Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to talk about a very important issue that affects all of our veterans. There has been a great deal of discussion about veterans and tobacco-related illnesses. My purpose this morning is to acquaint Members with legislation I plan to introduce this week. Mr. Speaker, the measure I intend to introduce is entitled the Veterans Tobacco Trust Fund Act of 1998. What this would do is guarantee that a portion of any funds that are received from a national tobacco settlement law, if it occurs, be dedicated to health care for veterans. Very simple. Many might argue that not one veteran was coerced into smoking. My response to that assertion is that many young men were exposed to tobacco for the first time when they entered the military service. Free cigarettes were provided to them and thus a habit was started during that time of service. We must ensure that any man or woman who became addicted and consequently developed health problems due to the consumption of tobacco must be given the health care they were promised when they enlisted to serve this country. My bill would establish a trust fund to be known as the Veterans Tobacco Trust Fund, providing that if a tobacco settlement is enacted, then $3 billion would be credited to the trust fund. The funds would be made available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish medical care and to conduct medical research, rehabilitation research, and health systems research related to tobacco addiction. I also want to clear up an issue which has caused a great deal of consternation among the veterans and here on the House floor. I am referring, of course, to the recent vote we had on H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act. First, let us be clear on how this evolved. This was proposed by the Clinton administration in the fiscal year 1999 budget, VA budget, in which the President requested that VA disability benefits for tobacco- related illnesses be repealed. I opposed the President's proposal and its inclusion in H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century. I voted for the Obey amendment that sent H.R. 2400 back to conference and to instruct the conferees to remove the language reducing service-connected disability compensation to veterans for smoking-related illnesses. Unfortunately this motion was defeated. I also joined the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of our Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in sending a letter to the Speaker and to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), voicing strong opposition to any provision that would offset veterans' benefits to pay for other programs. Regrettably, we were not successful in our effort to prevent the administration's proposal to repeal VA disability compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities from being passed in part of H.R. 2400. However, we did prevail in providing benefit increases for veterans going to college on the GI bill, severely disabled veterans needing modifications for automobiles or their homes, and widows of veterans who died from service-connected disability. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, I am committed to finding the funds to compensate the VA for the cost of providing health care for them, including smoking-related illnesses. That is why I developed the Veterans Tobacco Trust Fund Bill, so that funding will be made available should a national tobacco settlement be enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts to help our Nation's veterans and sponsor my bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week, Senator Slade Gorton joined with me in sponsoring the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. This legislation was developed with the assistance of the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross. I will be introducing this bill this week and I urge my colleagues to join me as original cosponsors. What is the purpose of this bill? I think that could best be told by retelling a personal experience that I heard last week during our press conference on this legislation. A Mr. Bob Adams provides us with one of the most compelling reasons to pass the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. Mr. Speaker, he is still alive today because of an automatic external defibrillator, an AED. Let me explain. On July 3, 1997, Bob Adams, who was 42 years old at the time, was walking through Grand Central Station in New York City when his heart stopped and he collapsed. He is a lawyer in a firm with 450 people, a husband, a father of three children. He was in perfect health and in fact he had always experienced good health. In fact, Bob would tell that he was the least likely person in his firm of 450 employees to have an experience such as this. He was captain of his college basketball team, played professional basketball in Europe, and today is a nationally known college basketball referee. Despite being in perfect health with no history of heart disease, this young man went into cardiac arrest the day before a holiday weekend in a place where half a million people pass through every day. Mr. Speaker, timing was everything for Bob Adams. On July 2, the day before he collapsed, the automatic external defibrillator that the Metro North Commuter Railroad had ordered for use in Grand Central Station had just arrived. Luckily, the staff had also been well trained, not knowing they would have to test their skills so soon. Bob's heart was stopped for approximately 5 minutes before the AED was unpacked from its shipping box and everyone hoped that it came with charged batteries. Thanks to the trained staff at the station, and an emergency medical technician who happened to be present, Bob's life was saved. Doctors have never determined why Bob suffered a cardiac arrest. It simply stopped. Bob and his wife and three children are grateful that there was an AED in Grand Central Station on that particular day. While Mr. Adams' story is more dramatic than most, my colleagues might be surprised to learn that more than 350,000 Americans suffer a sudden cardiac arrest every year. Fewer than 10 percent will be discharged from a hospital alive. The key to survival is timely initiation of a series of events, easily communicated as the ``chain of survival.'' The chain includes early activation of the emergency medical service, CPR, rapid defibrillation, and early advanced cardiac life support. Weakness in any link lessens the chance of survival and condemns the efforts of an emergency medical system to poor results. After as little as 10 minutes, very few resuscitation attempts are successful. Mr. Speaker, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act would require the development of: One, a model State training program for first responders and bystanders in lifesaving interventions. Two, model State legislation to ensure access to emergency medical services, including consideration of the very necessary training for use of lifesaving equipment. Three, directs the coordination of a national database in conjunction with existing databases relating to the incidents of cardiac arrest and whether interventions, including bystanders or first responders, improved the rate of survival. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this type of bill. It is not expensive. It encourages joint partnership between the commercial and the private industry. This bill will ensure that all Americans will have the same protection available to them should they ever be caught in such a life- threatening position as Bob Adams.