Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike $109.2 million in the bill for United States arrears to the United Nations. Now, earlier we had an amendment from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) which struck all the money. I am striking less than 25 percent. So this is a modest proposal, and I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration, because I saw that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) lost on his amendment. According to the GAO study released in June of 1998, the United Nations itself recognizes that the UN owes the United States about $109.2 million for reimbursement for U.S. contributions for peacekeeping. The chart I have here on my left from the GAO study shows that the United States is owed the second highest amount of reimbursement for peacekeeping operations, second, of course, only to France, at $151.2 million. Of course, the $109.2 million that I propose in my amendment the UN does recognize does not take into account the multimillions we have spent in various peacekeeping operations, as my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has already pointed out. Mr. Chairman, I personally applaud the Committee on Appropriations for what they are doing, trying to pare down the U.S. arrears amount, specifically in regard to the peacekeeping effort. The appropriators have provided a reduced amount of $475 million from what the accounting-impaired United Nations claims is owed, and the appropriators are appropriating this appropriation to actual authorization legislation that is intended to push reform at the United Nations. The GAO report indicates that the UN even calculates peacekeeping arrears amounts that we are intentionally withholding for legislative and policy reasons. For instance, Congress placed a cap on the peacekeeping assessment charged by the UN. The UN at that time assessed a peacekeeping charge to the U.S. at an exaggerated 31.7 percent rate that was set by the General Assembly to cover peacekeeping contribution shortfalls following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Congress thought that the assessment rate was too high and implemented a policy cap for the peacekeeping at 30.4 percent, which was still too high, in my opinion. But even this reduction reduced our financial obligation to the UN for peacekeeping by $123 million. After the UN peacekeeping fiasco in Somalia, in which 19 heroic American service members lost their lives, Congress in 1995 further pursued a legislative cap on peacekeeping assessments at 25 percent after October 1, 1995. This lower assessment pursued by Congress has led to an additional $128 million in American taxpayer savings. But instead of recognizing that the U.S. has chosen for valid policy and legislative reasons to permanently withhold $251 million from the UN for peacekeeping assessments, the UN is still maintaining, is still maintaining, Mr. Chairman, we owe them an additional $251 million. I strongly believe that we need to further reduce this funding for peacekeeping arrears, to continue sending to the Secretary General and the rest of the United Nations a message that dramatic, widespread reform has to be implemented, including significant bureaucratic staff cuts and budget reductions. My continued problem with the United Nations is its refusal to implement such reforms, although the U.S. has been breathing down its neck for some time. Mr. Chairman, the Washington Post quoted the former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as saying that, ``Perhaps half the United Nations staff does nothing useful.'' Congress has consistently demanded reductions in the UN worldwide staff of 53,000 people, not including 10,000 consultants or the peacekeeping forces which reached 80,000 in 1993. As you saw in the Washington Times yesterday, they have the most generous salary and benefits package in public life. In fact, the United Nations donates 16 percent of your salary in your thrift savings accounts, in addition to your 7.5, and you are almost up to 24 percent of your salary. Plus, as you saw, the Secretary General makes $300,000, and there are roughly 3,622 of these people who range from almost $50,000 to $300,000 in salary. Most UN salaries are tax-free. Many employees have rent subsidies up to $3,800 a month and also have annual education grants of $12,675 per child. We could perhaps argue on the floor today about these perks, and colleagues on this side or that side that defend the UN will say ``Well, Cliff, you are exaggerating.'' I would just like to say that if you read the Washington Times article, it is pretty clear that all of us would agree it is pretty generous. What is the solution? Well, the Secretary General says we are going to do reform. He plans to consolidate 12 secretarial departments into five. Remember now, he is just taking these 12 departments and making five of them, but he is not reducing, not cutting, any employee in these 12 departments. He has a 9,000-strong secretarial staff. The Secretary General also proposes three economic development departments representing $122 million of the Secretary's budget and employing 700 people be reduced to one department. Again, he is talking about reform but there is no reduction in employees or expenditures. No reduction in people, no reduction in expenditures, and he calls that reform. Any of the Fortune 500 companies who did that would be laughed out of the convention center by their stockholders. Also two human rights offices in Geneva are merged into one. That sounds good. But, again, no reduction in employees. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been any reform by the Secretary General, and I would be glad to hear if my opponents disagree. But I say we must continue in Congress to limit any appropriations for alleged U.S. arrears until a comprehensive reform plan is in place at the United Nations. As a responsible representative of these great American people, we can do nothing less this afternoon. So I urge my colleagues to support my modest amendment, modest amendment, to reduce the money from the appropriators, roughly $475 million, just reduce it by $109.2 million. