Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4110, and I am also proud to be one of its key sponsors. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, we have had many hearings on this, and I think it goes without saying there is many people on this House floor, on both sides of the aisle, that have done much to make this bill possible, particularly, of course, the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lane Evans). I particularly want to thank our dedicated Chairman Bob Stump for his leadership and work on behalf of veterans. I want to thank and acknowledge Lane Evans, the Ranking Member of the full committee; Luis Gutierrez, the Ranking on the Health Subcommittee; and Joe Kennedy for their hard work on this measure. I also want to thank Chris Shays for all his work on the Persian Gulf issue, which contributed to the bill we bring to the floor today. This legislation advances the extensive work this committee and the Congress have done over the years on behalf of Persian Gulf veterans. Its enactment will help ensure that these veterans receive services and benefits to which they are entitled. The legislation is also forward-looking. It aims to apply the lessons of the Persian Gulf experience so as to avoid the problem of future combat for veterans. It has become clear, for example, that early treatment is important in overcoming health problems that may be linked to war-time service. This bill will authorize the VA, in advance, to treat veterans of future combat situations for any illnesses that develop within 2 years after service. Our long study of the Persian Gulf experience and of prior conflicts underscores that we have much to learn about the effects of war-time service generally. Significantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a mechanism for the establishment of a national center for the study of war-related illnesses to carry out and to foster education and improved clinical care. The bill will also extend to VA special authority to treat Persian Gulf War veterans, and it contains important provisions to improve VA's service delivery to those Veterans and to improve the research efforts regarding these illnesses. Mr. Speaker, millions of veterans depend upon the VA health care system. Accordingly, this bill would also address ongoing needs of this system, ranging from assuring adequate health care staffing to improving its infrastructure. As its title indicates, this legislation is truly aimed at improving veterans' programs. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support it. The House has passed this bill twice, Mr. Speaker. If it goes to the Senate, it includes a COLA bill. It is absolutely mandatory the Senate move this to the President. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4110, as amended. Many of the key provisions of this truly important legislation originated in the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health, which I chair. So I particularly welcome the House action today and urge members to support this measure. This legislation advances the extensive work this Committee and the Congress have done over the years on behalf of Persian Gulf veterans. Its enactment will help ensure that these veterans receive services and benefits to which they are entitled. At the same time this legislation is forward-looking in aiming to apply lessons of the Persian Gulf experience so as to avoid problems for veterans of future combat. In studying the lessons of the Persian Gulf experience, it became clear to us that early treatment is important in overcoming health problems that may be linked to wartime service. Several years after the end of hostilities, Congress created special treatment authorities for Vietnam veterans and for Persian Gulf veterans (tied to presumed exposures to toxic substances). In hindsight, it would have been helpful for veterans of those conflicts if such legislation had been in place much earlier, before some of their acute health problems became chronic. This bill would build on this experience and authorize VA, in advance, to treat veterans of future combat situations for illnesses which first manifest themselves within two years after service. Under this legislation, such veterans would be eligible for VA care, regardless of whether their illnesses have been adjudicated as service- connected. While the other body was unwilling to agree to the duration of treatment authority provided for in the House-passed bill, this is a most important provision. Our long study of the Persian Gulf experience and of prior conflicts underscores that we have much to learn about the effects of wartime service. Significantly, this bill should help advance our understanding. To that end, it provides a mechanism for the establishment of a national center for the study of war-related illnesses to carry out and foster research, education, and improved clinical care of such illnesses, as proposed in House-passed H.R. 3980. The bill also contains important provisions I authorized to extend VA's special authority to treat Persian Gulf War veterans, and to improve VA service-delivery to those veterans. The bill asks much of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but it also provides for VA to tap independent scientific expertise in carrying out its new responsibilities on behalf of Persian Gulf veterans. Congress has long looked to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences to carry out that role. For years, the Institute has done important work on veterans issues, from exhaustive reviews into the health effects of herbicides used in Vietnam, to ongoing analysis of the health consequences of service during the Persian Gulf War. The complexity and controversy associated with Persian Gulf War illnesses highlights the importance of bringing independent expertise and judgment to our questions. Under this legislation, the Institute would provide advice and recommendations to guide virtually every aspect of major decision-making associated with resolving the remaining problems and questions relating to the health consequences of veterans' service in this war, from compensation questions to identifying methods of improving the care provided these veterans. As its title indicates, this legislation is truly aimed at improving veterans programs. This will be quite evident in the area of VA health programs--the focus of my subcommittee. For example, the measure we bring to the floor would: Establish authority for VA to provide priority health care to treat illnesses that may be attributable to a veteran's service in combat during any period of war after the Vietnam War or during any other future period of hostilities (notwithstanding that there is insufficient medical evidence to conclude that such illnesses are attributable to such service). Treatment would be available under this special authority for a period of two years after such veteran's discharge from service. VA would be required to track the health status and health care utilization patterns of veterans who receive care under this priority and would report to Congress on the first eighteen months' use of that authority and on any recommendations to extend it; Extend VA's special authority to provide care to Persian Gulf veterans through December 31, 2001. Require VA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences or other appropriate independent organization to assist in developing a plan for the establishment of a national center for the study of war-related illnesses and post-deployment health issues. Several other provisions of the bill also call for contracting with the National Academy to assist in carrying out Government responsibilities relating to the health consequences of service in the Persian Gulf War. While the bill reflects the esteem in which the Academy is held, it is not our intention to require duplication of effort or to impose undue financial burdens on the Department. The bill is not intended, for example, to require VA to renegotiate contracts which have already been executed and which would otherwise carry out the requirements of the bill. Nor does the existence of multiple specific requirements (for VA, or VA and Department of Defense, to contract with NAS) in title I necessarily constitute a requirement that separate contracts involving separate NAS scientific panels must be executed to carry out each provision. Where, for example, the scientific expertise required to address a particular requirement set forth in one section of the bill would in whole or in part serve to address a requirement set forth in a different section, it would be altogether appropriate to execute a single contract under which NAS could use a single scientific panel to carry out these requirements. More specifically, the bill includes requirements that: VA (a) enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether there is a methodology by which VA could determine the efficacy of treatments provided Persian Gulf War veterans for illnesses which may be associated with their Persian Gulf War service and (b) develop a mechanism, if scientifically feasible and reasonable, to monitor and study the effectiveness of such treatment and health outcomes; and that VA and Department of Defense enter an agreement with the National Academy to (a) develop a curriculum (to take account of new research findings relating to care of veterans with illnesses that may be associated with Persian Gulf War services) for use in continuing education of VA and Department of Defense physicians, and (b) periodically review and provide recommendations regarding the Departments' research plans relating to Persian Gulf illnesses. In further addressing concerns surrounding the health consequences of Persian Gulf service, the bill would: require VA to establish a public advisory committee (to include veterans of the