Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few things to my colleagues. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, is opposed to the Hinchey amendment, as well as myself, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The basic reason is this would actually destroy the allocation system. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) knows that we beat this same amendment handily before. And to bring it up again and to try to pit the Northeast against the Southeast is not the way to solve the problem. Throwing more money at any problem is not going to solve it. I think the supporters of this amendment would be better suited and wiser to establish reforms and change and innovations instead of asking to throw more money at problems. Every time they want to come back, they should also realize that the President's budget fell short of the recommendations made by both the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The figures that the gentleman from New York is using here in this debate are based upon the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, and those numbers are preliminary. And so the numbers that the gentleman is using are really not the accurate numbers, and I submit that to the gentleman in all deference. Unfortunately, not all the veterans live in the Northeast. I respect the gentleman's position and the fact that he wants more money. But I also submit that the States in the Southeast have long been without money and so now they are asking for their fair share, because the veterans are moving in. In fact, there is a crisis in the Sunbelt. I think one of my colleagues on that side said there is not a crisis. We need more money, too. In the end, all of us are going to have to come up with innovative ways to serve veterans and we will have to continue to fund them adequately. I think this bill does, out of admiration and deference to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis). The gentleman has made a hard effort here. I urge all Members to support the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and support the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and vote against the Hinchey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hinchey amendment. He is absolutely correct that VERA was designed to ensure that the dollars follow the veterans. Perhaps Rep. Hinchey should consider that the President's budget falls far short of the recommendations made by both the House and Senate appropriators. The figures used by Mr. Hinchey are based upon the President's FY 99 budget for VA and those numbers are preliminary. They are not our numbers--we intend to increase funding for VA and that, in turn, will ensure that the dollars will be disbursed as VERA intended--to our nation's veterans. Last Congress, we passed the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation or VERA system to fix a gross funding inequity. Prior to the passage of VERA, Veterans health funds were allocated based solely on the historical usage of VA facilities, and then were simply adjusted upward each year for inflation. As a result of this system, Veterans funding was concentrated in the densely populated Northeast. Unfortunately, not all of our country's Veterans live in the Northeast. In fact, most now live in the previously grossly underfunded South and West. VERA goes a long way toward fixing this inequity. Under the VERA system, workloads are matched directly with annual allocations. Furthermore, the number of special care veterans, national price and wage differences, and education and equipment differences are taken into account for funding considerations. In other words, VERA eliminates the arcane political mechanism that forced funding into the urban Northeast, replacing it with a funding mechanism that takes reason and common sense into account to determine adequate funding amounts. I urge my colleagues to look at the language of this amendment. It would prohibit the use of VA funding to implement VERA. My point is, this amendment would change current law. And in doing so, would undue what VERA guarantees--that all American veterans have equal access to care regardless of the region of the country in which they live. The bottom line is this: VERA became law during the last Congress, not by mistake, but because the funding mechanism was grossly unfair and terribly inadequate. Put simply, attempts to dismantle the VERA funding system could potentially have an unfair impact on states such as my home state of Florida. As such, Mr. Chairman, in the quest for equality and for fairness for our nation's veterans, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the state of disbelief continues to grow in this town the longer Mike McCurry pretends to inform the public of any factual information regarding the investigation of Judge Starr. His penchant for passing on ill-informed statements to pass as answers to the American people will now be known as ``McCurryism,'' a new word I am coining today. This is a word which means to pretend shock at the suggestion of impropriety by a reporter's question and then answer that question with nothing but pure spin. For instance, a McCurryism from January 21, 1998: ``The President is outraged by these allegations. He has never had any improper relationship with this woman. He has made it clear from the beginning that he wants people to tell the truth on all matters.'' Another McCurryism from yesterday: ``I can only report what I can ontologically know.'' Well, Mr. McCurry, no amount of metaphysical existentialism can pass as answer to the question: What exactly was the nature of the relationship with the President and one of his female interns?