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that regardless of what side you are on in this debate, you have to understand that any bureaucratic institution can reform itself and reduce its staff, but this body is not doing it. I urge Members to support my amendment.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton sat on the South Side of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, where he commandeered 1.7 million acres in Utah. The citizens and elected officials of Utah were shocked, without any advance notice and without asking for input, that the President took away a whole chunk of land the size of Delaware and Rhode Island. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the White House is busy expanding its powers throughout the Nation at the expense of State and local governments. So I think what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is trying to do is prohibit, through his amendment, the execution of the Executive Order 13083. For those who keep talking about the Hefley amendment, this has nothing to do with the Hefley amendment. I appreciate what they are trying to do. Frankly, I support the Hefley amendment, but I also support the Kolbe amendment, and also believe that the President has to realize that all the Governors do not support what he is doing, either through his Executive Orders. We will have to wait to see if he is actually going to rescind these Executive Orders or not. I stand up in support of the Kolbe amendment and in support of the Hefley amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I think most of us can agree this morning that the one basic task for the Attorney General is to uphold the Nation's laws. Yet, Janet Reno is refusing to do that by not appointing an independent prosecutor to investigate campaign abuses by officials in the Clinton administration. She is acting a lot like Rip Van Winkle, who was asleep for over a year. She has been asleep for the last year as her two top investigators, FBI Director Louis Freeh and the head of the Justice Task Force Charles LaBella have recommended an appointment of an independent prosecutor. The law is clear. The appointment of an independent counsel should be automatically triggered with just the hint of laws being broken by such officials. What more does she need? But meanwhile, the Attorney General Janet Reno keeps sitting on her hands blind to the evidence and, Mr. Speaker, blind to the law.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I tell my colleague who objected, I intend to withdraw this amendment after a short statement, after engaging in a colloquy with a few Members on my side and also one on his side. I realize that prohibiting Internet gambling is a hot button issue today, but I think there is a majority in Congress that strongly believes that such a prohibition is needed to prevent the disease of gambling from infecting the Internet. That is why I have offered the same bill that Senator Kyl has offered in the Senate that passed by 90 to 10, and I believe introducing the Kyl language here in the House would be very important. I want to move that forward. I have received strong support both in the committee, the Committee on Commerce, as well as from the National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Association of Attorneys General and other groups that are adversely affected with the continuance of Internet gambling. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I recognize there are some areas of the Senate bill that need to be improved and clarified, particularly with the treatment of sports fantasy and educational games and treatment of advertising. As the process moves forward in the House, I look forward to working with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think we can also take that into account.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to recognize the hard work that other Members have done here tonight and also to recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who has worked hard on this, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and others who are supporting this.

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say we have had a vote earlier on the Kolbe amendment. Perhaps my colleagues saw the Kolbe amendment pass. I think it was almost 400. The problem is here in the House we are starting to feel the President is moving out not just on his own agenda, whether it be domestic or social, he is also moving out on a military agenda. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) mentioned, he is using the word ``proceed'' forward with a treaty without going to the Senate to ratify. So it is appropriate today, tonight when we think about the executive orders, to also put in perspective that the President is moving out on a defense agenda without Congress, and all my colleague is saying is hold it, hold it. Let us not move forward without the Senate.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) gave his speech, and I have great respect for him, but I ask him later to come back and define what sexual orientation is. I am not sure he can define it, or anyone else in this House, yet the President, in Executive Order 13087, adds behavioral characteristics of sexual orientation to the immutable characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, even though the term sexual orientation has never really been defined. Now, what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is trying to do is he is trying to roll back some of these executives orders from the President. Whenever he feels he has to, he starts to move his agenda through an Executive Order. His proposals make social reforms that he deems necessary despite the will of this body. And the gentleman from Colorado is saying tonight that let us stop funding these executive orders. That is all he is trying to say. This is not a debate about anything other than to try to stop the President from issuing