Persian Gulf War) to provide advice to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Defense on proposed research studies, research plans, or research strategies relating to the health of Persian Gulf veterans; require the pertinent Executive branch departments to expand their annual reporting on the status and results of Persian Gulf research activities, to include their research priorities for the upcoming year, and to better coordinate their outreach activities; require publication of all Government-conducted or -funded Persian Gulf research findings through the World Wide Web and elsewhere; extend VA's authority to evaluate the health status of spouses and children of Persian Gulf War veterans through December 31, 1999, and to provide for such examinations through VA facilities, as appropriate and under contract, including through its fee basis program. The measure reflects a recognition that although the VA health care system is changing, Congress must address itself to ongoing needs, ranging from infrastructure to system-management to health-care staffing. Accordingly, among its provisions, the bill provides for continuity in leadership of the Veterans Health Administration by authorizing the interim appointment to the position of Under Secretary for Health of the former incumbent, the very able Dr. Kenneth Kizer. The measure also provides mechanisms to help attract and retain health-care professionals in positions where VA has experienced difficulties in recruiting or retaining qualified staff. Particularly noteworthy is a new education-debt reduction authority. The bill would also add to title 38 provisions modeled on VA's so-called ``grow-your- own'' employee-scholarship program, to provide an incentive to outstanding current employees to pursue advanced education or training for positions for which VA or a particular VA medical facility has recruitment and retention needs. The legislation also requires the establishment and use of specific accountability measures applicable to VA network directors in the exercise of responsibilities associated with network management and resource allocation as they relate to VA programs dedicated to the specialized treatment and rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans. This legislation would also authorize major medical construction projects for funding in this or the following fiscal year. Finally, the bill addresses a unique problem relating to employee pay-parking at a facility in Hawaii, but in no way retreats from or alters the otherwise applicable requirements of section 8109 of title 38, United States Code.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. We just have to hope and pray that it actually gets through the Congress this year. Medicare-eligible veterans are too often shut out of the VA health care system, particularly if they are low-income and services-connected in the rural parts of this country. This bill would, for the first time, enable Medicare-eligible veterans to bring their Medicare benefits to the VA. It is an important step to provide improved access and equity. Importantly, this bill can also reduce Medicare costs for the care of these beneficiaries. Dealing with the home health care side of it, I share with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) the same sentiments, because we cared for my mother in our home for over 10 years, too. I support implementing the new IPS blend that is more equitable than the present system. Furthermore, new agencies must not be penalized and should receive treatment similar to other existing agencies. I note, of course, for my colleagues from Florida, it increases the home health care payment by at least 5 percent. Medicare is a vast complicated program to begin with and the changes that will occur over the next few years are bound to compound the frustration and fear seniors already feel about this program. I think we all recognize that home health care is vital to many of our Medicare recipients and nobody wants to see our seniors suffer needlessly. We all remember the many witnesses who testified about home health care organizations that had bilked the Medicare program out of billions of dollars. Our intention was to reduce unnecessary and fraudulent spending in home health. I believe we were right in setting out to rid the medicare program of fly-by-night organizations that cost the program money that could have been spent on taking care of the needs of seniors. However, the Interim Payment System now in place is a disaster for rural areas and must be corrected. I support implementing a new IPS blend that is more equitable than the present system. Furthermore, new agencies must not be penalized and should receive treatment similar to that of existing agencies. This bill addresses these problems by requiring the Secretary to report back to Congress by January 1, 1999 with a time line for implementation of the new system so that Congress will have an opportunity to weigh in and closely monitor its progression. Furthermore, the Administration is charged with making an alternative to the 15-percent reductions that will occur on October 1, 1999. Hopefully, we can alleviate some of the difficulties Medicare home health care beneficiaries have been experiencing for the past few months. Finally, I would like to indicate my support for the portion of this legislation that was initially introduced as H.R. 3511. The bill will give HHS the discretion to determine, for example, whether allowing physicians to waive the Medicare copayment and deductible requirements for Medicare recipients who participate in particular health care program would open the door to fraud or abuse in the Medicare program. If not, HHS is authorized to issue an advisory opinion permitting the waiver of these requirements with regard to those services. These provisions of the legislation are critically important to programs such as the National Eye Care Project (NECP), which provide critical health care services to American senior citizens. The National Eye Care Program is the largest and most sustained public service project in American medicine, and is currently sponsored by the Foundation of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the Knights Templar Eye Foundation, Inc. The program currently has 7,500 participating volunteer ophthalmologists, who examined over 110,000 seniors since 1986. Of those examined, over 70% were diagnosed with an eye disease requiring follow-up care. The program has been recognized by the White House, multiple U.S. Senators and Congressman, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Surgeons. The program works by matching callers to a toll-free Help line with one of the 7,500 volunteer ophthalmologists nationwide. The physician then provides a comprehensive medical eye examination and treatment for conditions diagnosed at the initial visit. Any financially disadvantaged senior who is a U.S. citizen or legal resident and has no access to an ophthalmologist is eligible to participate. From the program's inception in 1986 until the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), participating doctors could waive copayment charges and accept insurance reimbursement as payment in full. However, unfortunate technical language found in HIPAA restricted the NECP's participating doctors to waiving fees only for those in financial need. This has forced the NECP to add a means test to their Help line. This test asks questions that financially needy seniors may find embarrassing, such as `does your financial situation prevent you from seeking eye care?' This means test has unfortunately led to a decrease in the number of seniors seeking care, and has turned away seniors that otherwise would have received treatment. That's why the pending legislation is so important--it does nothing to dilute the tough anti-fraud and abuse provisions found in HIPAA, while giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to provide a common sense exemption from payment requirements for the NECP, or for other programs that benefit the public welfare. Congress needs to allow doctors participating in the NECP to continue their work unhindered and to encourage seniors to utilize the program. More than 50% of all new cases of blindness each year occur in the elderly, at least half of which are preventable. Eye diseases are among the most debilitating and prevalent problems facing the elderly, many of which display no outward symptoms until irreparable damage to their eye sight is imminent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. This is important legislation for America's veterans. Medicare- eligible veterans are too often shut out of the VA health care system. This bill for the first time would enable Medicare-eligible veterans to bring their Medicare benefits to VA. It is an important step to provide improved access and equity. Importantly, this bill can also reduce Medicare costs for the care of these beneficiaries.-