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Tax Code Termination Act. Really, when you think about it, this is a rather momentous day, the fact that the United States Congress would come together and have a vote on this matter. Whether we are against this or for it, this is a very significant period in our history to be able to come on the House floor and say we are against the present Tax Code and we wish to change it. It is important to relate to the constituents and to Members that there is an exception in this for Social Security and Medicare. So when we are eliminating the Tax Code, we are not attacking Social Security. We are not attacking Medicare. Be that as it may, the last tax decreases in this country provided 300 changes to the Tax Code. If all of us on the Republican side and on the Democrat side go out and say, oh, we have decreased taxes, but at the same time, changed the Tax Code 300 times, what have we done? If we do that year after year after year, it is going to get impossible. In fact, that is where we are today. It is literally impossible to do our taxes. We are starting the debate by saying, okay, let us do away with the Tax Code by 2002 and replace it with a sales tax or a flat tax or a combination thereof. What is wrong with that? If anybody is going to vote against this, they are voting against open discussion to have a new system. So how can anybody be against the idea of reforming. In America, there are seven traits that make up all of us because we are an American; and one of them is we like choice, and the other is we like reform. We are willing to change things. We are not satisfied with the status quo. We are always trying to improve. A third thing is we are impatient as Americans. We believe there is a better way. So what we are doing this afternoon is we are saying there is a better way for America to pay their taxes. Secondly, we think we can reform the system we have, and let us make the decision, the choice if you will, now to eliminate the Tax Code and get the discussion going.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleagues know about legislation I have introduced called the ``Honest Balanced Budget Act of 1998.'' It is identical to the bill introduced by Senator Faircloth earlier this year. The Social Security Trust Fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund other programs. AND it should not be used to mask our nation's debt. Did you know that the Social Security Trust Fund will be running a $100,000,000,000 Surplus for fiscal year 1999? How is this possible when we keep hearing that the Trust Fund is in trouble? Let's restore the trust for our seniors. We must ensure that the purpose for which the trust fund was set up is not violated. No other bill does this this simply.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I come here to support the Conservative Action Team's budget. Let me say, first of all, there are perhaps three reasons why all Members should consider it. First of all, it has the lowest increase relative to inflation of all the budgets. Second of all, for those folks who want higher defense spending, this budget has it. The third reason is it has a lockbox, a lockbox dealing with the Social Security Trust Fund. As I understand it, it is the only one that has the lockbox, which means any savings in this budget are going right back to the Social Security Trust Fund. Of course, lastly, for those of us concerned about user fees and taxes, this budget has the most amount of reduction in user fees and taxes. For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Conservative Action Team. We have had a lot of rhetoric on this side, but this budget in fact brings it down home. So you have less taxes, higher defense spending, and, at the same time, a lockbox for Social Security. Mr. Chairman, the debt is going up in this country. Every year the debt is going up. Yet we talk about a balanced budget. How can the debt go up if we are balancing the budget? Because we are not. We are taking funds from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that is not right. A lockbox and the Conservative Action Team will stop that. Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, for his tremendous efforts in bringing his FY '99 budget to the floor today. While I agree with him that we need to continue placing restraints on spending and provide additional tax relief, I find that the alternative offered by Representatives Neumann, McIntosh, and Johnson, the conservative action team (CAT substitute) is a better way to achieve these goals. Thomas Jefferson stated: ``The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public money.'' The CAT's budget continues to honor our pledge to reduce Government spending without increasing taxes. This budget alternative chooses family over big Government spending programs. If Government were forced to pay its bills in the same manner as the citizens who finance it, the bill collectors would be knocking down our doors. The CAT's budget offers us the opportunity to continue what we started last year by holding down spending and cutting taxes. Together, these two components will ensure that our Nation's economy will continue to experience the growth it is currently enjoying well into the next century. There is one area of the budget that has me particularly perplexed. That is the way in which we use our Social Security trust fund to pay for other programs. The CAT's substitute doesn't just offer rhetoric when it comes to saving the Social Security trust fund, it provides the necessary safeguards to achieve that goal. The trust fund is projected to be running a surplus of $100 billion dollars for FY '99, I would hope that we will stop using this fund to mask our Nation's deficit. Instead, let's use a portion of the surplus to replenish the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and as the CAT's budget does, let's create a Social Security ``lock box'' that would prevent any future raiding of the fund. The Social Security trust fund's surplus shouldn't be used to fund other programs. And it should not be used to mask our Nation's debt. Mr. Chairman, I am firmly convinced that our Nation's future is tied to the restoration of traditional family values. The Neumann budget addresses this by standing up for human life, increasing the role of the family in education, by cutting taxes, and by increasing our defense budget to keep up with inflation. There is one additional area that I would like to mention. I want to echo Chairman Kasich's remarks when he stated at the Budget Committee markup that he hoped the appropriators could give the NIH an even bigger boost than the budget recommended. I want to thank him and I appreciate all the excellent efforts of the House Budget Committee members to increase the NIH funding. I respectfully urge them to recede to the Senate Budget resolution on NIH funding for FY '99 when they go to conference. Only progress through health research will truly reduce the costs of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. I would be remiss if I didn't mention my commitment to ensuring that our Nation's veterans also receive the necessary funding so that we fulfill the pledge we made to them. To sum it up, the Neumann budget taxes less, spends less, places restraints on Government growth, provides for a strong defense, restores family values, and dedicates the surpluses to reducing taxes, preserving Social Security and repaying the debt.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my voice to allow every American citizen the fundamental right to express their religious faith on public grounds. The previous speaker from Maryland, my good colleague, has indicated that the States are starting to do what we are trying to do here in Congress. So the fever and the enthusiasm to have voluntary prayer is spreading across this Nation already, and I think it goes to the heart of the matter that we in Congress need to do this on a national basis. In fact, in a recent poll in which voters were asked about moral issues that are confronting this Nation, almost 70 percent agree that America needs a religious freedom amendment that would simply allow voluntary prayer. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin rose during the gathering of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and stated, quote, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men, end quote. He went on to suggest at that point that the Convention begin its very own sessions with prayer ``imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations.'' We pray in the Senate, we pray in the House. We are simply asking for voluntary prayer today. Why can not schoolchildren rise today, just as Benjamin Franklin did 211 years ago, and ask for God's providence and assistance at the start of their day? This amendment is simply the very essence of our Constitution and our cultural history, to allow the free religious expression of the American people that every American was able to enjoy for 190 years of our Nation's existence. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the Religious Freedom Amendment is very important. It would eliminate the ambiguous constitutional question that has been established as a standard for religious expression. This amendment does not force religious choice on anyone who does not want to participate. Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption. Christian Coalition, Capitol Hill Office, May 28, 1998. Protect Religious Freedom--Vote for the Religious Freedom Amendment Dear Representative: On Thursday, June 4th, the House will hold a truly historic vote. For the first time in 27 years, you will consider an amendment to the United States Constitution concerning the fundamental right of an American citizen to publicly acknowledge his or her religious faith. This constitutional amendment will guarantee the same First Amendment protection to religious speech as for non-religious speech, including voluntary school prayer. In a nation that was founded on the principle of religious liberty, we must take steps to restore the rights that our Founding Fathers intended to protect. And in a recent poll in which voters were asked about moral issues confronting the nation, almost 70% agreed that America needed a Religious Freedom Amendment that would allow voluntary school prayer. The Christian Coalition strongly urge you to vote for the Religious Freedom Amendment (H.J. Res. 78). The most dramatic example of a religious freedom that has been whittled away is the right to religious speech. The right to free speech is one of the most highly revered and protected rights in our Constitution. Yet, a series of Supreme Court rulings over the past 35 years have misinterpreted the Constitution to ban and censor free speech when that speech is religious in nature. Specifically, the Supreme Court has censored free speech in only three areas: inciting violence and insurrection, obscenity, and religious speech. It is absurd for the Supreme Court to equate the act of expressing one's faith in God with expressions of insurrection or obscenity. This amendment would protect the right of school children to organize prayer during the school day, while explicitly reigning in the influence and participation of the government in such activities. The government, represented by either a teacher or a school administrator, would be prohibited from requiring, writing or forbidding prayer. With the protection of the Religious Freedom Amendment, courts would no longer issue rulings such as the one in which the judge upheld a teacher's decision to give a young Tennessee student an ``F'' on a research paper simply because the student decided to write her paper about Jesus. (Settle v. Dickson County School Board). And the highest court in our land would be required to enforce the right of a rabbi to offer a non-sectarian prayer at a middle school graduation. Enactment of the Religious Freedom Amendment is the only effective means to truly restore our religious freedom. On behalf of the Christian Coalition, I strongly urge you to vote yes for final passage on Thursday, June 4th. Sincerely, Randy Take, Executive Director.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that simply asks President Clinton not to be formally received at the site of Tiananmen Square. Tiananmen Square is probably the site of the worst government violence brought upon an unarmed population in the last thirty years, where at least 2000 people were murdered by their own government. I adamantly believe that the President, in light of explosive allegations that the Chinese military was attempting to funnel illegal campaign donations to political candidates and because of China's weapons and nuclear proliferation, should not even travel to the People's Republic of China at this point. But if he is, the President must send the strongest signal to China that we will not accept such butchery on an innocent people.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, if we like our legal system, after this debate on campaign finance reform, where we have 10 substitutes and over 300 amendments, we are going to love our campaign finance. What we need to do is enforce the campaign finance laws that are on the books and work together to simplify so that the American people are being well-served. Now, a lot of people will say, well, this is a case of being able to have free speech. I think so. But simplicity is the path to strengthening our system and allowing Americans to finally trust their elected Federal officials. We can gain a lot of credibility with the American people by actually investigating and enforcing the current laws. No one on this side of the aisle is talking about enforcing the current law, especially as it concerns fund-raising in churches, in Buddhist temples, campaign or other financial solicitation from executive office buildings, foreign contributions and other illegalities that occurred during the 1996 campaign cycle. I believe we need to preserve the freedom of any individual or group to speak out on issues. Some of the proposals being offered clearly violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Therefore, some of these proposals are clearly unconstitutional. Let us pass sensible campaign finance reform that enjoys the widespread support of all the American people.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thornberry-Watts- Cunningham amendment. Mr. Chairman. Because the need for expanded health care for military retirees is so important, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Representatives Watts, Thornberry and Moran in their efforts to permit Medicare-eligible retired members of the Armed Forces and their Medicare-eligible dependents to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHBP). This amendment proposes a three-year demonstration project at six to ten sites in the United States. The cost is offset by the sale of national defense stockpile materials. We made a commitment to those who chose to serve in defense of our country. Military retirees were promised health care for life. However, there is a Catch-22 situation for Medicare-eligible retired military because once they either turn age 65 or qualify for disability treatment, they lose their CHAMPUS benefits. Unfortunately, they are placed last on the priority for treatment at Military Treatment Facilities, and they are prevented from participating in the new TRICARE program. Of the 1.2 million military beneficiaries 65 or older who are Medicare eligible, approximately 324,000 receive ``space available'' care in military treatment facilities. I want to address the FEHBP Program as a complement to military health care. The FEHBP has been successfully operating over the past thirty years