executive orders that go against the will of Congress. Let me just give my colleagues a thought in closing, and this is from the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. ``The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is dominated by the executive branch.'' Now, this is right from history, 2000 years ago, so I suggest we listen to it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the bill and compliment our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and, of course, I compliment my good friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for their activities. I participated in some of the areas dealing with technological protection measures, defining this actually: The no-mandate provision, which makes clear that manufacturers need not design their products to respond to any particular technological protection measure was included in the report; language to the compromise on ``fair use'' which seeks to protect consumers from a pay-per-view world in the digital area; and, three, provisions ensuring activities important to our economy and national security such as reversed engineering and encryption research will not be stifled by the new prohibition on circumventing technological protection measure. I appreciate also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), who was very helpful and diligent in approving our amendments and working together. I recognize his efforts, and I rise in strong support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the final legislative product to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty to provide legal protection to the millions of American copyright holders and American companies. I would also like to congratulate the efforts and the hard work of the key players to forge a compromise and bring this bill to the floor: Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee and Chairman Coble of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee deserve particular praise. It has been a long and hard process to get us to this point. I had numerous concerns with the original bill that I believed needed correction. During consideration of H.R. 2281, the Commerce Committee heard from many concerned groups including libraries, educators, researchers, consumer groups, advocates for families such as Eagle Forum and the Christian Coalition, and representatives of manufacturers of legitimate consumer electronics products. All of these groups raised legitimate concerns which the Commerce Committee has sought to address. The bill we consider today represents many hours of debate and compromise. It is not a perfect solution, but it includes important provisions designed to protect consumers and legitimate manufacturers of consumer electronics while providing important new protections to copyright owners so that their works may thrive in the digital environment. Among the important provisions in the legislation are: (1) The ``no mandate'' provision which makes clear that manufacturers need not design their products to respond to any particular technological protection measure; (2) The compromise on ``fair use'' which seeks to protect consumers from a ``pay-per-view'' world in the digital era; and (3) Provisions ensuring that activities important to our economy and national security such as reverse engineering and encryption research will not be stifled by the new prohibition on circumventing technological protection measures. I would also like to note that during consideration of the WIPO legislation in the Commerce Committee, I had joined with my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, in offering an amendment that would have defined the term ``technological protection measure,'' because such a definition was lacking in the original bill. Mr. Boucher and I worked diligently to improve our amendment and to seek a compromise position for a definition that would have enjoyed the support of the content community, as well as from the product manufacturers. We succeeded. In order to push the bill forward and out of the Commerce Committee, we agreed to withdraw the amendment in exchange for Chairman Bliley's support of report language that would have expanded on the proper definition of a ``technological protection measure.'' Although I believe the bill could have been further improved had we had the chance to define this term before bringing the bill to the floor, I believe the report of the Commerce Committee very clearly identifies the types of technological protection measures which are entitled to the special protections of this legislation. In addition, I am confident that the federal courts that consider the meaning of the term ``technological protection measure'' will find sufficient guidance in the Commerce Committee's report. I thank Chairman Bliley for following through on his commitment and allowing such report language to be drafted, inserted, and negotiated with the Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent that my extended and revised remarks appear in the Record as if spoken.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Judge Starr was appointed by a 3-judge panel to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by the White House. Mr. Speaker, he has compiled a remarkable record. Although we would never know it if we were watching TV today, Judge Starr has been perhaps the most single independent successful counsel in history. Fifteen guilty pleas or convictions thus far. Fifteen. And yet, the untruth gets repeated over and over again that Judge Starr has ``nothing to show'' for his investigations. David Hale, Charles Matthews, Eugene Fitzhugh, Robert Palmer, Webster Hubbell, Neal Ainley, Christopher Wade, William J. Marks, Sr., Jim Guy Tucker, John Haley, Stephen Smith, and Larry Kuca, these 12 have all pleaded guilty to felonies as a result of Judge Starr's investigations. In addition to those guilty pleas, Governor Jim Guy Tucker, James McDougal, and Susan McDougal have been convicted by a jury of their peers for other crimes they have committed. Twelve guilty pleas and 3 convictions. Nothing to show? Let the American people decide if these allegations are true.