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we are on the threshold of a very simple decision here, a simple decision to decide whether to look at and investigate the Starr report. Now, both parties in this House agree that we should investigate. The Democrats want to limit the scope and the time. But we want to follow the precedents established by Watergate. No prior impeachment investigation has ever been limited in the United States or England in the last 600 years because of time and scope. If there is a precedent that you can cite today, please tell us. Why do we have to go forward like this? Because man believes he is above the law. In fact, Louis XIV said, ``I am the State.'' The king expressed the essence of the doctrine of unlimited power. In 1825, Daniel Webster in his Bunker Hill Monument oration talked about unlimited power, love of power and ``long supported by the excess and abuse of it are yielding in our age to other opinions.'' What are those opinions? The Constitution. So, my friends, we are at a threshold. Under our Constitution, the role of the House and our duty to the American people is to act simply as a grand jury in reference to the impeachment charges presented. To paraphrase Thomas More ``A Man for All Seasons'', when he said: ``The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the citizens from the winds of evil and tyranny. If we permit one of those laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the winds that follow?'' How eloquent. How truthful. We must do the right thing and move forward with an investigative inquiry of impeachment without restrictions.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3783. I believe it is fundamentally important that as the representatives of our Nation, we do everything we can to protect our children from the detrimental effects of pornography reaching their eyes. This bill as it is is tailored to withstand the legal requirements established by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Communications Decency Act. The bill uses the constitutionally defensible ``harmful to minors'' standard rather than the constitutionally questionable ``decency'' standard. The bill prohibits businesses from selling or transferring through the Internet material that is harmful to minors. Businesses would be in compliance of the law and not liable to prosecution if they adhere to some ``affirmative defenses'' in the conduct of their businesses. An example of an affirmative defense for a company would be requiring the use of a credit card, debit account or some type of ``adult access code.'' This is an integral bill that will be good for the Nation. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I say to my colleagues that we are here, roughly at 8 o'clock at night, and there are not a lot of people on the House floor, but what we are doing this evening is extremely important, particularly for those Americans not just in the suburbs or in the urban areas, but also in rural parts of the United States, which I represent, who have satellites. And they are out there trying to get their picture and they do not realize that this CARP, this Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, increased the royalty charge to the satellite companies so tremendously, so egregiously, that it almost put them out of business. So the people in the rural part of the United States, particularly in central Florida, will be impacted tremendously. It is fundamentally important that this bill that we are here talking about tonight go forward, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is doing a whale of a job to make this point. Because what really we are talking about is government increasing the cost of services and eliminating competition. And if we did not have this bill tonight, and we did not put this 18-month moratorium on, then what would happen is the government would increase this and the share of satellite would go down. In fact, I have here a graph that in 1997 the satellite industry had about 11 percent of the market and they were paying about 22 percent of the distribution fees. One year later, after CARP, this Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, increases the fees tremendously, the satellite share is now at 12 percent. Only increased 1 percent, yet their amount of distribution fees went up to 39 percent. So I mean there is a clear example of government stepping in, increasing the cost, with the help and approval of the Librarian of Congress, as the gentleman mentioned, and so we are going to knock out all competition for satellite. Simply tripling the royalty fees is unfair. It was no gradual matter. It just came in in a whoosh, tripled these royalty fees, and, in the end, people in the rural part of the United States will not be able to afford satellites because the satellite companies will pass these charges on. So Congress basically has to ensure that the satellite services have a financial foothold in order to make a lasting competitive challenge. Without this bill, without the efforts of the chairman we would not have that opportunity tonight. We will return next year, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) mentioned, and pass legislation to allow the satellite customer to get local-to-local service so they can have their local channels beamed directly to their homes. But I am hoping tonight that we can move forward and that the Senate, by unanimous consent, will pass this tomorrow. There is no reason not to. There is no controversy involved here. We should get this passed so that the competition in the satellite industry will increase, and I again commend the chairman for his efforts.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Jerry, it is with joy but also with sadness that I come down here in this short amount of time to tell you what a great guy you are and how much we are going to miss you. I think a lot of people do not realize Jerry was an entrepreneur, an insurance agent. He was making a lot of money. And for him to come here, he gave up a lot of his business. It has been quite a sacrifice. In fact, I imagine he would be a multi-millionaire by now if he had still kept his business. Many of my colleagues talked about his experience in the Marine Corps. He also has served with distinction as an active member of the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion and the Marine Corps League. So I think his patriotism is there for all of us to see. This gentleman also served with distinction on the Foreign Affairs Committee and on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And we talk about his great distinction as chairman of the Committee on Rules, but those committees also were his forte. In addition, he is a former chairman of the Prisoners of War, Missing in Action Task Force, and is still an active participant in this task force. He has been identified with various issues, but the issue that I really identify with him is the second amendment and the fourth amendment. I will never forget on the House floor, in the evening, when Mr. Solomon stood up to argue for the right to bear arms, in which he talked about his wife alone in upstate New York. There was silence and quiet, stillness on the House floor, when he said, she is alone tonight, and I want to ensure that my wife, who is alone, should have the right to protect herself against unwanted intruders. I know his debate and his expression carried the day. So we all know of Jerry Solomon's patriotism. We know he has the wisdom of Solomon, and we are going to miss him. He certainly lives up to the Marine Corps motto: Semper fidelis. Always faithful. God bless you Jerry Solomon and God bless America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, deregulation of the airlines, natural gas, railroads, telecommunications, and trucking industries yield annual savings equal to nearly 1 percent of America's gross domestic product. Next January, in the 106th Congress, we will attempt to craft a measure that will finally and successfully unleash competition and savings from the utility industry. In recent years, competition has replaced regulation for the electric power industry in many other 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 altering our current system and effectively fostering competition. Now, this should not be done through a Federal mandate. Five of the 10 largest electric consumer States already have mandatory competitive restructuring. Clearly, we would be wise to make the State-mandated restructuring more efficient instead of imposing a separate, huge new 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 role 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. Next January, in the 106th Congress, we will consider the livelihoods of entire industries, constitutional questions, and the interests of the entire rate-paying public. Accordingly, we must address these points to fully realize the benefits of energy reform: Every customer must benefit from this deregulation, not just the large industrial users of electricity. I am concerned that any rush next year 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. One must look at the State-level experiences of Massachusetts and California to see that if we do not effectively address consumer issues, we will certainly face a consumer backlash. The ballot measures in these States underscore how unique the electric power industry is: it permeates every aspect of our lives and, of course, our economy. 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 own choosing. These utilities made long-term decisions based upon decades of regulation. To deny industry recovery of these costs would go against the fairness that I spoke of earlier. That being said, lower rates would be fostered by real deregulation and industrial and regulation innovation, not by just merely shifting costs. We should not merely ``reshuffle the deck,'' so to speak, on 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, no doubt, yet fairness demands that we produce a level playing field for all energy providers and transmitters. Reforming the energy industry on a Federal level means clarifying the roles of the Federal and State governments. Where does the Federal responsibility end and the State responsibility begin? The diverse situation among the States adds to the difficulties of this reform. 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, of course, they see very little need for reform. Eliminating the barriers to entry into the electricity market is fundamental, of course, to this reform. We must repeal, one, the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act, PURPA, and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, PUHCA, to ensure that any transition to retail competition should be 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 electricity bills over the next 10 years than they normally would have. In conclusion, deregulation of the electric industry requires consideration of a myriad of factors. The stakes are high but so, of course, are the benefits. In the 106th Congress let us not rush. Let us work together and consider all these issues.