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I add my voice in tribute to the two fallen officers who lost their lives in performing their duty last Friday. This tragedy has brought us all together in grief as we remember the dedication of these two fine men, Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. They are the first Capitol Hill Police Officers to be killed in the line of duty and we owe it to them and their fellow officers to work to ensure that they are the last. However, we must also ensure that the public will continue to have access to the nation's Capitol for its historic significance and as the seat of the legislative branch of government. By not keeping this great building open to the some 23,000 people who visit it daily, we will be surrendering a part of our freedom and our heritage. Let me remind my colleagues that Officers Chestnut and Gibson died defending our freedom and our heritage. These deaths show us not only just how fragile life is, but also the invaluable service provided by those who put their life on the line as law enforcement officers. Let us never forget the sacrifice of these officers and those of everyone killed doing their duty. These two families and the entire nation have lost two outstanding individuals. I join in praying for their families and I extend to them by deepest sympathies.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the lead editorial in The New York Times came out strongly against the Attorney General and her continued refusal to admit to the obvious. The law requires that an independent counsel be named to investigate allegations of illegal campaign money from Communist China into the Democratic Party in the 1996 election. FBI Director Louie Freeh has pleaded with the Attorney General to do so. And now Charles Labella, the person who was hand picked by Janet Reno to lead the investigation of these charges, has told the Attorney General that she simply has no choice. The New York Times in this editorial states, ``Ms. Reno can give her usual runaround about being hard-headed, but she cannot hide from the meaning of this development.'' Ms. Reno has ignored the advice of the FBI Director and her own hand- picked investigator for too long. She is a lot like the character in Hogan's Heroes, that great TV series, Sergeant Schultz. When Colonel Hogan would say something to him about nefarious affairs, Sergeant Schultz would say, ``I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing.'' Ms. Reno, it is time to appoint an independent prosecutor for campaign finance.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman and I appreciate what he just spoke, the endorsement. The language as is written could be construed, but I think my colleague has made it clear tonight, that if a program is not authorized by Congress, and this report language does not do that. As the chairman is aware, the federal involvement in local land issues has been a rocky history lately. At this point I include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, the following body of my remarks, which gives this rocky history without belaboring it here on the House floor: By way of background, on April 13, 1998, a US District Court Judge ruled that the National Park Service had the authority to block the construction of a proposed St. Croix River Bridge connecting Stillwater, Minnesota, with Houlton, Wisconsin. Minnesota and Wisconsin spent $14 million on bridge design and purchase of required right-of- way. This construction block was allowed despite Department of Transportation approval of the project. Why was the project halted? Because the St. Croix River is designated as a Wild and Scenic River, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. This Act was the basis for the National Park Service's Authority. The decision turned on the interpretation of the project as a ``water resource project'' by the National Park Service. This gave the National Park Service authority over the project, even though apparent Congressional intent was to prevent any bridge over a designated river to be considered a ``water resource project'' under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In the case of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as Congress was not involved in the creation of the program, courts would have no Congressional history as guidance should disputes arise. If the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program is any indication, we have reason to be concerned about increased federal involvement in our local affairs. It is still unclear exactly what American Heritage Rivers designation means. Already, we are seeing that the policy on this Initiative is far from clear. I wrote to the CEQ over a month ago to request clarification on what a kind of an exemption a Congressman whose District was opted out could expect to receive. I still have received no response from the CEQ. Does the Chairman agree that the CEQ should not use VA/HUD appropriation funds to operate the American Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval?