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to echo the comments of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman). We did indeed recognize Malcolm Randall for his efforts, the 40 years of hard work he has done at that hospital. I had the privilege to represent that hospital for 4 years in Congress, and I wanted to echo the sentiments of my colleague. Mr. Randall has been an outstanding administrator, and, more importantly, he has been there for 40 years. He developed this hospital from a very small facility to a very prestigious institution. I have toured that facility many times and I have spoken at their dedications and veterans' ceremonies, so I feel a special akin to that institution. So I am pleased to recognize the naming of the institution, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) has mentioned. I am glad we included this initiative as part of our bill. I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her efforts, because she is the one that spearheaded this effort and got it going in the early stages. She also got the Florida delegation to all sign on. The gentlewoman is to be recognized, and that is another reason I stand. I stand also to recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for her efforts.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition from the distinguished chairman of the full committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few moments just to outline some of the broad understanding of this Gulf War syndrome for the record. Mr. Speaker, in January and early February of 1991, the United States stood on the brink of what many people anticipated would be a protracted military campaign against the forces of an aggressor nation. Many lawmakers, some in this Chamber, opposed military action, of course, fearing heavy losses. Thankfully our armed forces proved vastly superior to Saddam Hussein's army, and in a matter of days the conflict was over. Appropriately, much of the credit for our swift, decisive action went to the approximately 700,000 American men and women who served in the Gulf War during that operation. As a Nation, of course, we salute their heroism. In one month after the war's close, however, it became apparent that many Persian Gulf veterans who had escaped the hazards of enemy rockets, tanks, mines and gunfire were not left untouched. Increasingly veterans who returned home uninjured began to experience illnesses with multiple symptoms which their doctors really could not explain. Almost as soon as the reports of these problems reached Congress, our committee, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, began investigating. We held two hearings in 1992 exploring the possible link between these illnesses and the troops' exposure to the chemical soot of Iraqi-set oil well fires. With continued reports of veterans' health problems, the committee continued its review, seeking to explore the possible effects of an ever-growing number of risk factors. In all, the committee has held 17 hearings relating to the health effects of service in the Persian Gulf War. While answers to these many questions remained elusive, the committee over the years has nevertheless initiated the passage of unprecedented legislation to address health care problems experienced by Persian Gulf veterans, research on risk factors associated with such service, and provision of compensation for veterans with unexplained or undiagnosed conditions. In the course of its oversight, the committee has heard from individual veterans and their dependents and representatives, as well as clinicians, researchers and auditors. We have met with and taken testimony from officials of numerous government agencies and representatives of each of the expert panels which have studied Persian Gulf War veterans' health problems, including scientists from the Institute of Medicine and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses. The committee has led efforts to ensure that lack of definitive answers not be a barrier to provision of health care and compensation for health problems which appear to have their origin in service. At the same time we have pushed and pursued funding for research to ascertain the nature of these illnesses and determine the most effective means of treatment. Mr. Speaker, numbers and statistics do not adequately explain the problems that have led us to develop the bill we bring to the floor today. However, the plain-spoken words of a former Marine, Carl Wickline, who testified at one of our hearings, graphically convey the kind of health problems veterans have encountered: Multiple symptoms began to become noticeable shortly after I returned to the United States. Symptoms have included severe headaches, chronic fatigue, recurring neuromuscular back pain, short-term memory loss, lapses in concentration, severe rash, depression which medication has not successfully treated, night sweats, insomnia, severe gastrointestinal problems, blurred vision, photosensitivity, bleeding gums, immune system inefficiencies and multiple chemical sensitivities. Describing VA attempts to treat him as having been unsuccessful, he stated that, I end up in the same place each time I attempt to contact the VA concerning my illnesses. Mental health must be the dead end for all cases which the VA has no knowledge or interest in treating. Mr. Speaker, his experiences echo those of many veterans. In fact, in my district Michael Adcock of Ocala, Florida, who had many of the symptoms Mr. Wickline reported, he died at the age of 22, shortly after returning home to Ocala from the Gulf. Another spouse, Deborah Smith, testified as to how little trust these veterans have. For 5 years veterans questioned the likelihood that they had been exposed to chemical weapons during the Gulf War. For 5 years the Pentagon denied that possibility. When indisputable evidence was presented in 1996, those denials were turned to affirmation. Sensitivity is needed to grasp