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, often times in life while you are looking at a problem, you find there is a parallel set of activities that are occurring at the same time while you are looking at your present problem. I have such a case this morning, I think, which is a good example. Last April the U.S. Department of Justice charged a staff psychiatrist, a female at a VA Medical Center, with obstruction of justice. It seems that in 1992 a male patient sued the female psychiatrist at the VA alleging that the psychiatrist committed medical malpractice when she engaged in sexual relationships with him during an office visit in 1991. Now, what happened is the psychiatrist requested that the United States Justice Department certify that under the Federal Tort Claims Act that the Justice Department would defend her and substitute itself as a defendant because the alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of her employment. She was a psychiatrist for the VA Medical Center, and she felt the suit should be covered under the Federal Torts Claim Act and that the Justice Department should defend her. So in 1992, attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office interviewed her, talked to her about the case. She denied engaging in a sexual relationship with the patient. The U.S. Attorney, therefore, based upon her testimony, certified that she, the psychiatrist, for her conduct would be certified through the dates of the alleged office incident. So to the extent that the psychiatrist was, quote, certified she would not have been liable for any damages. On July 13-14, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge Mikel Williams conducted a hearing to determine the scope of the female psychiatrist's employment at the VA. During the hearing she testified falsely under oath about what had happened between the male patient and her during his visit on June 27, 1991. In so doing, she violated the obstruction of justice statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503. She is scheduled to be sentenced this year before the Honorable Edward J. Lodge. Okay, now we are here in 1998. As I mentioned Judge Mikel Williams conducted a hearing to determine the scope of the female psychiatrist's employment at the VA and what occurred at this hearing. But in so doing, it turns out she was not telling the truth, and she violated the obstruction of justice statute, which is Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503. So here we are, Mr. Speaker. She testified falsely under oath about what happened during the patient's visit in 1991. So in so doing, she was charged with violating the Federal statute, and in effect she was lying about her misconduct and her sexual relationship with this patient who came in to see her. In this case, she lied about sex under oath and violated a Federal statute and was convicted and sentenced. I might add these activities occurred in a Federal building, on federal time, and while she was on a federal salary. Today our Committee on the Judiciary is meeting to discuss something that parallels this case. They have a constitutional duty to the public to investigate and remedy breaches of public trust. Of course it will be painful, but they have a responsibility to ensure that future holders of the Presidency, whoever they might be, have to be accountable for their statements. To neglect to do so would be to debase our Constitution. Let me conclude by referring to the former Representative Peter Rodino, Jr., who was Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandals. This is what he said. We cannot turn away out of partisanship or convenience from problems that now are our responsibility to consider. So I bring to the attention of my colleagues a very similar case to what is being discussed today by the Judiciary Committee involving not telling the truth about a sexual affair and obstructing justice. I put that into the Record, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is helpful to know this information. It shows the U.S. Justice Department prosecuting a federal employee for lying under oath about sexual misconduct and obtaining a conviction. Isn't that what we are talking about today at the judiciary hearing. Often times there are past activities that can be used to judge the present activities.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come here on the floor today to talk about the definition and the meaning of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The Constitution states that the ``President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This is the standard under which the House Judiciary Committee is currently evaluating Judge Starr's report. But Mr. Speaker, what exactly are high crimes and misdemeanors? To define ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is to get to the heart of the task of the Committee on the Judiciary. Constitutional provisions related to impeachment arise from English practice, wherein impeachment was employed to remove an official who had abused his office but was under the protection of the crown. To answer that question, I looked to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. They envisioned a government where the only type of person who could achieve the office of the President would, by definition, be a virtuous person. Should a lack of virtue result, the impeachment process was designed to remedy resulting serious offenses against the public trust and our system of government. In fact, James Madison said that the aim of the Constitution was to ``prevent the degeneracy of our leaders. The method of this prevention is the impeachment process.'' Our Founding Fathers adopted this view of impeachment from English law. In English law, the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was used since the 14th century to address political crimes. This is over 600 years of history. Thus, the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' actually had nothing to do with criminal law. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton described impeachment crimes as ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' The report of the Committee on the Judiciary in the Nixon impeachment proceedings in 1974 rejected criminality as a necessary element of impeachment. Thus, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It charges only ``political'' crimes and imposes purely political punishments. Thus, one not need commit a crime to have committed an impeachable offense. In defending the President, some say that the ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' language in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution has a very narrow and precise meaning. And Democrats warn us that the framers of the Constitution would be appalled today if Americans deviated from the meaning they had in mind and impeached a President over something as minor, in their opinion, as sex and lies. The reality is that the definition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is a term which is open to significant interpretation in light of 600 years of history. So, eventually, the American people had the responsibility to ask themselves whether they are witnessing behavior unbecoming an American President and whether the law and simple decency have rightful places in the conduct of our leaders and public officials. We work very hard to teach our children the difference between right and wrong. We must, therefore, insist on the same from our leaders. In this case, if impeachable offenses were committed, the President must be held accountable. Furthermore, Congress has a constitutional duty to the public to investigate and remedy breaches of the public trust. Mr. Speaker, holding the President accountable would ensure that future holders of the office would also be held accountable. To neglect to do so would debase our Constitution. In America, no one is above the law. As former Representative Peter Rodino, a Democrat from New Jersey, a House Judiciary Committee chairman during the Watergate hearings, said, ``We cannot turn away, out of partisanship or convenience, from problems that are now our responsibility to consider.'' Has the President demeaned the Office of the presidency? That is the question. If so, then we must consider impeachment. Let the courts decide after the impeachment process what punishment should apply thereafter.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, every day across America patriotic Americans feel frustrated by what they see on the news about White House scandals and the media's reaction to them. These same people who have worked to bring sexual harassment to our attention now say with a straight face that how women are treated in the workplace is a private matter. Nightly, we are treated to commentaries which seem to suggest that character does not matter, that we must adhere to two different standards, ethical standards for our public officials, one when the Dow is above 9,000, and the other when the economy is in a slump. The majority of Americans today know the truth and can see through the spin, retractions and the legalisms. Many in my district believe that we are witnessing a moral Chernobyl right before our eyes, an ethical meltdown that sends a message to every child in America that some people do not have to take responsibility for their actions. A healthy democracy requires not only that leaders take responsibility for their actions, but a Nation of citizens who demand that they do.