Mr. STEARNS. Given Mr. Lewis' agreement to resolve this situation, I would like to withdraw my amendment to prevent the CEQ from using VA- HUD Appropriation funds to administer the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I look forward to working with the Chairman and ensuring that the CEQ does not use federal funds to operate the American Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval. I would like to thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying, does the chairman agree that the CEQ should not use VA-HUD appropriation funds to operate the American Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is proposing is to roll back VERA, which was passed last year, which made an allocation on funds based upon population. As the gentleman knows, there has been many, many years with the population, particularly the veterans who have been moving to the Sun Belt. As the gentleman knows, lots of hospitals have given back money that they could not even use. So the VERA allocation was worked out in the Senate and the House after strong long deliberations.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) here and I look forward to working with him in ensuring that the CEQ does not use federal funds to operate the American Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval, and I thank the gentleman for his continued leadership.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about my amendment and engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). As the gentleman is undoubtedly aware, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was established by an executive order and has not gone through the entire committee process. It has not received any Congressional authorization. It has not received any appropriation, and it has not received sufficient oversight by the committee of jurisdiction. A number of Members, including myself, are very concerned about this American Heritage Rivers Initiative program primarily because it has not been authorized by Congress. So I rise today to ensure that the Congressional intent is not to be misconstrued by the Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ. The CEQ should not rely on the Committee on Appropriations VA-HUD Appropriations report language to fund the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, and I am just asking the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), if that is his understanding.

Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the concern of the chairman because, as it points out, the committee states that the Council on Environmental Quality should ``strike a balance when allocating resources so as to adequately fund Congressional priorities as well as the administration's priorities such as the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.'' So primarily I was concerned that CEQ would construe that statement through the House committee report that it spoke for the entire House. So I appreciate the statement of the chairman on this. Mr. Chairman, do you acknowledge this as a program that has really not been approved by Congress?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, polls show today that the majority of ordinary citizens are alarmed and offended by Chinese policies and are opposed to our Nation's policy of appeasing China. In the debate today, I feel they are being left out in the cold. The gentleman from Massachusetts talked about we have to walk this very careful walk with China. What are we scared of? I do not quite understand it. Are we so empowered by money that we are willing to compromise? U.S. policy is more concerned about the Chinese than they are of taking them to task, because they are afraid that it will hamper their ability to make these untold profits in the Chinese markets in the indefinite future? Madam Speaker, the Chinese government controls nearly all the industries and businesses in China. You cannot go over there and own your own business. The Chinese government will always own 51 percent- plus. China is much more dependent upon access to the U.S. markets. Thirty-three percent of China's exports come to the U.S. Only 1.7 percent of U.S. exports go to China. China uses, frankly, a trade deficit to purchase advanced military weapons like Russian naval weapons and to develop their own advanced military technology, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and such. So, frankly, I do not understand what we are scared of today. Why don't we stop this appeasement? What is the problem here? This is the United States of America. Here the United States is worried about China, and we have this skewed policy. We impose a little 2 percent tariff on Chinese products, while the Chinese propose a whopping 35 percent tariff on our goods. Again,what are we scared of? Why are we just walking around all the time concerned about hampering our relationship with China? We keep talking about engagement at the expense of appeasement. I say to all Members of Congress, that in China workers attempting to organize unions in China today do not just face opposition from companies, they end up in jail, in forced labor camps. Is that the kind of policy you want to condone by going ahead and appeasing China? For all of these factors, the record deficits, the tariff gap, the wage disparity and the abuse of workers, that is why I rise in support of House Resolution 121 which disapproves most favored trade status for China.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I will try and do two quotes here to perhaps change the mind of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and others on this subject. Let us go back to the year 1787. During the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina offered a motion to authorize the government to spend money on the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences. The motion was put up before the members and it was defeated overwhelmingly. From that point on through the years of 1960, Americans enjoyed a vibrant and successful art community. Successful not because of the government, but without the government. Is the gentleman from Illinois repudiating all of that history? Suddenly, almost 200 years later in 1965, Congress started talking about supporting the arts through Federal funding. But do my colleagues