the betrayal these soldiers experienced due to this incident. What has become clear, Mr. Speaker, is that scientists do not believe there is any one single illness or any single exposure which would explain all these problems. It seems equally clear that many veterans who have undergone VA or DOD clinical examinations or participated in the research programs have very real illnesses which are likely connected to the service in the Gulf. Well, we have reviewed these, and that is why this bill is presented today. In a June of 1997 report on Gulf War illness and testimony before our Subcommittee on Health, the General Accounting Office criticized the Federal research effort as, quote, lacking a coherent approach, and questioned the emphasis Federal departments have given on epidemiological research rather than research on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of Gulf War veterans' illnesses. Our committee initiated legislation last year to foster more clinical research in this area. It is clear that many Persian Gulf veterans are unsatisfied. They are frustrated that research has not provided the full answers, and they perhaps have lost confidence in departments managing that research, and I share their concern. That is why this committee, in developing the legislation we are bringing to the floor today, has sought to bring to attention these concerns to the public and pass legislation that will solve these problems. H.R. 3980 would address all these concerns directly. It would provide both for independent expert oversight of the Federal research program relating to the Gulf War illnesses and a mechanism for, quote, consumer participation in Persian Gulf research agenda-setting. It is not all the military, it is not all the Veterans Affairs. For the first time we bring the consumer in. An independent voice is now available. H.R. 3980 would effectively carry out the recommendation that Congress provide for independent oversight. It would do so by requiring the VA and DOD to enter into contract with the National Academy of Sciences, under which the Academy Institute of Medicine would periodically review and provide recommendations to the departments on their plans and strategies for Persian Gulf research. Such review would involve both assessing and making recommendations on the DOD and other departments' research plan. While the research agenda is the key to resolving long simmering questions, many veterans continue to experience disabling health problems. To that end this bill today would extend VA special treatment authority for Persian Gulf War veterans and to assure that the promise of ``priority health care'' is not compromised. The bill would also elevate the ``enrollment priority'' of the veterans. At the same time the committee recognized that health care issues for Persian Gulf veterans are not just issues of access. Lack of understanding of these issues and lack of tools available to resolve these symptoms have certainly been the perception out there that many veterans have, and we seek to change that in this bill. Evaluations of VA care for the veterans has not been altogether good. The American Legion, for example, testified that, quote, there is little evidence that VA's overall approach provides effective medical treatment for Gulf War veterans with difficult-to-diagnose and ill- defined conditions. The structure of VA's medical system, the lack of treatment protocols to guide physicians in the treatment of this illness, the nature of the illness and the site visit conducted by the American Legion suggests that on the whole VA does not effectively treat these illnesses. Our bill attempts to correct that. There remains questions, I understand, regarding the effectiveness, but the important concerns we have are addressed in this bill. In H.R. 3980 there is a provision to require VA to enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to remedy these problems. We have, Mr. Speaker, to apply the lessons that we have learned from the Persian Gulf War experience and not just continue to hearken on the past. Just as our committee has worked to resolve the health problems, we believe it is critical to apply the lessons in the future. Early this year, for example, the country again faced the possibility of committing our armed forces to military intervention in Iraq with the potential for renewed combat in the Persian Gulf theater we have to be prepared, and we have to have in place legislation to care for these soldiers that might go to fight again. The findings that we provided in our hearings underscores the importance both of increasing understanding of war-related illness generally and of ensuring that the Department of Veterans Affairs is better prepared to treat veterans in future wars or military combat. So, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill takes a long step forward, and let me again say that H.R. 3980 is an important bill, not just for Persian Gulf veterans, but for those now in military service and in the future. I believe the American Legion has best described the significance of these provisions in this bill when they talk about it by saying, ``The best contribution that Congress can make in the search for the cause and medical treatment of Gulf War illnesses, they refer to this bill.'' So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 3980 is an important bill that all Members should support, and I urge all my colleagues to do so.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, of course, if they served 3 years, then they automatically become U.S. citizens. So we are trying to bridge here a little bit of support.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can certainly offer an amendment to change what we have passed here on the House floor, but I think this amendment goes a long way and probably will receive a majority of support.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, probably not, just because I am just going to keep this amendment as it stands, but I think certainly the gentleman could offer his own amendment.