at about one-third of the cost incurred in other private health insurance programs. Under the FEHBP, a consumer could opt to buy coverage that would include fee-for-service, HMO, PPO, or a union sponsored plan similar to the postal workers, etc. In order to ensure that our military have the same choice of plans now available to U.S. Senators and Representatives, the President and Vice President, and over ten million federal workers, I urge passage of this amendment that would offer our nation's military and veterans the same basic benefits that we here in Congress have available to us. This amendment has been endorsed by The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) and the National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS). I agree with these groups and believe we must fulfill our commitment to our nation's military retirees and veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his vigilance in getting this legislation to the floor. I also am an original cosponsor of the Ricky Ray Relief Act. I am deeply committed to seeing this bill become public law. Madam Speaker, my involvement in this issue began back in 1994 when I, too, was contacted by Gale and Randy Ellman. The Ellmans lost their son Eric Brandon when he was 14 years old. Eric died as a result of infusing a clotting factor that was tainted with HIV. His death is a double tragedy because it could have been avoided. While we cannot bring back Ricky or Eric, we can try today to rectify this wrong. According to best estimates, about 8,000 hemophiliacs have been infected with HIV. This represents half the hemophiliacs in the country. By passing this bill we are simply saying that we acknowledge the government's failure, through the FDA, to protect our Nation's blood supply and regulate the sale of blood products. Will $100,000 make up for the pain and suffering these families had to endure? The answer is no. But what it will do is say to thousands of people so deeply affected by this tragedy that your government wants to right the wrong. The Ellmans called my office this morning to express their heartfelt gratitude for my support for this legislation and for my other colleagues' support. I say to the Ellmans and the many other families so devastated by what has happened to them, it is the very least we can do.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend a lot of people have been calling for hearings on the emerging China scandal. I come to the well this afternoon to rise in support of the New York Times editorial on Sunday entitled, ``The New China Connection'', that calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor. I thought my colleagues should hear what the Times wrote: All the disclosures about Johnny Chung, other contributors and their links to China make it clearer than ever that the Attorney General Reno needs to transfer the Justice Department's investigation to an independent counsel. The White House was intensely involved in fund-raising at the highest levels, and only an inquiry led by someone other than a political appointee of the President will satisfy the public. Mr. Speaker, this is a major concession by The New York Times, and I thought I would call it to my colleagues' attention. These calls for an independent prosecutor come on the heels of groundbreaking and explosive reporting by the Times' investigative journalist, Jeff Gerth. Mr. Gerth reported on Friday, May 15, that Johnny Chung has admitted that a large portion of the money he raised for the Democrats originated with the People's Liberation Army, the PLA, of China. Mr. Speaker, this is a communist military party. Mr. Chung has identified the conduit of the illegal campaign funds as a Chinese aerospace executive and Chinese Lieutenant Colonel Liu Chaoing, who just happens to be the daughter of General Liu Huaquing, who just happened to be at that time China's most senior and top-ranked military commander in the PLA. Mr. Speaker, General Liu was also a member of the top leadership of China's Communist Party as he served as a member of the Standing Committee, the very top circle of political leadership in China. General Liu was also vice-chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission and was in charge of China's drive to modernize the People's Liberation Army by selling weapons to other countries and using the hard currency to acquire Western technology. Newsweek goes on to point out that the latest scandal, in their May 25 issue entitled ``A Strange Brew,'' is also very revealing. It appears on July 19, 1996, Colonel Liu, the daughter of General Liu, arrived at the Los Angeles home of financier Eli Broad, shook the President's hand, had her picture taken with him. Ms. Liu, accompanied by fund-raiser Johnny Chung, is known to have attended a military institute in China used for counterintelligence training. What Liu did a week after meeting the President is even more interesting. She signed papers incorporating a company in California called Marswell Institute. She and Chung were the only listed directors. U.S. intelligence sources say Marswell is an affiliate of a similarly named firm in Hong Kong, which shares ownership with yet another company they describe as a ``front'' for the ``general political department'' of the PLA. Mr. Speaker, what were China and the Chinese military leaders after? There is some evidence that what they were after was a change in U.S. satellite export policy that made it easier for China to use their missiles to launch American satellites, which also allowed China to further improve their missile capabilities. This same missile technology can be used for intercontinental ballistic missiles, which China now has fixed nuclear targets on. So, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to echo the comments from the Sunday editorial from The New York Times. It is time for Attorney General Reno to transfer the department's investigation out of their department into an independent counsel, and I ask her to do it promptly.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of our full committee, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of H.R. 3603, which, of course, is the construction authorization bill. Madam Speaker, the VA health care system is going through a period of needed change toward providing care more efficiently and improving veterans' access to care. With our encouragement, VA has opened many community-based clinics to bring medical care closer to all of our veterans. Nevertheless, Congress expects VA to continue to provide hospital and nursing home care for veterans in VA medical centers across this country. Like the veterans themselves, many of these facilities are aging, are having problems in construction. We cannot turn our backs on our veterans, and we should not turn our backs on the hospitals on which they depend. We must face the fact that some of these facilities require major renovations to meet patient care, safety and, of course, privacy requirements. The VA's major construction budget is the vehicle to address those needs. Yet, despite the fact that many VA hospitals need significant construction work, the administration's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes to fund construction work at only two VA medical centers. This is unclear to me why. The administration even failed to request any funding for three projects that VA itself has indicated is their top priority. Madam Speaker, this bill will remedy this failure. In proposing $205 million for major medical construction, H.R. 3603 would authorize what the committee believes is both a more appropriate level of construction funding than the $84 million proposed by the President and a more appropriate mix of needed construction projects. With this legislation, Congress would set a course towards remedying some of the most pressing construction needs in the entire VA system. These include projects to provide badly needed outpatient clinic capacity at some of VA busiest medical centers, improve psychiatric care and renovation of seismically unsafe facilities. As Memorial Day approaches, we must not only remember our veterans but take steps, like the passage of this legislation this afternoon, to honor the commitments to our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3603.