know which President said he was against funding for the arts? President Kennedy, who stated, ``I do not believe Federal funds should support symphony orchestras or opera companies.'' NEA has gotten very political. Everybody who is going to support the NEA would have to agree it has gotten very political, and the Federal Government has been the primary endorser of very controversial pieces of art. This art has been antithetical to our traditions and to our mores. One of the great publishers of magazines and newspapers and a candidate for President, H.L. Mencken, said it best in this quotation: After 20 years, he said, of active magazine publishing and newspaper publishing, I cannot recall a single writer who really needs government assistance. That is, not one of any talent whatsoever. A great many pretenders, of course, are doing badly. But I cannot see that it would be of any public benefit to encourage them in their bad work. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is the NEA has often not provided art that we can be proud of. It has been in large part social experiment for the elite. Some of the art produced was antithetical to our values. I do not support the Johnson amendment. Let's remember our history for almost 200 years when the government did not provide federal funding for the arts.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise today also in support of H. Con. Res. 298, of which I am a cosponsor. I think it is only fitting that we pass this resolution and recognize the damage inflicted upon our home State of Florida in the fires of the past 2 months. In doing so, of course, we also honor those who acted valiantly against terrible odds, terrible odds, to save lives and property. The district I represent was also affected, although not as much as others. Thankfully, the damage was minimal. Many towns in my district served as a haven for the many thousands of evacuees who fled these fires. Palatka and Ocala residents opened their doors to over 2,000 evacuees streaming in from nearby Flagler County and other fire-stricken areas. I am proud to represent this district with so many fine people residing there. Across the State, thousands pitched in to assist the fire fighting effort. Private contractors volunteered machinery and manpower to fight the flames and, of course, transport water. Churches, schools, motels, businesses, all of them opened their doors to shelter evacuees. Donations poured in to aid the victims and help the brave emergency workers and fire fighters. Mr. Speaker, the outpouring of goodwill and assistance we received came from within our State, from the Federal Government and many other States, but even foreign countries also offered aid. As we reflect on our ability to respond to natural disasters, we should be prepared for future fire outbreaks. As a member of the House Fire Services Caucus, I recognize a coordinated effort of all available resources is necessary to successfully battle these blazes. On June 25th, 1998, I joined with fellow Members of the Caucus at a press conference highlighting our new task force and initiated actions on wild land fires. We contacted Defense Secretary William Cohen, requesting the cooperation and assistance of the Defense Department and, of course, the U.S. National Guard, to identify assets that can be used and made available for fire fighting purposes in the future. This resolution commends the heroic efforts of all our fire fighters who came from across the Nation. In this resolution we also recognize how well local, State and Federal agencies and departments responded to this terrible tragedy. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we express our sorrow that so many Floridians experienced so much loss. As Florida begins the long, long process of recovery, we can evaluate how we responded to these blazes. Hopefully, in the future, we can prevent such losses. Mr. Speaker, let us pass this resolution today and let Floridians know that the Nation recognizes their heroism and sympathizes with their losses.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, no one, including myself, would ever fault the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the valuable research being done by them. I know how important NIH is to our Nation's future, including its economic well-being. Advances in medical research to prevent, cure, or at least minimize the degree of financial devastation caused by such diseases experienced in the United States is a major reason why it is so necessary that we fund these vital research projects. That being said, however, I must admit that I have been troubled by several newspaper stories I have read recently concerning the manner in which NIH chooses its spending priorities. One such article appeared in the Washington Post on July 9, and used as its source a recently released report from the Institute of Medicine, IOM. The roughly 200-page report, entitled ``Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs,'' warns that NIH must do a better job of justifying its spending decisions or it could lose its historically elevated credibility. The premise of the report is that political pressures often play a crucial role and can influence funding decisions. I have always steadfastly defended the work being done at NIH, and assured its critics that, contrary to what they may think, this was not true. However, when I read the conclusions made by the IOM, I decided to look into this report further. I have with me, Mr. Speaker, a chart. Let us take a look at this chart prepared by the Institute of Medicine on NIH spending priorities. As Members will note, heart disease is the number one killer in America; 732,400 people