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in the ``90-10 tax cut'' Mr. Archer uses 10% of the projected surplus to provide relief to farmers, married couples, seniors, small businesses, savings account-holders, and students, while preserving 90% of the surplus of Social Security. Ideally, I would favor funding Mr. Archers's tax cuts by eliminating wasteful programs in the budget. They are money programs we could eliminate to reduce spending, such as: $3,500,000 for facilities at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, $3,000,000 for the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), and $250,000 for production of ammunition guides by the ATF. However, the 90/10 plan achieves and important goal--this bill eliminates oppressive tax code sections while preventing wasteful surplus spending. The surplus belongs to the taxpayers, not Washington. This money should be returned to Americans as Social Security funds and tax cuts. Twenty-one million Americans are slapped with an average of $1,400 in higher taxes every year because of the marriage penalty. H.R. 4579 amends the tax code to make the schedule of standard deductions allowed for single and married taxpayers more equitable--and effectively ends the ``marriage penalty.'' The bill supports community renewal by authorizing 20 tax incentives for communities. Tax incentives such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and the R&E Tax Credit would be extended. Military personnel would receive tax relief--it would be easier for them to qualify for the exclusion of gain on the sale of a home under the bill. Education and infrastructure would be improved with greater participation in privately pre-paid tuition plans, relaxing the arbitrage rebate, and increasing private activity bonds caps. Mr. Speaker, with all of these benefits going to deserving, hard- working Americans, I support H.R. 4579. Americans want and deserve a break--let's give it to them.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Archer bill and against the Rangel amendment. We are talking about .0086 percent of the budget. That is very little amount of money for a tax cut. Now lets eliminate the accusations of ``raiding'' the social security trust fund. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress first unified the budget, making the Trust Fund part of the general revenue. The Democratic alternative would delay this important tax relief. Of course, this delay does not apply to tax incentives that are favored by the Democrats--in other words, spending on Title IV, to which their trigger does not apply. We want to provide as much educational, senior citizen, farming, and marriage penalty tax relief as we can. Let's get serious . . . this tax relief is $16 billion a year or $80 billion over 5 years or .0086 of the yearly budget. Americans deserve a break--let's defeat the Rangel Amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of fast-track wrap their arguments around a banner of false logic and false promises. Granting any President fast-track authority clearly violates the constitutional responsibilities of Congress. Article I, Section 8 explicitly states that, ``The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce with foreign nations.'' While the United States has entered into thousands of trade agreements in our history, only five have received fast-track authority. The Clinton administration itself has negotiated over 200 trade agreements while in office without fast-track trade authority. Just NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of GATT had fast track authority. Any Administration can and should negotiate bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the advice and consent of Congress. That is the Constitution! The United States is the ``Mother of all Markets.'' Every nation on earth wants access to our markets. If gaining access requires the involvement of Congress in negotiating trade agreements, then every nation must accept our rule of law. Let us be honest with each other. There have been some real devastating aspects of the previous fast-track, which brought us NAFTA, especially as it affected my home state of Florida. The Florida tomato industry has lost over $750 million since the beginning of NAFTA. Import of tomatoes from Mexico has surged by 71% under NAFTA, putting hundreds of farmers out of work and losing thousands of farm related jobs, and no relief has ever been granted by this Administration. These losses in exports are directly tied to the unfair trading practices that have been waged against Florida's farmers. Mexico has dumped tomatoes and other winter vegetables on the U.S. market. The Department of Commerce recognizes that Mexican tomatoes were dumped, but the Administration has never done anything about it. The Administration made promises to protect agriculture against unfair trading practices with the last fast-track bill. They never fulfilled those promises and now they are offering new promises to protect agriculture. Don't believe any of the latest claims that fast-track will protect our agricultural industries. This Administration lied before, they are lying now, and they will lie tomorrow! Mr. Speaker, I also would like to include a letter from the Florida Farm Bureau Federation dealing with this legislation: Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Gainsville, FL, September 25, 1998. Hon. Clifford Stearns, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Stearns: After having reviewed the provisions that have been added to H.R. 2621, the Fast Track bill, we thought that it would be important for Florida Farm Bureau to let you know we are still opposed. While these provisions are a beginning, they do not answer our concerns. Until these concerns are met, we cannot support Fast Track. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2621. Sincerely, Carl B. Loop, Jr., President.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Judy Chesser, Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Legislation of the Social Security Administration said that statement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4578 Save Social Security Act. H.R. 4578 establishes a new account in the U.S. Treasury to preserve Social Security system. This account is being set up for the vote we will have tomorrow on the tax relief or the 90-10 plan. What we are talking about on this amendment is to set up this fund with the understanding that 10% of the surplus will be used for tax reduction for the middle income citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, the House will consider Mr. Rangel's amendment to transfer 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to be held in trust for the Social Security system. But under this substitute, Congress must default on publicly traded debt obligations before it could default on its obligations to fund the Social Security system. This is a Faustian bargain and is not what we want to do. I represent a District with a large elderly populations. While I do like Mr. Rangel's idea about setting aside 100 per cent of the surplus for Social Security, I do not think it is prudent to do so at the risk of allowing the country to go into default to achieve that end. There is must good in the tax relief bill. Our tax cut focuses on middle-income Americans. The centerpiece is marriage penalty relief. We also help small business, make health care more affordable, and we will make filing tax forms a lot easier. Plus we will lower tax penalties on people who save, reduce death taxes, and provide tax relief for senior citizens, for education and child care. We also provide help for farmers and ranchers who have been hit hard this year. This is a compromise that I can support. Our plan protects Social Security and reduces the worst penalties in the tax code, but it is also a safety check against big government and wasteful spending. For those who say we are hurting the Social Security Trust Fund . . . let's go the Administration themselves. When Ms. Judy Chesser, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social Security Administration was asked if these tax cuts would impact the Social Security Trust Funds she said ``NO.'' Therefore this tax relief plan has no impact on the Trust Funds. Period. And finally . . . isn't it possible that if we reduce taxes ever so lightly we will also give more incentives for Americans to create more jobs and to ultimately provide more revenues to the Government. This will mean more surplus to the Government which will again shore up the Social Security trust fund. All of us here must also remember that we might not have a surplus if it does not stop these emergencies supplements appropriations for all these monies that the President is talking about. Every day he is proposing a new program and every country he goes into he promises more money without true accountability. So let's stop these emergency appropriations. For those Senior Citizens who want tax credit relief for estate taxes and a social security earnings limit, I suggest that this bill our plan will actually help Senior Citizens. There are many other things that make H.R. 4578 a good bill towards passage tomorrow of our 90-10 tax relief plan. Seniors have done their part to make this country great and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. When the President receives this bill, he can sign it thereby ensuring that Social Security will remain solvent for generations to come. For these reasons I support H.R. 4578.