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, not withstanding all of the grand rhetoric that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), just gave us, this issue comes down to perhaps two major points. Do we believe that COMSAT is today monopolizing the industry? Mr. Chairman, I want to include for the Record the FCC ruling of April 24, 1998 that says, ``The commission declares COMSAT nondominant in competitive markets.'' The commission says, it ``granted the request of COMSAT Corporation for a reclassification as a nondominant carrier in five product markets, which account for 85 percent of COMSAT's INTELSAT revenues.'' Now, will my colleague from Massachusetts agree that what is being done here is the equivalent of Congress going back and looking at Microsoft and saying, oh, Microsoft, you are a monopoly, and then mandating that any contract that Microsoft would sign would be open to renegotiation. I do not think Members of the Congress would agree to do that. I believe no United States court would allow the abrogation of Microsoft's private contracts, and I believe the U.S. courts will not let stand the abrogation of COMSAT's private contracts. We took an oath. When we came into Congress, we took an oath to abide by the Constitution. We are talking about the fifth amendment here. I can show my colleagues example after example where COMSAT is not the monopoly that my good friend from Massachusetts portrays it to be. But let me say in all deference now to the chairman, I am on his bill, his original bill. I think he is making a courageous stand to deregulate an industry that should have been deregulated some time ago. But notwithstanding that, this bill can be improved by the Tauzin amendment, and that is why I stand in support of it. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the FCC ruling of April 24, 1998: Commission Declares COMSAT Non-Dominant in Competitive Markets The Commission has granted the request of Comsat Corporation for reclassification as a non-dominant common carrier in five product markets, which account for approximately 85% of Comsat's INTELSAT revenues. Specifically, the Commission found Comsat non-dominant in the provision of INTELSAT switched voice, private line, and occasional-use video services to markets that it determined to be competitive. It also found Comsat non-dominant in the provision of full-time video and earth station services in all markets. In the markets where Comsat has been reclassified as non-dominant, Comsat will be allowed to file tariffs on one day's notice, without economic cost support, in the same form as filed by other non-dominant common carriers, and the tariffs will be presumed lawful. By virtue of finding Comsat non-dominant in these markets, the Commission is eliminating rate of return regulation in these markets. The Commission also indicated it expeditiously would initiate a proceeding to explore the legal, economic and policy implications of enabling users to have direct access to the INTELSAT system. Approximately 94 other countries permit direct access to the INTELSAT system. The Commission denied Comsat's non-dominant reclassification request with respect to switched voice, private line and occasional-use video services to non- competitive markets where it found that Comsat remains dominant. It also denied Comsat's request that the Commission forbear under Section 10 of the Communications Act from enforcing the Commission's dominant common carrier tariff rules in non-competitive markets. The Commission considered but rejected Comsat's three-year ``price cap'' and ``uniform pricing'' proposals for these markets, and found that Comsat did not satisfy the statutory requirements for forbearance relief under the circumstances. The Commission indicated, however, that it would favorably consider in its analysis of any forbearance request a commitment by Comsat to (a) allow U.S. carriers and users to obtain Level-3 direct access to the INTELSAT system and (b) make an appropriate waiver of its INTELSAT derived immunity from suit and legal process. Such actions would promote competitive market conditions in the INTELSAT markets in which Comsat remains dominant. The Commission also indicated that it will consider replacing rate of return regulation for Comsat's dominant markets with an alternative form of incentive-based regulation and, as part of its reclassification decision, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on its tentative conclusions that any alternative incentive-based regulation plan to be adopted should (a) enable users on non-competitive routes to benefit from competitive rates; (b) remain in effect indefinitely; and (c) allow users to benefit from reduced rates due to increases in efficiency and productivity. Comsat will be subject to alternative incentive-based regulation once such regulation is adopted in this proceeding. Finally, the Commission found that Comsat's continued dominance in the provision of switched voice, private line and occasional-use video services to non-competitive markets was an insufficient basis for continuing to require structural separation between Comsat's INTELSAT services and other activities. It concluded that the costs of imposing such a requirement would exceed any potential benefits to competition. The Commission granted Comsat's request for the elimination of structural separation for its INTELSAT services because structural separation is no longer necessary to safeguard Comsat's competitors from Comsat leveraging its monopoly jurisdictional services to gain an advantage in competitive markets in which it is operating. The 63 countries in which Comsat will continue to be considered dominant for switched voice and private line services are: Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Estonia, Ethiopia, French Polynesia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Maritime-Atlantic, Maritime-Pacific, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Midway Atoll, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands (Palau), Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uganda, Western Samoa, Zaire, and Zambia. The 142 countries in which Comsat will continue to be considered dominant for occasional-use video service are: South America: Columbia, Grench Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago. Central America/Caribbean: Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Chagos Archipelago, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Turks & Caicos. Western Europe: Cyprus, Greenland, Iceland, Malta, and Norway. Eastern Europe: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, and Slovenia. Middle East: Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dem Rep Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eq. Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Sao Tome, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Central Asia: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Mongola, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. South Asia: Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Far East: Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, North Korea, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pacific Rim: American Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia, Macau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Midway Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Vanatu, and Western Samoa.