years ago. To quote my former colleague, Randy Tate, ``We are the mainstream. When two-thirds of American women agree with our agenda, even when they are asked by a liberal organization about us in their own poll, that is all the proof anyone needs.'' I call these statistics to my colleagues' attention. I think it shows that American women are moving in a conservative stream.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of what I consider to be two significant bills for the American people regarding the budget process here in Congress, and allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons outside of their home States. The first bill I will be introducing is a companion bill to what has already been introduced by Senator Domenici to establish a biennial budget happening every two years and a biennial appropriation process. The Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act would fundamentally change how Washington and the Congress operates. It would be a change for the better in dealing with the Nation's fiscal matters. This bill would establish a two-year budget process and appropriations process for Congress. The fundamental importance of this bill is that it removes politics from the budget process. The first session of Congress would be dedicated to passing a budget and the 13 appropriations bills. Establishing this method would free the Congress from the nastiest budget and appropriations fights during national election years. I was greatly dismayed last year watching the outcome of the budget negotiations between the congressional leadership and the White House, where both sides agreed to spend as much of the budget surplus as they could. The administration was able to use, once again, the threat of a government shutdown in order to extract billions of dollars in extra spending for political gain. The American taxpayer deserves to be better treated than last year's cop-out on sticking to our budget priorities. I voted against that monster budget last year. The second congressional session could then be dedicated for authorizing bills which are greatly needed and which are greatly bypassed, in our day and age, for general government oversight and for other important legislative priorities. In addition, the second session would be used for any true, necessary emergency spending bills which would have to be dealt with in the appropriate spring months of an election year to avoid political manipulation. Since 1950, Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for completion of all 13 individual appropriations bills. In the 22-year history of the Budget Act, Congress has met the statutory deadline to complete a budget resolution just three times. A biennial budget would at least reduce the rushed atmosphere of budgeting and appropriating during an election process. In addition, Senator Domenici asked 50 Federal agencies about a biennial budget. Thirty-seven agencies supported the idea, and not one Federal agency opposed it. These agencies responded that this process would actually save the Federal Government money, because it would reduce the burden on their operations of having to annually seek budget authority and appropriations. Senator Domenici introduced a similar bipartisan bill in the last Congress and enjoyed cosponsorship of 36 U.S. Senators, including Minority Leader Daschle, Senators Feingold, Moynihan, Breaux and other Republican Senators, including McCain, Nickles, and Roth. The current bill already has 26 Senate cosponsors, and it appears that it will sail through the Senate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues that have interest in this matter to work together and to consider this proposal and to be a cosponsor. The second bill, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing is my concealed weapons reciprocity bill that I had introduced in the 105th Congress, which was cosponsored by 75 Members of the House. My bill would allow the citizens of every State the right to carry a concealed weapon across State lines into any State or Territory of our Nation. My bill creates a national standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents of those States. Every citizen, in order to carry a concealed firearm across State lines, would have to be properly licensed for carrying a concealed weapon in their home State and would have to obey the concealed weapons laws of the State they are entering. If the State they are entering does not have a concealed weapons law, the national standard provisions in this legislation would dictate the rules in which a concealed weapon would have to be maintained. For instance, the national standard disallows the carrying of a concealed weapon in a school, police station or a bar serving alcoholic beverages. Mr. Speaker, in addition, my legislation exempts qualified former and current law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. Mr. Speaker, again, these two pieces of legislation are very important. If Members of the House are interested in cosponsoring either of these bills, I urge that they contact my office.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, one of the world's greatest documents is our Declaration of Independence. It proclaims our unalienable rights, among them ``Life, Liberty and the pursuant of Happiness.'' This is one of the central components of the American experience, the right to use your God-given abilities to pursue your goals. As Americans, we are entitled to go as far as our talents will carry us. That is why it is imperative to ensure that every individual has the chance to succeed. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting Beacon College in Leesburg, Florida, a school in my district dedicated to providing opportunities. Beacon College offers the opportunity of a higher education to students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities can affect a person's ability to read, write, speak, or compute math, and can impair socialization skills. This disability can be a life-long condition affecting how that person functions in school, at home, or in the work place. And this is not a rare occurrence; 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. population have some form of learning disability. People with learning disabilities can and do excel in their individual pursuits, they just need the chance. Beacon College is committed to working with a diverse student population, assisting each with an individual approach, taking into consideration differences in experiential backgrounds, pace and readiness to learn, learning styles, and individual strengths and weaknesses. Beacon College offers Associate of Arts and Bachelor of Arts degree programs in Human Services and Liberal Studies. The Human Services program stimulates the student's interest in intellectual, philosophical, social, and public issues. This program concentrates on human development and public services. The Liberal Studies program provides a well-rounded liberal arts education. Both programs are designed to help students achieve their career goals. Through small class sizes, with an average of eight students per class, the faculty can interact better with their students, leading to better academic success. However, the College is more than a learning institution, it also promotes responsibility and self-reliance. Beacon students are called upon to identify their own learning styles as well as their strengths and weaknesses to prepare them for their roles in society. Beacon College goes beyond teaching, it prepares its students for a meaningful career and an independent lifestyle. I am glad that I am able to share with my colleagues the commitment of Beacon College to providing opportunities for those with learning disabilities. Through its efforts, the College is making a richer life for its students and their families.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I take to the floor to express my support for approving these articles of impeachment of the President, sorrow because we have come to this point in our fair and wonderful country where we have to debate these articles. Mr. Speaker, we are bound together as citizens of this great Nation, and as citizens, we are all answerable to the same laws, including President Clinton. The President is more than America's chief law enforcement officer. He is also the trustee of the Nation's conscience. It is a fact that sworn testimony can literally mean the difference between life and death. Should we betray the rule of law by sweeping the President's activities under the rug? If the opponents of impeachment wanted to avoid this process, they should have mounted a vigorous, vigorous defense of the President by refuting the facts in the Starr report. The Minority Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) mentioned trust, fairness, forgiveness, and values. But I did not hear him mention the word ``truth.'' Those against impeachment have not contradicted one word of testimony contained in over 60,000 pages of sworn evidence, not one scintilla. Those against impeachment should make their case based upon the facts. Are we to conclude that the actions outlined in these four articles of impeachment are permissible behavior for a chief executive officer? Any military officer, from general to private, would be court- martialed. Any private citizen would risk prosecution. Any church leader, CEO of a Fortune 500 company, high school faculty member, or community leader, would not face censure, they would be fired for similar conduct. Impeachment does not determine the guilt or innocence of the President. We do not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to move forward. Our duty in the House is to decide if the available evidence indicates that the Senate should consider removing the President from office. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to approve these articles of impeachment and to send this process to the next step. Through this vote, we shall announce how we stand on the Constitution and the rule of law. Are these outdated concepts to be ignored when convenient, or are they the guiding principles of our American civilization?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time of my distinguished colleague. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today as always to support the American military personnel. In fact, we may give the administration the benefit of doubt on the timing. But I question his overall long-term foreign policy in dealing with Iraq. The Clinton administration has carried out for 6 years the most feeble policy against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has done everything in his power to block full weapons inspections. Do not take my word for it. On August 14 of this year, the Washington Post reported, ``the Clinton administration has intervened secretly for months, most recently on August 7, 1998, to dissuade the United Nations weapons team from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq because it wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad government, this is according to knowledgeable American and diplomatic accounts.'' Mr. President, I hope you will inform the American people why the administration did all it could to block secret weapons inspections by the United Nations team for months, if not for years. And now that Iraq predictably continues to block weapons inspections, explain to us the timing of this launch. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the American troops. But I question the overall long-term policy of the administration in dealing with Saddam Hussein. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the Washington Post of August 14, 1998. U.S. Sought To Prevent Iraqi Arms Inspections; Surprise Visits Canceled After Albright Argued That Timing Was Wrong (By Barton Gellman) The Clinton administration has intervened secretly for months, most recently last Friday, to dissuade United Nations weapons teams from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq because it wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad government, according to knowledgeable American and diplomatic accounts. The American interventions included an Aug. 4 telephone call between Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Butler, executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission responsible for Iraq's disarmament, who spoke on a secure line from the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain. As a team of specialists stood poised in Baghdad, according to persons acquainted with the call, Albright urged Butler to rescind closely held orders for the team to mount ``challenge inspections'' at two sites where intelligence leads suggested they could uncover forbidden weapons components and documents describing Iraqi efforts to conceal them. After a second high-level caution from Washington last Friday, Butler canceled the special inspection and ordered his team to leave Baghdad. The disclosure was made yesterday by officials who regarded the abandoned leads as the most promising in years and objected to what they described as the American role in squelching them. U.S. efforts to forge a go-slow policy in Iraq have coincided with the announcement by the Baghdad government that it would halt nearly all cooperation with the U.N. commission, known as UNSCOM, and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Administration. The two panels are responsible for ridding Iraq of ballistic missiles and biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The behind-the-scenes campaign of caution is at odds with the Clinton administration's public position as the strongest proponent of unconditional access for the inspectors to any site in Iraq. Led by the United States, and backed by American threats of war, the U.N. Security Council has demanded repeatedly since 1991--most recently in Resolution 1154 on March 2--that Iraq give ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted'' cooperation to the inspection teams. That last resolution, at U.S. insistence, promised ``the severest consequences for Iraq'' for further defiance and was voted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which is legal grounds for use of military force. Last week, as Albright reportedly sought to rein in Butler, the administration was retreating from the vows it made six months ago to strike immediately and with significant military force if Iraq failed to honor a Feb. 23 agreement that resolved the last such crisis over inspections. At that time, administration spokesmen described a ``snap back'' policy of automatic military retaliation if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein violated his agreement with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Now the administration argues, as White House spokesman P.J. Crowley said yesterday, that Iraq is proposing ``a cat- and-mouse game'' and ``we're not going to play.'' He said the United States would continue its ``encouragement'' of Iraq's compliance with its obligations and would not allow economic sanctions to be lifted until it does so. Albright, in a one-sentence statement issued through a spokesman, said last night: ``U.S. policy has been to fully support UNSCOM in its inspections and I have never told Ambassador Butler how to do his job.'' She said those speaking for her declined to answer further questions about her Aug. 4 ``private discussions'' with Butler and would not address specifically whether she had advised him to cancel the planned raids. Butler, reached by telephone yesterday, said any suggestion that he received orders from Albright would be ``a very considerable distortion of what took place.'' He added, ``No member of the [Security] Council, including the United States, has purported to give me instructions. They all recognize that their job is policy, my job is operations.'' Asked whether Albright urged him or advised him not to go forward, Butler said any answer ``would be a very slippery slope'' in which ``I'd have to tell you what the Russian ambassador said, what the French ambassador said. Forgive me, but I won't get into that.'' Asked to confirm he spoke to Albright last week, he said, ``I'm becoming concerned now about this line of inquiry.'' Beginning in June, according to knowledgeable officials, the U.N. inspectors developed secret plans--withheld from most members of their own staff--for surprise raids at two sites where they believed they would find evidence of forbidden chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic missiles capable of deploying them. The officials declined to describe the sites further, noting that they are still in operation. In a little-known practice that all parties are loath to acknowledge, Butler dispatched senior lieutenants to London and Washington in late June to provide highly classified briefings on the intended inspection ``targets,'' the sources said. Formally, Butler reports equally to all members of the Security Council and does not give them advance operational plans. But one official said he understands ``it's suicide to go forward with an inspection like this'' without informing his principal sponsors, the United States and Britain. The two governments, according to knowledgeable officials, acknowledged to Butler's deputies that UNSCOM had the right to make its own decisions. But they worked in concert in the weeks that followed to dissuade Butler from going forward with the inspection plan. After consultations in Washington, Derek Plumbly, director of the British Foreign Office's Middle East Command, flew to New York for a July 15 meeting with Butler. He told the Australian diplomat in no uncertain terms that the time was not ripe for a provocative challenge to Iraq, in part