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose fast track, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association has basically come out against the fast track vote we are having here tonight. Earlier, I was on the House Floor with the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, where they also opposed this fast track vote. Farmers in my district are still opposed to the authority that we are proposing tonight to give to the President with fast track, regardless of the last-minute deals, because of the failure of this administration to live up to their promises from the last fast track authority. For example, my tomato growers have written that, ``The President could have taken real steps to fix the problems for Florida's tomato growers and other winter or seasonal vegetable growers associated with the failures of the NAFTA agreement, yet nothing has happened.'' Mr. Speaker, President Clinton even wrote to Congress before NAFTA was approved to state that he ``was permanently committed to ensuring NAFTA was enforceable and effective to protect the U.S. vegetable industry against price-based import surges from Mexico.'' Mr. Speaker, despite these promises, the administration has failed to protect the winter vegetable industry; and, in fact, the onslaught of vegetables coming into Florida has hurt our industry terribly. For these reasons, and for the reasons outlined in the two letters I put in the Record, I oppose fast track at this time. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record: Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Orlando, FL, September 25, 1998. Hon. Cliff Stearns, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Stearns: This is to advise you on behalf of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and its membership that we continue to be opposed to the enactment of fast-track legislation. Our opposition is based on continuing concerns over current and potential trade agreements on import-sensitive agricultural products, the inadequacy of import relief remedies, country of origin labeling, and other issues. We accordingly ask you to vote ``no'' when the fast- track bill comes to the House floor later today. We greatly appreciate your on-going support of Florida agriculture. Sincerely, Michael J. Stuart, President.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the White House today is sending signals that it would like to broker some type of deal in order to avoid a full inquiry via the impeachment process. But Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot shirk from its duty. We are obliged to have a full and open debate on the merits of whether or not we should go forward with a formal inquiry on impeachment. Let us not be unduly influenced by watching poll numbers. As the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Henry Hyde) has said, ``Poll-taking is an art, not a science.'' The Framers of the Constitution knew this would not be an easy or pleasant task, but they did make provisions for such a possibility. We must remember, this is a Nation of laws, not daily opinion polls. Whether or not perjury was committed will be determined in due course, not by opinion polls, but as prescribed under the Constitution.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to say a few words about Angelo Catani, a fellow Floridian, who will be retiring next month. Angelo distinguished himself in a variety of positions throughout his 30 plus years of service, including his initial employment with the American Machine & Foundry, where he was responsible for installation of the hydraulic lift system on the Titan missile program. He followed up that position by joining General Electric Co. where for the next 12 years he was involved in engineering programs such as the update of the Possidon fired control systems, Launch Complex-34 propellant transfer system at Kennedy Space Center and the Saturn V, S- IVB stage support equipment. Following a successful career at General Electric, Mr. Catani joined Aerojet Ordnance Company as Vice President, Ammunition and was responsible for the development of Aerojet's 25mm ammunition programs. In 1983, he joined Olin as Vice President and General Manager of its Defense Production operation. Subsequently, in 1987 he was also appointed President of the Ordnance Division; then in 1993 was elected to the position of Corporate Vice President, of the Olin Corporation; and, finally, in 1997 he was elected Vice President of PRIMEX Technologies, Inc. Among his many other accomplishments, Mr. Catani was an active member of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), and the National Defense Industrial Association (INDIA). In 1997, Mr. Catani was inducted into the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps Hall of Fame. Mr. Catani also serves with distinction on the Board of Trustees at the University of Tampa, and is Chairman of the Tampa Bay Watch Foundation. I wish Angelo and his wife, Paige, all the best as they look forward to their years of retirement, in which they will split their time between Florida and their home in Durango, Colorado.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there has been recent talk in the press and around the country since the release of the Starr report that censure of the President would be appropriate punishment. Under our Constitution, Congress has absolutely no power to censure a sitting President. Censure is an exercise for each body of Congress to discipline their own Members, not a sitting President. The only historical case of censuring a President was when Congress censured Andrew Jackson regarding the policy of the National Bank. It is clear that Congress acted outside its constitutional powers then because the censure was for policy differences, not because laws were broken. If Members of Congress believe that the President has violated the law, Congress should move forward with courage and start the impeachment process rather than create a false solution by censuring the President. Either laws were broken or they were not broken. If they were broken, then we should step up to our constitutional responsibility and do what is necessary to complete it. The rule of law is the rule of law. That is what my argument would be, to follow the law rather than the censure and start the impeachment process if laws are broken.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the President addressed the Nation and told the American people that based on convincing evidence he had linked the bombings of the embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, to Osama bin Ladin, the Saudi millionaire whose base of operations is in Afghanistan. He went on to say that he had given our Armed Forces orders to launch cruise missile attacks against these targets. The first, of course, was a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. The second target was a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan where evidence pointed to the fact that it was being used to manufacture chemical weapons. Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about this is that since these strikes were made, we have not heard anything more from the President or his administration about this matter. The question is, did we achieve our bombing objectives at these two sites? Where is Mr. Ladin today? Is he still alive and still operating in secret and conspiring against the United States, or was he in the training camp when we destroyed its base of operation in Afghanistan? As the days went by after these retaliatory strikes were carried out, new information surfaced about the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. On September 1st, the Los Angeles Times reported that Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant produced human and veterinarian medicines for the impoverished nation and the evidence about Mr. Ladin's financial stake in the facility had been overstated. Mr. Speaker, the President owes this country a full accounting, because the orders he gave, which were carried out, could have far- reaching effects that impact every U.S. citizen living both here and abroad. There is a long history of terrorist activity against the United States. Sadly, our response has been weak at best. I would like to read you a quote from Mr. Jensen, an international editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver in his article entitled ``Responding to Terrorist Attacks.'' He states, Our government imposes sanctions on so-called rogue nations that sponsor terrorism, which hasn't altered their behavior one bit, but one makes no effort to go after terrorists on the ground. In most cases it does not even retaliate for terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, we are a civilized nation and thus far have refrained from fighting terror with terror. Is that the answer? Mr. Jensen goes on to say that Israel, through the Mossad, has perfected the art of fighting terror with terror. Mr. Jensen's article also points out that over the last few years, 90 foreign hostages, including 11 Americans, have been held in captivity by Hezbollah and its operatives. Eleven were killed or died while in captivity. Such atrocities cannot be allowed. Do we as a nation deal with such vicious attacks against our citizens by seeking to use the rule of law? According to Mr. Jensen, in the few instances where we have retaliated, such as President Reagan's bombing of Libya and President Clinton's use of the Tomahawk missiles, the civilian casualties that resulted have caused such international outrage that our reasons for taking such actions were totally obliterated. We must make our enemies realize that if they take action against our country, we will take swift and decisive action against them as well. Therefore, it is not my intention this morning to criticize the President's actions, because I think they were justified, based upon American intelligence and foreign intelligence. Thousands of people were killed in Kenya and Tanzania, and I do not think we should stand idly by and pretend it did not happen. However, I am concerned that we have lost credibility in the international community because of the confusion about why we took the actions we did against these specific targets. Mr. Speaker, my message is simple today: Mr. President, do you not think the American people have a right to know whether our mission was successful? Please tell us today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I come to the House floor to talk about the international money fund and Russia. I think many of us are very deeply concerned about what is happening in Russia, and there have been calls in the land to have Americans continue funding the international money fund, and the international money fund should help bail out Russia. But I come here this afternoon to talk about what we really should do. Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin was quoted recently as saying, ``At this point, we don't have a Russian economic team. We don't have a Russian economic plan.'' That is unbelievable. We had, in the subcommittee, a hearing on this. I did not serve on this, but the chairman invited me to listen, and I heard some of the witnesses. I think we all agree that the goal should be to find a way to help Russia, but more importantly, what has gone wrong with Russia's economy, and how has the IMF's policies affected the current economic state of Russia? As I have mentioned numerous times in the past here on the floor, the economic dilemmas in Asia, in Russia, are not due necessarily to excess capitalism but to the lack of controls, the lack of policing in these nations, and truly, not putting in place a free market system. There is a great book by Michael Novak called The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Mr. Novak talks about how the need for successful capitalism in countries depends upon a culture, a culture of honesty and a culture in which, if honesty is not in place, the government polices it and makes sure corruption does not exist. It also talks about democracy, the freedom of a Nation to elect its leaders, and it talks about ownership of property. These three components make up every successful Nation that deals in the area of capitalism. But in this case, Russia does not have in place a policing system to stop corruption. Let me quote from Jim Hoagland, who did an article entitled ``Russia, a System that Prevailed and Failed.'' He said, ``The fundamental problem in Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere was not that they went too far in adopting American style capitalism, but these nations did not go far enough.'' Then he went on later to talk about Russia, and he said, ``Russia demonstrates the perils of trying to skim off the cream of a globalized economy without adopting the checks and controls needed to restrain human appetites and ambitions. Lacking in Russia and Asia was an appreciation of the open and fair competition needed to police capitalism and to make it work.'' That is the key. ``Since its 1991 revolution, Russia has not developed a risk-based entrepreneurial market economy, and its institutions, to allocate rewards and pain through the efficiency of the marketplace.'' That has not been in place. Mr. Speaker, not only have Russia's leaders failed in developing a free market system, they have allowed pure, all-out corruption to guide Russia, and allowed the corrupters to steal billions of dollars to create their own criminal fiefdoms. Official Russian corruption is unmatched anywhere in the world. Experts say Russia is being plundered through the sale of its natural resources. In a typical scheme, a seller, aided by corrupt officials, sells Russian commodities overseas for higher prices than he reports to the government, and pockets the difference. A Russian scholar compared reports of such sales filed with the Russian government with known market prices of the same commodities. His findings are related on the chart that I have here on the floor, Mr. Speaker. The difference in the chart represents the amount believed to have been stolen. When we talk about crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, and aluminum, you can see the estimated illegal profits from commodity sales in Russia. For 1995 alone, the estimated illegal profits from the sale of crude oil were $828 million, $1.5 billion in petroleum products, $1.2 billion in natural gas, and $900 million in illegal profits from aluminum sales. All told, the Russian government lost $4.4 billion in revenue in 1995. With these facts of how Russia has been plundered, how can the Clinton Administration and the IMF continue to justify propping up the failed Russian government by demanding more money from hard-working U.S. taxpayers. We have seen that the recent Russian bailout by the IMF amounting to $22.6 billion has been a failure. The IMF should suspend any additional payments to Russia immediately and until there can be a consensus built whether any additional funding would actually do any good for Russia. Congress should continue withholding any additional funding to the IMF itself until Congress can determine if the IMF is increasing the ``moral hazard'' by continuing its bailouts. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying the IMF should suspend funding until we find out how to stop corruption, and in fact, Congress should not give funding to the IMF until it understands how the IMF works in Russia.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The American people paid for this report. They have a right to see it immediately without any spin. With regard to this rule on the Starr report, we need to make the report public immediately for these reasons: 1. Immediate release on the internet will prevent the selective leak of information both favorable and unfavorable to the President. 2. The American people, as taxpayers, have a right to see the report, complete and unedited by the media or other sources. This method provides access to the report to everyone at the same time. They paid for this report. Let us give it to them. 3. Internet release is the least partisan method of releasing the information. No one has any advantage in spinning the information for their own purposes. 4. The report is now property of the House of Representatives, as the Constitutionally authorized body to determine whether impeachment is warranted. If anyone should be able to review the material, it should be the House, and then the President, not the reverse.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague, Chairman Young, in support of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act. I became involved in issue because I found it outrageous that almost ninety sportsmen were cited for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during a charity dove hunt in Dixie County, Florida back in 1995. I had the privilege of representing that area when I first came to Congress and I take personal umbrage with how unfairly these individuals were treated. It is not my intention to give you a blow by blow description about this incident, but I will tell you that many hunters were cited and fined almost $40,000 for ``allegedly'' hunting on a baited field. The fact is that nearly all the hunting took place in an area which had never been inspected for baiting. What is even more perplexing is that the citations were delivered without any regard to the guilt or innocence of the hunters. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify what we mean when we use the term ``baited field.'' Since Congress has never passed a law defining what qualifies as ``baiting'' a field, there is much confusion which results in federal courts acting inconsistently on such cases. While this activity is justifiably illegal, there are various legal interpretations that should be clarified. Under current standards, a person is held liable for hunting on a baited field even though that person did not realize the field was baited. This is unfair, as many of my constituents found out the hard way. Under current law, it is not illegal to bait a field or to feel migratory birds. However, it is strictly prohibited to hunt in such an area. This bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1918 by eliminating strict liability for baiting by adding the following provision: ``It is unlawful for any person to take any migratory game bird by aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the area is a baited area; or place or direct the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the purpose of causing, inducing, or allowing any person to take or attempt to take any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting on or over the baited area.'' Mr. Chairman, I believe this definition spells out precisely what we mean when we use term ``baiting'' a field, and will eliminate any possible future misinterpretation. The sole purpose of this legislation is to clarify baiting restrictions to ensure that migratory birds and their habitats are preserved while protecting law-abiding citizens from unfair prosecution. Unfortunately, passage of this legislation did not occur in time to assist the hunters in Dixie County, Florida, but it will prevent others from facing unfair repercussions for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Last year, I testified before Chairman Young's committee on the problems associated with the need to define what we mean when we use the term ``baiting'' a field, I believe H.R. 2863 will achieve that goal and prevent the problems that many law-abiding hunter have experienced from occuring in the future.