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying, I think if we listen to this debate, we will realize that COMSAT faces significant competition, competition from underseas fiberoptic lines for voice, video and data service. In fact, many argue that fiberoptic lines are a more productive infrastructure than satellites because of their reliability and because of their greater capacity. So after making these points, I think the Members have to decide if they think COMSAT is a monopoly, that is fine, but many of us have researched this and we do not think COMSAT is a monopoly any longer, and so that is why I support the Tauzin amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1872. I do not think there is anybody in this House that disagrees that we have to deregulate, and I am glad that the former speaker indicated he also agrees that we need to deregulate. So the goal of this legislation is to privatize INTELSAT and Inmarsat satellite systems, of which COMSAT is the U.S. representative; and even COMSAT itself agrees that we need to deregulate. I am glad to point out that I have worked hard to ensure that the results will be INTELSAT and Inmarsat and their spin-offs will be healthy, private companies able to compete in the competitive satellite marketplace. Working with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), we were able to improve the bill in the committee process to make it more equitable and measure up to the approach of privatizing systems. The original text of the bill inserted a retroactive date of May 12, 1997 in certain sections of the bill and, in effect, would have hurt COMSAT from making use of the significant investments in replacement satellites and in satellites for new orbital slots which they made since May 12, 1997. We were able to compromise and used the date of our Committee on Commerce markup of March 25, 1998 as the date of cutoff for replacement satellites in orbital slots. This change will allow COMSAT, as a U.S. representative to the INTELSAT and Inmarsat system, the use of hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. I bring that to the attention of my colleagues who are not in favor of this bill, because that amendment moved forward to give more equitableness to the COMSAT deregulation portion here. Mr. Chairman, I am also sympathetic to the comments of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and I welcome the debate on this about the ``fresh look'' provisions in the bill and the debate in which we will be talking about what will be raised in the amendments. I think we need to look at all of the problems and make this the best bill possible to ensure that the potential financial liability to the U.S. taxpayer is resolved.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, Members often take to the floor to talk about our government, how it is working or not working. In fact, I have done that myself occasionally. Today, my colleagues, I will talk about a government program that does work. My colleagues will hear about how a little funding in the hands of a caring and committed group of individuals can make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of young people. I want to share with my colleagues today a story about the Weed and Seed Program that has helped transform the Howard Middle School in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. In 1993, I contacted the Attorney General, Janet Reno, in support of bringing the Weed and Seed Program to Florida. Since then, communities near and about my district, including Gainesville, Jacksonville, and Ocala have received funding through this program. The Weed and Seed Program coordinates the use of law enforcement and criminal prosecution to weed out criminal offenders in the targeted neighborhoods and ``seeds'' the community with housing employment and various social programs. I have long supported the goals of the Weed and Seed Program because, Madam Speaker, it is community based and not an entangling government bureaucracy. The Howard Middle School in my home town of Ocala, Florida, has nurtured this seed into a wonderful product. The school has developed creative after-school activities that keep the students positively engaged. This is important because, as we all know, Madam Speaker, nearly 5 million school-aged children spend time without adult supervision during a typical week. Research indicates that during these unsupervised hours, children are more likely to engage in at-risk behavior, such as crime and drug use. In fact, the FBI reports that most juvenile crime takes place between the hours of 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Unfortunately, 70 percent of all public schools do not offer after- school programs. Howard Middle School is one of the valuable exceptions. Last week I visited this school to witness firsthand the community services it has developed. I was greeted by the principal, Scott Hackmyer; Joan Spainhower, public relations officer; Dan Greer, safe and drug free school specialist; and Ms. Myers, the comprehensive health coordinator. I was escorted to a small conference room where the principal gave an overview of the program. During this briefing a student, Sharika Palmer, an 8th grader in the Hair and Nails Program, instructed me on how a manicure program is implemented. Miss Sharon Samuels is one of the teacher assistants hired using Weed and Seed money, and she created the Hair and Nails Program. Coach Ron Nealis is another caring individual who was hired using these funds. The principal has staffed the school with dedicated individuals who give unselfishly with their time and talents, including Barbara Flemming, who coaches ``The Steppers,'' dancers; and Ms. Weaver and Ms. Faso, who coach the cheerleaders. Together they have created an after- school support group, rich with instruction in many studies and activities, and providing supervision during those critical hours when most parents are at work. There are sports, cheerleading, dancing groups, chess clubs, and the Hair and Nail group. Unique to this program is a ``neighborhood mentor,'' a program designed solely for those children who ride the bus to school and, consequently, must leave school at the normal time. Instead of depriving them of these special programs, arrangements were made with two neighborhood churches to allow a teacher to accompany these children and use the building for these programs. The principal has received a commitment from six churches to participate next year, meaning that after-school mentoring will reach into virtually every student's neighborhood. The coach told us an example of a young person, a young man, who was getting D's and F's in school until he got into the coach's fitness and basketball program. Now, I am happy to say this student is an honor roll student. This last semester there are 436 students on the honor roll, and that is nearly double the numbers before this after-school program was instituted. Not only have the students become better students, but vandalism and police calls in the area have greatly diminished. The principal is to be commended and his caring faculty and staff have indeed put the Weed and Seed money to exceptional use. I congratulate him, the staff, the faculty, and, most importantly, the students of Howard Middle School in Ocala, Florida for a job well done. Keep up the outstanding work.