die. The spending is $852 million; cancer, 534,300 die. We spend $2,571,000,000. Let us go further down and look at AIDS-HIV. It is listed as the eighth leading cause of death. It kills 42,100 a year, yet it receives $1.4 billion. The death figures are for 1994 and the spending priorities are for 1996. Mr. Speaker, in other words, NIH spends approximately $43,000 per death researching AIDS and HIV, while heart disease, which kills over 20 times as many people each year, receives only $1,160 per year per death. Heart disease was the number one killer in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Research dollars at NIH do not reflect this. According to a Centers for Disease Control, CDC, 1997 report, the top five killers are: cardiovascular disease, one; two, cancer; three, stroke; four, chronic lung disease; five, accidents. Mr. Speaker, note that HIV-AIDS does not even appear in the top five killers, but receives almost the top funding from NIH. It is very difficult to justify such types of funding disparities. Other diseases, such as diabetes, were responsible for causing 56,700 deaths in 1996, making it the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. By contrast, diabetes research received only $299 million research dollars. Not only has scientific research made important strides in identifying the causes of certain diseases, it has also launched tests of new drugs to enhance recovery from stroke and spinal cord injury and produce a new drug for the treatment of epilepsy. In these days of trying to balance the budget, we must not lose sight of the fact that by delaying the onset of diseases such as Alzheimer's, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, we would save almost an estimated $35 million through a reduction in the need for nursing home care. Now, to my way of thinking, that is not a small amount of money. However, this can only occur if the huge spending increasess that NIH receives do in fact flow to all the institutes, so that all the diseases benefit from these new sources of dollars. I respect the work being conducted at NIH and believe it has some of the finest first-class scientists and researchers in the world. I would caution, however, that the articles of criticism about the way it runs its shop are becoming more and more frequent. They also need to restructure their priorities based upon the needs. That is my message this afternoon. Congress has an obligation to ensure that all of its citizens are represented, and this includes how their tax dollars are being spent, especially when it comes to funding for biomedical research.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), should read the amendment. The amendment says that we cannot give $250 million in a giveaway or a loan. We can still go out and prop up the currency. So I do not know if the gentleman perhaps did not read the amendment, but what we are talking about is should our government have a slush fund and go out and give away money; make loans. That is what we are talking about. So I rise on behalf of the amendment, an enthusiastic cosponsor. Basically, let us take this analogy. Let us say that tonight we decided to form a limited partnership or a corporation. We all sat down and we each put up $100. We elected a president and a secretary. And for tonight, that case would be President Clinton, would be our President, and our secretary would be Rubin. We would put all our money in a pot. Well, after about 10 years we find that the President and the secretary have a slush fund beyond the money that was reported to us, and they want to use this money as a giveaway. Not only do we have the President and the Secretary of Treasury doing this, in terms of just giving the money as a loan, or giving it away as foreign aid without approval from us or Congress, they now have a slush fund which he accumulated to a point when it is $38 billion. So the question we are talking about tonight, do we want our Congress, that represents the people, to control giving away more than $250 million? Do we want our Congress to control loans of more than $250 million? I submit the answer is yes. That is all we are asking tonight. We are not saying that the Exchange Stabilization Fund cannot prop up currencies. Good Lord, the President has the IMF; he has the World Bank. Is it not proper for representatives of Congress, who are elected by the people, to control money as foreign aid; and as loans? Should we not, before we give away $300 million, a billion dollars, have the approval of the taxpayers; or in this case this little group of people that meets tonight to form this limited partnership or this corporation? So I rise in strong support of this amendment. Our colleague here on our side offered this amendment in 1995. It passed overwhelmingly, and then, of course, it expired. So what we are asking tonight is not a big deal. We are just asking to reinforce our past policy and to extend this policy. This is what this amendment does. I think it was mentioned earlier that the ESF was established in 1934. Let us go back to what its purpose was: to give the U.S. adequate financial resources to counteract the activities of the European fund. Now, the fund was established with $2 billion appropriated from profits realized from the revaluation of U.S. gold holdings. But slowly, through history, this limited partnership, this corporation, this country in this case, was successful, and they have more and more money, and they have perverted the original idea of just using it for stabilizing funds. They are now the supreme power today and now just give away our money. They have their own foreign aid slush fund. Their own bank which operates without U.S. citizens consent. All we are saying is, listen, if we are going to give away money to a sovereign nation, or we are going to make a loan, just come back and ask the taxpayers for approval. Because this little group that meets, or these 260 million Americans, would like to know what you are doing. It is constitutional in fact. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, when it gets this big, $38 billion, its mission is going to change. It will be all over the park. It will be doing all kinds of things that are not in the original mission. We are just going to ask for a little control here tonight. It is an important principle. And if the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and others, are really, really worried, what Mr. Rubin is able to do, he can still loan $250 million today, then a month later he can do another $250 million, and he can keep doing this without coming back to Congress. Now, that is not the intent of this amendment, but he can skirt the process. Now, the proponents will counter and they will say no nation has ever defaulted on such loans. Well, do we bail out nations in order to pay us back? Is that what we are trying to do tonight? Those nations go to other sources and borrow more money. Is this an effective means to help nations? The use of the ESF in this manner is truly unproductive and repetitive. Not only is there IMF funds to help nations, there is also the World Bank and, as I mentioned, the private sector. Most of us believe in the free market. Why can't the private sector make the loans and provide credits? Why does Secretary Rubin have to bail out nations with an illegal slush fund? Tonight, I believe we have an opportunity to change this habitual practice, and I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment because, in so doing, they are going to put a little control in this slush fund so that no longer will the administration have their own foreign aid program where they give away money. They will have to come back to Congress. They can continue to balance the exchange rate in case of emergencies, like the gentleman from New York mentioned in Korea on Christmas Eve, but they cannot go out and just give money gratuitously hoping to influence policy. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the President's recordbreaking trip to China. The President broke every record imaginable in the size of the delegation he took with him to China and in the amount he spent on a foreign trip. His official entourage numbered more than 1,000. Its estimated cost was $40 million, according to the International Herald Tribune. ``The Presidential entourage filled four passenger planes and several military transports.'' In addition, the retinue included six Members of Congress, five cabinet officials, who each brought almost 40 staff members, a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, a national security adviser, a deputy national security adviser, a press secretary, a deputy press secretary, five stenographers, two White House television crews, a valet for the President and a hairdresser for Mrs. Clinton, the President's private secretary and the White House staff secretary, speechwriters and rewriters, doctors and lawyers, snipers, commandoes, bomb-sniffing dogs, and of course, 375 reporters and photographers. Vice President Gore must have felt like the kid in ``Home Alone.'' They spent more in 10 days than Judge Starr spent in 3 years.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take very much time. We have already been through this debate. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) has already offered primarily most of this amendment, but I would like to just formally put it in place, because there are some additions to his amendment that I think are important to specify. That is why I am here tonight. I rise to offer this amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. This amendment, of course, clarifies the law by placing an explicit ban on campaign contributions by noncitizens, including illegal aliens, which was in part of the debate previously, for all elections, Federal, State and local and for contributions or donations to a committee of a political party. And on those two last points, Mr. Chairman, my amendment sort of compliments and expands upon the Fossella amendment previously debated. So that there is a ban on foreign contributions. It will not be limited to just Federal elections but this extends all the way over to state and local. It would encompass all political campaigns in the country and political party campaigns. I think the second addition is that my amendment is significantly different in that it prohibits individuals from soliciting or accepting foreign donations. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had the debate on the Fossella amendment. I just point out, in conclusion, that basically I just move at the State and local level and then also talk about prohibits individuals from soliciting or accepting foreign donations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I think the Members on this side who are saying they are against the gentleman's amendment must go back and realize that they have voted for this identical language and they are going to be flip-flopping on this floor because that bill passed 368; overwhelming. The fact it is a stand-alone bill has no relevance here because it is the same words. So my colleagues have to know in their heart of hearts that they are going to flip-flop tonight if they do not support the amendment of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York, I would be glad to take 2 minutes and allow 1 extra additional minute for the gentleman from American