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's English Language Fluency Act, and I believe in this age of communications it is extremely important and vital that English be the dominant language here in the United States. We in Congress should support any bill, any bill, that supports accelerating students' acquisition of English. Studies in California have shown that only about 5 percent of English learning students a year can be classified as English proficient, so this bilingual education program is not doing the job it should be doing. Mastering the English language is the best formula for personal and professional success in America. The late Senator Hayakawa said: America is an open society, more open than any other in the world. People of every race, of every color, of every culture are welcomed here to create a new life for themselves and their families. And what do these people who enter into the American mainstream have in common? English. English, our shared, common language. It is imperative that we help our immigrant students to learn their new language as quickly as possible. We must help them to enter the mainstream and not ostracize them and limit them. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from Connecticut continue to talk about the Shays-Meehan bill. I respect they won the battle on the floor, yet they come down and take the time on another completely different bill and start talking about their bill. It is not even relevant to the Farr amendment. I think it is important we go back and talk about what we are talking about. After you listen to the two Members from Connecticut, you would think we were talking about the Shays-Meehan amendment when we are talking about the Farr substitute. The Farr substitute would reduce the advertising rate by 50 percent below the lowest unit charge rate that broadcasters now are already forced to charge political candidates and would give free time to candidates to respond to other ads. When I looked at this, I went back and reminded myself of an article that was in the Hill magazine newspaper on June 10, 1998. This Hill magazine really shows what is going to happen if the Farr substitute is passed. Federal political candidates, because they would have absolutely minimal rates to pay, will gobble up all the available ad space and squeeze out all local State candidates as well as probably squeeze out all the third-party candidates who have the fundamental and constitutional right to express their free speech, who want to inform the public on specific issues. These are people that are not Republicans, they are not Democrats. Libertarians, Independents and others will not even be able to get on the TV screen. This has been documented in that article. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Farr amendment. This is socializing the political campaigns. I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, sometimes we do not fully recognize the law of unintended consequences here in Congress. Many Members of Congress, in their zeal to regulate American society, believe they know what is good for all Americans, but they do not take into account how their liberal do-goodism negatively affects the industry in which they are trying to regulate. The debate that Washington should force television and radio broadcasters to bend to its will and provide federal political candidates with free broadcast time for political advertisements is fraught with problems. The idea to regulate political speech has been ruled unconstitutional over and over again by the Supreme Court. The Farr substitute will have the unintended consequences of: severely harming broadcasters financially; damage state and local party candidates; insulate incumbents and the two main parties from challengers and from third parties; and in the end, harm our democracy and our notions of freedom. As an example of my argument, The Hill newspaper reported on June 10, 1998, ``TV stations ration campaign advertising, citing high demand.'' The article states that in this year's primary campaign in California, the requests for political advertising were so overly demanding that complying with every request to purchase advertising space for political ads would have placed television stations in an economic bind. The stations, in response to such high demands, were forced to restrict local and state candidates, besides those running for Governor, from airing political ads. The Hill reported that stations ``KCBS and KPIX refused to take ads from campaigns other than federal campaigns and the governor's race, infuriating candidates for other offices.'' Well, what do the Members think will happen if we follow the Farr Substitute, which would reduce the advertising rate by 50% below the lowest unit charge rate that broadcasters now are already forced to charge political candidates and would give free time to candidates to respond to other ads? This story in The Hill indicates what will happen. Federal political candidates, because they would have absolutely minimal rates to pay, will gobble up all the available ad space and squeeze out all local and state candidates, as well as probably squeeze out all other third party groups, who have the fundamental and constitutional right to express their free speech, who want to inform the public on specific issues or candidates. For an example, Ron Gonzales, Democratic candidate for Mayor of San Jose, CA, could not even purchase any time for political ads and was put into a competitive disadvantage that forced him into a runoff. But instead of making sure that all candidates and all groups have an equitable opportunity to acquire time to inform the public of their candidacies or the issues important to them, the proponents of free air time want to make the system as unequitable as possible and give just federal candidates priority. The other dramatic and unintended consequence of such free time proposals would be the devastating economic impact it would have on broadcasters. In the Farr Substitute, all primary candidates would have an automatic rate 50% below the lowest rate broadcasters already charge. There are no limits in this Substitute about how many adds could be aired or how much time would be given to candidates. Broadcasters already have a significant financial commitment to make in transitioning to digital television. Broadcasters will have to spend tens of millions of dollars in order to transition to digital television in the next few years. With federal elections every two years, free air time proposals threaten conversion to HDTV. Imposing free-time requirements on broadcast licensees would be the equivalent of telling lawyers, doctors, or home builders, who all have to be licensed in some capacity, what kind of law that they would have to practice, what type of information they could give to patients, or what type of homes to build. Once Washington starts trying to control how much, when, and what rates political candidates must pay, I fear it will snowball to the point where people in Washington, with good intentions, will try to tell political candidates what they can say. I think these free time precedents are a danger to our democracy as a whole because they defend just the narrow interests of a few, federal candidates.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), I do not think they have read the amendment. When they quote Madam Barshefsky, in which she said no panel proceedings have ever been brought against any State or municipal law or regulation, well, perfect, that is what we are talking about. That is what this amendment is. It is just saying that no State or local laws will be challenged by the Federal Government, just what she said. It fits in perfectly with our amendment, which states basically that you cannot use Federal funds to challenge State and local governments. So, I do not know, they are talking about the Constitution, they are talking about all these mishmash laws all around our 50 States. They obviously have not read the amendment. We are agreeing with Madam Barshefsky, who basically said that no Federal funds will go towards such challenges. So our amendment matches basically what the traditional recognition is by Barshefsky and everybody else. All we are saying is let us codify it today. A lot of people say, well, you know, what are we talking about? The States and local communities are not being impacted. No? In my State of Florida, Venezuela brought legal action against Florida under the auspices of the WTO for Florida's oil refinery standards. Now, Florida maintains a very clean air standard to reduce pollution, but Venezuela challenged that standard because the oil produced in Venezuela could not meet the Florida standard. Venezuela was successful, and Florida is now forced to reduce their environmental standards to accommodate the WTO decision. Do you think that is right? Some of the other things that have been mentioned, the Helms-Burton Act which enacted trade sanctions against Cuba was challenged by the European Community at the World Trade Organization. Switzerland has indicated that they will bring an action to the WTO against New York City, California and New Jersey for their sanction laws against Swiss banks that held assets stolen by Nazi Germany from the Holocaust victims for over 40 years. Buy-American provisions in numerous States and localities. The question before us tonight is how can international agreements go in, overturning laws passed by States and localities that have not been ratified by anybody other than the World Trade Organizations? I certainly would not necessarily endorse every law passed by the City of Berkeley, California, or San Francisco, but are not the laws these localities pass the essence of democracy? And as long as States and localities do not violate the U.S. Constitution, their local laws should be defended by the Federal Government and not challenged and thrown out by the World Trade Organization. So the bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, and it is a perfect amendment that matches with Ambassador Barshefsky, that no government will file against State and local governments, and no Federal funds can be used. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and let us move forward.