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I come to the House this afternoon to talk about the U.S. tax system. We have all just paid our taxes, so I think it is appropriate to ask the question: Is the U.S. tax system fair? Of course not. In fact, it is kind of a preposterous question to ask anyway. We all kind of accept the fact that the Tax Code has become a perverse mess. It is a lot of things, but fair is not one of them. But like so many questions, this one becomes more complicated the more we know about it. For example, what if we eliminated all the problems with the Tax Code, the loopholes, the needless complexities, the special exemptions and the historical anomalies? What we would be left with in the United States Tax Code is its essence. It would be nothing more than a tax on Americans' incomes at a progressive rate. So we have to ask ourselves a question: Is a progressive tax on income fair? Well, consider the word ``progressive,'' what it means. It has got sort of a positive connotation today. It is a good thing; its basic definition is ``of or pertaining to progress.'' But before jumping to any conclusions, consider the definition in the dictionary which is number 4, ``increasing in extent or severity.'' The American income tax code has been progressive from the start. In 1913 when the tax was first imposed, the bottom tax rate was 1 percent, rising all the way to 7 percent on income over $500,000. Today the top rate is 39.6 percent as imposed upon all income above $250,000. Obviously, this sort of progressive tax is problematic in its own right, but there is more. The reason this discussion is important is because we are starting the debate on tax reform. In the late 19th century when the income tax was first debated, the economists used the marginal utility argument as the justification for the progressive tax. Until then, the typical approach was to make everyone pay the same amount so that the more a citizen made, the more they paid. However, the marginal utility theorists argued that the last dollar people made became less important to them as their incomes went up, so to tax citizens ``equally'' one would have to tax wealthy persons at higher rates. The idea seems pretty commonsensical at first, whether a citizen is Bill Gates or not. Whether Bill Gates earns $1,000 more than above his salary in a year, it does not change his life much. To his cleaning lady, the last $1,000 makes a huge difference in what she can afford. It might make the difference between a good year and a bad year. Thus, marginal utility works. Not exactly, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, not all Americans are Bill Gates nor are all Americans like the cleaning lady. For example, contrast a family with an income of $100,000 to a family with an income of $125,000. Does one family really value its last $1,000 more or less than the other? Moreover, is there any way to measure the difference in ``utility'' rationally and precisely enough to base policy decisions affecting millions of Americans upon this? In fact, this is the first easy question to answer. There is absolutely nothing in the vast edifice of economics that could help us make such a finite decision on progressive tax rates. That is the basic flaw of progressive income tax. There is no objective way to decide what different tax rates should be, and that is why many people support a flat tax. But ignorance should not be an argument for policy decisions. Unfortunately, the government can get away with it. Americans do not really believe in an income redistribution like the Europeans do, but Americans do not want their taxes raised either. Ultimately, it is a quandary best articulated by George Bernard Shaw who said, ``A government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.'' The problem for the United States is that almost everyone is a Peter and even the Pauls are starting to get angry at the system. So once again I ask: Is it fair? Is the U.S. tax system fair? Absolutely not. But it is not just a matter of convoluted and messy tax codes. It is a question of basic fairness. Is one taxpayer's last dollar bill really worth more or less than another taxpayer's? Madam Speaker, I call upon the Speaker to put this issue before the House soon so that we can debate ways to simplify our tax system, albeit a flat tax, sales tax, or simply a simplified Tax Code that everyone can understand.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I object.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and I am honored to be here on this Special Order to help him with the endorsement of accelerated funding for the NIH. As chairman, cochairman with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), of the Genetic Privacy and Health Records Task Force of the Committee on Commerce, I can fully understand and appreciate the gentleman's feelings about accelerating the funding for NIH. It is interesting that when I came to Congress, we were spending almost $18 billion a year for foreign aid, and if anybody said, well, why are we spending so much money for foreign aid, yet we are spending so little for the NIH, I think we have been forceful in trying to get more money for NIH, but we still have a long way to go. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) mentioned, we are now at $14 billion a year. One says, well, that sounds like a lot of money, but when we think of the kinds of things it can do for all Americans and for all of humanity, this is not enough money, and I think so much could be done. I would like to just, for example, take my colleagues into the area I am familiar with, and that is taking advantage of some of the new opportunities in genetic engineering. For example, as we end this millennium, we will have completed a program to map and identify the entire human genome, but we will not have begun to access this new information. As my colleagues may be aware, I have been working on this legislation before the Committee on Commerce to ensure protective measures for genetic privacy to individuals so that we can move forward with these new technologies for all of our mutual benefits. But where is this technology occurring? It is occurring at the National Institutes of Health. In the new area of NIH research opportunities, genetics is one of the most exciting and promising developments in molecular medicine. Once the map of the normal function of human genes is made available within the next few years, we will then, Mr. Speaker, be able to make comparisons with our own unique genetic blueprint. This will herald in a whole new era of computer collaboration with molecular medicine to develop a DNA chip, transferring the functions of human genome to a computer chip to be run for comparison for diagnostic and treatment purposes against our own genetic map. I mean, that is an enormous endeavor. It is going to require a lot of research. The NIH is on the leading edge of doing this, and we need to fund that project, because the ultimate guarantee for all of us is better health by this DNA chip in transferring the function of the human genome to a computer chip so that we can run these comparisons to find out what particular genes are defective or what particular genes provide a predisposition for any of us for certain diseases. The software and hardware that will be needed to be developed by the cooperative efforts of genome biologists, mathematicians and engineers to make the new field of genetics a reality will require this increased funding for the NIH. So again, I think it is a good case for all Members to be down here on the House floor to argue forcibly the need for increased funding for the NIH. I think when we talk about funding for the NIH, we perhaps should put it into human terms, and I want to give my colleagues a case example of where this study, this research, has benefited all of us. The first debate in medical circles in the late 1960s and early 1970s was about the role of cholesterol in heart disease. Many scientists reasoned that a high-fat diet clogged the arteries and must surely contribute to heart attacks and strokes. Others