because Baghdad was still cooperating, ostensibly, on a ``schedule of work'' intended to resolve open questions, the sources said. Shortly after that meeting, U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, the second-ranking delegate to the United Nations, called in Butler for a consultation in which he raised a long list of U.S. questions and concerns about the planned raids. Reading from prepared guidance, he told Butler the decision was UNSCOM's but left the inspection chief with the plain understanding that the United States did not support his plan, according to a knowledgeable account of the meeting. Butler canceled the raids in July but laid contingency plans to reschedule them this month after meetings on Aug. 3 and 4 in Baghdad with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Aziz announced late on the first day that Iraq would answer no further questions about its forbidden weapons, asserting that all the answers had long since been made. Butler had brought a senior inspection team led by Scott Ritter, who heads UNSCOM's efforts to penetrate Iraqi counterintelligence efforts against the inspectors. Included on Ritter's team, officials said, were language and computer experts, experts on import and export records, and scientists knowledgeable about missiles, chemical and biological weapons. On Aug. 4, Butler notified the U.S. government that he had authorized Ritter's team to conduct the raids on Aug. 6. That same day, he got word that Albright wished to speak with him and traveled to the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain for a secure discussion. Albright argued, according to knowledgeable accounts, that it would be a big mistake to proceed because the political stage had not been set in the Security Council. Butler agreed to a three-day delay, to Aug. 9, in hopes that he could build broader support for UNSCOM during informal consultations with the Security Council. But after he briefed the council governments in New York, he got another high-level American call on Friday urging him to have the Ritter team stand down. The same day, he ordered them home. In a letter to the council Wednesday, Butler said Iraq's new restrictions ``bring to a halt all of the disarmament activities'' of his inspectors. On Tuesday, Mohamed Baradei, director general of the IAEA, sent a similar letter to the council saying he could no longer give confident assurance that Iraq is not attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Both men are awaiting further instruction from the Security Council, which is scheduled to take up the matter Tuesday. Yesterday in Baghdad, U.N. special envoy Prakash Shah said he conveyed a message from Annan that ``Iraq should continue its cooperation'' with the weapons inspectors. He announced no results from what he described as a ``cordial'' meeting.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disturbed this morning listening to NPR, National Public Radio, regarding a play called Corpus Christi, written by Terence McNally, playing at the Manhattan Theater Club in New York City. This play is a blasphemous, pseudo-creation by homosexuals about the life of Christ. Now, the first thought I had was, how much money did the NEA provide? Sure enough, in a letter on June 11, 1998, the chairman of the NEA admitted, ``The theater did apply to the NEA for funding to support development of Corpus Christi.'' It goes on to say, ``After consideration, the NEA approved an award of $31,000 to support the development of this play based upon the information provided in the application.'' The NEA now claims the money was eventually used for other purposes, but this entire situation further shows that the NEA still does not get it and uses taxpayers' money to fund questionable projects that are antithetical to our values. I call on Bill Ivey, Chairman of the NEA, to cut off all funding, all funding, to the Manhattan Theater Club today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, a lot of people have complained today and the last couple of days that Congress has not done anything. I think this bill is a clear example of things we have done. It is probably one of the most important bills that we have passed this Congress. It gives our Nation's copyright holders legal protection internationally to protect their copyright works. As the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), mentioned, every year billions of dollars are stolen from American companies from illegal piracy and theft. American companies can now have the freedom to defend their intellectual property. As my colleagues may recall, the bill as reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary did not contain a definition of, ``technological protection measure.'' Myself and other members of the committee were concerned about this lack of such a definition. It was very problematic. The committee agreed it was an important enough issue to state in its report that those measures covered by the bill are those based upon encryption, scrambling, authentication and some other measure which requires the use of, quote, a key provided by a copyright holder. Another achievement of the conference was to include specific report language addressing the playability concerns of product manufacturers. The report explicitly provides that manufacturers or professional servicers of consumer electronics, telecommunications or computing products who take steps solely to mitigate a playability problem may not be deemed to have violated either section 1201 or section 1202. I would say to my colleagues, we have done something very important today by passing, by recommending this bill to all our colleagues. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is another accomplishment in this session of Congress. Madam Speaker, this Congress in my opinion has been unfairly maligned about our work product and our accomplishments. I think we have had two very successful sessions and this bill is proof of our hard work. In fact, this may be the most important bill that we pass for this entire Congress. This legislation will give our nation's copyright holders legal protection internationally to protect their copyright works. Every year, billions of dollars are stolen from American companies from illegal piracy and theft. American companies can now have the freedom to defend their intellectual property. As my colleagues can appreciate, it has been a long and hard process to get us to this point. I am particularly pleased that the conference report addressed issues that I had been concerned about. I would like to comment in particular on some of the most important features of the bill. As my colleagues may recall, the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee did not contain a definition of ``technological protection measure.'' I and other members of the Commerce Committee were concerned that the lack of such a definition was very problematic. The Committee agreed it was an important enough issue to state in its report that those measures covered by the bill are those based on encryption, scrambling, authentication, or some other measure which requires the use of a ``key'' provided by a copyright owner. Another achievement of the conference was to include specific report language addressing the ``playability'' concerns of product manufacturers. The report explicitly provides that manufacturers or professional servicers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products who take steps solely to mitigate a playability problem may not be deemed to have violated either section 1201 or section 1202. By eliminating uncertainty and establishing a clear set of rules governing both analog and digital devices, product designers should enjoy the freedom to innovate and bring ever-more exciting new products to market.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it has been a long process on this bill to refine it and make it acceptable to industry. And for many, like myself, in our State of Florida they have been very successful in stopping slamming. There has been millions of dollars collected in fees. So while an original cosponsor of this bill, I did not want to create an overly regulatory, burdensome bill to address slamming, because I felt in my State we had made a strong effort to combat it. Congress has already attempted to address the problem of slamming through the Telecommunications Act by codifying a new section in the Communications Act to close the abusive loophole that was created by the breakup of AT&T in 1984. This new section in the act gave the FCC the power, gave the power to the FCC to issue new regulations to prevent slamming. Unfortunately, the FCC did not act in the direction that Congress had given it, and there was frustration on the part of many of the members on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection because they had not moved forward. It appeared the problem of slamming grew worse instead of better after the passage of the act. It was reported that the number of slamming complaints to the FCC rose to approximately 20,000 in 1997. Madam Speaker, this is a 56 percent increase over 1996. So, from 1996 to 1997, there was a 56 percent increase. The situation looked like it was getting worse. So, Congress had only one option: to create legislation to end this fraudulent, abusive practice. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, who have worked diligently to work out an ideal compromise, this legislation will allow the FCC and industry to develop a working code for companies to adhere to proper business practices in soliciting new customers. The focus now will be to allow the industry to develop industry-wide standards that would dramatically decrease the instances of slamming. If a long-distance company refuses to adhere to adopting these standards, they will face extremely stiff penalties for every instance of slamming. This legislation also promotes the idea of instituting a third-party verification. The bill would require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to study the feasibility and desirability of establishing a neutral third-party entity to administer changes to subscribers' carrier selections. Third-party verification will be the best solution because it would allow for a nonregulatory, nonburdensome approach to guide long- distance providers in acquiring new customers. I think the leadership, the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member have worked very well together to solve this problem. I am hoping it is an ideal compromise which the industry will, of course, support. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this compromise and will ask the FCC and the industry to develop regulations that will not constrict the States' abilities to regulate the conduct of long- distance carriers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we are now in the midst of another battle over the budget. The President remains steadfast in his unwillingness to meet and try to find a way to work out a compromise so we can keep the government running. The President expressed dismay that all 13 appropriation bills had not been passed by the Congress and signed into law. Yet, since 1977, when the Democrats controlled Congress, the Congress failed entirely to pass all 13 appropriation bills 11 times. That is right. At least 11 times a Democrat Congress failed to pass at least one of the appropriation bills at all. Since 1990, the Democrat-run Congress has shut down the government nine times, the last time in 1990 when they forced President Bush to accept a compromise with them over the budget, which resulted in Mr. Bush breaking his ``no new tax'' pledge. I regret today that the Democrats seem to have forgotten how many times they shut the government down.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''