Samoa so he can finish his colloquy, because I think he is on a point the Members should understand. Because I have an amendment that comes later which is very similar to the amendment of the gentleman from New York, and I support his amendment, but my amendment goes a little further and takes it down to the State and local level and also points out that one cannot solicit contributions. So this means that a U.S. citizen cannot go out and solicit contributions from people that are not citizens. I support the gentleman's bill, but I would like to point out for the Members here that there is a controversial point here and it all pivots around the idea that we are not talking about U.S. citizens, we are not talking about U.S. nationals, we were talking about U.S. permanent legal aliens, is the term. And in many parts of the country these people want to participate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, my home State of Florida has been ravaged with the worst outbreak of fire in the State's history. We have seen the type of destruction which devastates communities. Such a disaster demands that people work together to protect life and property, and, in these cases, some of the best qualities come out of our American people. Since June 1, 1998, in a prolonged drought, we have seen 1,946 reported fire outbreaks. The destruction is widespread. Fires have burned over 485,000 acres of land, over 2,200 homes and structures, and several businesses. Madam Speaker, the outpouring of goodwill and assistance we received came not only from within our State, but from the Federal Government and, in fact, from 44 other States. Foreign countries even offered aid, with one loaning a special fire-fighting unit. The Florida National Guard and U.S. Marine units worked together to help evacuate people, clear brush and build temporary bridges to transport the heavy fire-fighting equipment. Contractors in the private sector volunteered machinery and manpower to battle the flames and transport water. Churches, schools, motels and businesses opened their doors to shelter over 100,000 evacuees. Donations poured in to aid the victims and help the brave emergency workers and firefighters. I am proud to represent these kinds of people, particularly the people who live in Palatka, Florida. These residents did not suffer the fire damage seen in other areas, but were able to open their doors to over 2,000 evacuees streaming from nearby Flagler County and other fire-stricken areas. The local Price-Martin Community Center served as an information center, providing directions to nearby shelters. Folks from my county who love horses went over to Volusia County and helped with those folks who had horses that were straying. Volunteer nurses and the local Red Cross worked around the clock to ease the suffering of those forced from their homes. Recognizing our State's emergency situation, on June 18, 1998, President Clinton declared the State of Florida a major disaster area, paving the way for over $32 million in Federal aid to reach Florida's fire-ravaged areas. More recently, Secretary Glickman declared Florida eligible for Department of Agriculture assistance. That was very good news for Florida's family farmers, who sustained significant production losses. Agricultural interests in Florida suffered $100 million in damages just from El Nino events, and then lost more than $400 million in the following droughts and fires. As grateful as we are in Florida for this Federal assistance, it comes at a 25 percent State cost. FEMA has initiated $60 million worth of missions to help Florida, but that means that Florida must contribute $15 million of its own. Add that to about $45 million in State and local costs, and the State's price tag of this natural disaster really begins to mount. Fortunately, FEMA policy allows 100 percent Federal funding for direct Federal assistance emergency work. Recently Florida requested that the President authorize 100 percent funding for essential Federal assistance provided to date and thereafter. I hope that the 100 percent assistance will be granted, as this is the fifth disaster declaration Florida has faced in 5 years, and that it comes on the heals of the El Nino floods earlier this year. Florida disaster resources are nearly exhausted. By reflecting on our response to this natural disaster, we can prepare for future fire outbreaks. As a member of the House Fire Service Caucus, I recognize that a coordinated effort of all available resources is necessary to battle these blazes. On June 25, I joined fellow caucus members at a press conference highlighting our new task force and initiative on wildland fires. We contacted the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Cohen, requesting the cooperation and the assistance of the Department of Defense to identify assets he could make available for firefighting purposes. Additionally, we asked the U.S. National Guard to examine its past deployments in firefighting efforts and then offer recommendations as to how these assets can be most effectively administered. Luckily, I say to my colleagues, recent rains have provided some relief, and those who helped us through the worst deserve our praise and thanks. As we have seen, this difficult situation revealed our country's good character. This was evident in the valiant firefighting efforts that began on the first of June. I am confident that through a continued coordinated effort we will completely extinguish these fires threatening Florida and begin the long process of recovery. Madam Speaker, I am here today to applaud all the efforts of all Floridians for all the hard work they have done to put out these fires. God bless them all.