argued that because so many Americans who dined on high-fat foods had apparently healthy hearts, cholesterol might just be sort of a wrong, a scapegoat. Two physician scientists, Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas, were treating children at the time, and this is interesting, who had heart attacks before the age of 10. Now, they discovered that the kids' arteries were as full of cholesterol deposits as those of a 50-year-old beef-eating man. Soon they identified the gene that controls special receptors on the surface of the liver, and other body cells, that removed the bad cholesterol before it has a chance to wreak havoc in blood vessels. None of the children with early heart disease had the gene needed to break down the bad cholesterol. So in 1985, Dr. Brown and Dr. Goldstein won the Lasker Award for discovering the mechanism that controlled cholesterol metabolism, and that same year they shared the Nobel Prize. So that is an example of just simply scientists having the time and energy, working through the National Institutes of Health, through the grants, are able to solve some of the major problems. I would like to identify another case example by Judah Folkman who generated a new approach to treating cancer that is directed not at the cancer cell itself, but at blood vessels that feed tumors. The cells that line blood vessels put out a host of proteins or growth factors to which tumors are attracted. If the tumors are deprived of its proteins, the cancer can be starved without harming the healthy cells the way normal chemotherapy does. This is a remarkable and once ridiculed idea that is now being tested in recurring and metastic cancer. Based on Folkman's work, experiments with unique tumor-suppressing drugs will soon be ready for breast, colon, prostate and other cancer trials. So, Mr. Speaker, we have here a need for this funding for research, and I think many of us are on the House floor today to say that the budget of $14 billion is not enough. A lot of us around here talked about being fiscally responsible, but here is a case where the direct benefits from increasing the funding for the NIH will be enormous. I am happy to say that there are other Members who have stepped forward to do just this. Recently, Senator Connie Mack from Florida, my Senator, advocated doubling the NIH funding over the next 5 years. So I have joined with him and others to double this funding, to increase it, because I think they are consistent with the views of conservative budget policy. We get the biggest bang for the buck by this research to help all Americans, particularly when we look at what the population is doing today. It is aging, and we have Medicare still not completely out of solvency, right now is solvent to the year 2010, but we are going to see more and more baby boomers coming in, and we need this research to protect their lives. So I was glad to join with Senator Mack and others in the House, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to increase funding for the NIH. It is a wise investment for the many health care results we achieve, and it is not that ambitious an enterprise when we consider that at the current rate of expenditures, we will double NIH funding in 10 years rather than the 5 that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), proposed. We are suggesting that we provide this additional funding, we do it now, and I think the important theme tonight is to make all Members aware of the need to get behind this. It is not a lot of money. As I say, the foreign affairs budget is almost higher than the NIH budget, and so now is the time to continue our efforts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct conferees to provide funding to the fiscally unsound IMF. Mr. Speaker, for a moment let us consider a conversation down in my district with Alice and John Moore. If Bob Newhart could do this, he could do a much better job than I am going to do. I knock on the door and I say, ``Hello, Alice and John. I am your Congressman. Tonight I am going to vote to fund the IMF.'' They say, ``What is the IMF?'' I say, ``This is an international fund, not from the United States, that is going to take your tax dollars and give it to Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand and others to help bail them out.'' They say, ``Mr. Stearns, you are my Congressman. Why are you doing this?'' ``Well, let me tell you, there is an elite group in Congress, in the Senate, particularly down at the White House, who thinks they can spend your money overseas with these countries.'' ``Why haven't these countries taken care of themselves?'' This is Alice talking about her and her two daughters, and she is talking also about John, his paying the bills. She is saying if I can take care of my family, if I can take care of my bills, why can't Indonesia, South Korea and these others take care of theirs? ``The bottom line, there is a little group in Washington that thinks we need to tax you higher so we can pay the IMF.'' Vote against this motion. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the Motion to Instruct Conferees to provide full funding to the fiscally unsound International Monetary Fund and to provide to the fiscally irresponsible United Nations with alleged arrearages owed by our nation. This Motion to instruct is being offered under the guise of an Emergency Supplemental Appropriation. Let me be clear. The International Monetary Fund is not currently suffering an emergency. The money that has been pledged by the IMF to Indonesia, Thailand, and South Korea to combat their fiscal crisis is already provided. Let me reiterate that point. By denying this Motion to Instruct and by denying any IMF money as part of a Supplemental Appropriation we will not harm the ongoing financial bailout of these Asian nations. The IMF and its proponents scream that they cannot handle a crisis and that the IMF immediately needs $18 billion from the American taxpayer. How ludicrous. Since the financial crisis started in Asia in the Summer of 1997, there has been no other financial crisis that required the assistance of the IMF. In fact, the economic situation has settled down in East Asia and there is the beginnings of an economic recovery. The IMF has, right now, more than $75 billion to combat financial crises. The IMF has an estimated $50 billion in reserve right now in addition to $25 billion in an emergency account. On top of all that, the IMF will receive $28 billion in loan payments from other borrowing nations to the IMF by the end of the Year 2000. With all that said, by the end of 2000, the IMF will have over $100 billion in reserve for their uses. Plus, these Asian nations will be paying back the $120 billion that they have borrowed from the IMF in the last few months. Is a $200 billion IMF reserve fund not enough? This attempt to increase the IMF quota is not to deal with any emergencies, but is a naked attempt to expand bureaucracy and the scope of the IMF. The IMF wants to play a dominant role in the world's economic policies, not simply aid nations in distress. The IMF has even tried to tell the United States what its economic policies ought to be. The IMF is so arrogant that they still refuse to give Congress documents that we have requested over and over again that will give us more detail about how poor the IMF's policies are. I urge my colleagues to soundly defeat this Motion.

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think money grows on trees? Where does the IMF get the money, if Congress does not give it to them? Why are we voting on this tonight, if the gentleman does not think we are going to appropriate? Could the gentleman explain that?

Mr. STEARNS. The money is guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country, and the money is given to them.