Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. My colleague would realize that everything is passed on the House floor. There is nothing secret about it.

Mr. STEARNS. I knew what I voted on on the House floor and the gentleman from Michigan did too.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is asking me a question that does have not an answer.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I do not know about a secret----

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that frankly, from the time it was voted on the House floor until today, we have been enlightened. And since April 15th it has been very close to our minds and I think it will pass.

Mr. STEARNS. To bring back some salient points that I may have forgotten.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has always been very kind to question me after my speech, and I appreciate that because it gives me an opportunity----

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster, a great Member of this body, said, ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' Now, there are lots of folks that are saying we are taxed too much. They say, well, this is just the Federal level we are talking about. It is not a lot of taxes. But there are taxes on the local level, there are taxes on the State level, there are taxes on our gasoline, there are taxes on our bread. It goes on and on. So this simple amendment is needed if we are going to stem the tide here. This is not a new idea. Fourteen States currently require supermajorities in their legislative bodies to increase taxes or revenue. Let me repeat that, fourteen States already do this. This is not something new. From 1980 to 1987 taxpayers in those States enjoyed a 2 percent decrease in personal income taxes paid. More States are looking to protect their citizens from overtaxation. Since 1995, Mr. Speaker, legislators in 21 States introduced similar legislation. So what we have is the start of a rebellion across this country of ours of people saying, hold it, no more taxes; no more increasing taxes on the State, Federal, and local level until we pass it by a two-thirds majority. A lot of folks will say this is a draconian step, but it was pointed out by another colleague here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dana Rohrabacher) that there are already on the books ten instances in which the Constitution already requires a supermajority vote. I will not go through and list all ten, I will make them part of the record. Let me mention one: conviction and impeachment trials. On that we would all agree. What about consent to a treaty? We cannot pass it by just a simple majority vote, we have to have two-thirds. So surely if we consent to a treaty, we should have consent to taxes on the American people. State ratification of the original Constitution. And if the Electoral College is going to meet, if the Electoral College sits down and they want to vote, they have got to have a two-thirds presence and two-thirds vote to even start the procedures. If the President has a disability, it requires two-thirds of this body to vote. To remove one of the Members from holding office who is engaged in insurrection requires a two-thirds vote. There is a long history of using two-thirds majority or supermajority requirement to take action. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not undemocratic. It is not unusual. This is something that the States are now doing. The Federal Government is stepping up to the plate and many of us support this strongly. I urge my colleagues to align themselves with the States, align themselves with the people and move forward and pass this amendment today. Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record a list of the instances where our Constitution already requires a supermajority vote, as mentioned in testimony on this legislation before the Committee on the Judiciary by Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation: Supermajority Requirements and Taxation There is nothing undemocratic or unusual about supermajority requirements in our system of representative democracy. Supermajority voting requirements are routinely used for legislative business in both the House and the Senate. Since 1828, the House has allowed a two-thirds vote to suspend rules and pass legislation. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote for suspension of the rules and for the fixing of time for considering a subject. The Senate requires a three-fifths vote of all Senators to end debate or to increase the time available under cloture. Senate Budget procedures require that three-fifths of the full Senate must agree to waive balanced budget provisions or points of order to consider amendments that would violate the budget approved by Congress. There are ten instances in which the Constitution already requires a supermajority vote. Seven of these were part of the original Constitution and three were added through the amendment process: Art. I, 3, cl. 6: Conviction in impeachment trials. Art. I, 5, cl. 2: Expulsion of a Member of Congress. Art. I, 7, cl. 2: Override a Presidential Veto. Art. II, 1, cl. 3: Quorum of two-thirds of the states to elect the President. Art II, 2, cl. 2: Consent to a treaty. Art V: Proposing Constitutional Amendments. Art. VII: State ratification of the original Constitution. Amendment XII: Quorum of two-thirds of the states to elect the President and the Vice President. Amendment XIV: 3: To remove disability for holding office where one has engaged in ``insurrection or rebellion.'' Amendment XXV, 4: Presidential disability.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the House's attention to a very interesting article that appeared in the current issue of the National Review. The article is entitled ``Unreformed United Nations,'' and it is written by Stephen Halper, who is a former White House and State Department official. He writes a syndicated column and anchors Radio America's ``This Week From Washington.'' Many of the comments he had in this article, I think, are appropriate to bring to the attention of my colleagues. Many of us here in Congress believe we need major reform in the United Nations, and the time is now. Boutros-Ghali, who was the former head of the United Nations, once told the Washington Post ``perhaps half the U.N. Staff does nothing useful.'' That is a staggering statement. Mr. Halper's argument is that Mr. Annan, who is the present head of the United Nations, is more tied to the U.N. bureaucracy, is a defender of the faith of the United Nations, and appears to be not committed to real reform. I hope this is not true. Mr. Speaker, Congress has demanded reductions in the United Nations' worldwide staff of 53,000 people. Now, this does not include 10,000 consultants or the peacekeeping forces which reached 80,000 people in 1993 and reductions in the most generous salary and benefit package in public life. These are sort of simple things that I think most Members would agree with. Mr. Annan, who is the leader of the United Nations, has put forward his own reform plan, and let me quote from his plan. ``Consolidate 12 secretarial departments into five, but without cutting any of the 9,000 strong secretarial staff.'' Now, if you cut 10 percent, that would be 900. If you cut 1 percent, that would be 90. So, really, not even being able to cut 1 percent is surprising. I go on with what he suggests his reform plan includes: ``Three economic development departments, representing $122 million of the Secretary's budget and employing 700 people, are reduced to one.'' That sounds like an efficient approach but, again, without reduction in any personnel, without reduction in any expenditures. Also, he has two human rights offices in Geneva that are going to be merged into one; again, without any reduction in personnel or expenditures. Anan's reform plan does not address salary issues or the lack of an independent Inspector General. Last year, a mid-level U.N. accountant made $84,000 a year, as opposed to an average of $41,962 for his private sector counterpart. An assistant secretary general made $190,250. Now, this is an assistant secretary general. Do we know what the mayor of New York City makes? He makes $130,000. Most U.N. salaries are tax-free. Many employees have rent subsidies of up to $3,800. To put that in perspective, we, as Members of Congress, have no rent subsidies. They also have annual educational grants of $12,675 per child. Again, Mr. Anan does not propose any changes in any of these salary arrangements. So I agree with some of the conclusions from Mr. Halper's article. He sets forth certain conditions that must be met before anybody in this Congress agrees to vote for payment of back U.N. dues: First, payment of past dues should hinge on a tangible reform in four clear, distinct categories. Again, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be voting on past dues this week, so it is appropriate that I talk about it. We need to reduce bureaucracy, reduce salaries and perks for those who remain. We need the creation, once and for all, of an Inspector General, independent of the Secretary General; and, fourthly, a shift in priorities to humanitarian assistance programs and not to military intervention. Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to draft a concurrent resolution that I will introduce shortly to the House that would state that the Congress will not approve any back dues until there is veritable proof that the United Nations has achieved the previously mentioned four simple conditions. I believe the United States and Congress must draw the line to force real and substantive reform at the U.N. before the U.N. receives one past dime of any financial obligation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss attempted misappropriation of American taxpayers' money for the International Monetary Fund. I applaud the efforts by our Speaker to create a second supplemental appropriations bill to handle this. This will give the House the ability to have a straight up or down vote on increasing our financial commitment to the IMF. The U.S. now presently provides about 18 percent of the IMF funds, and we are being asked to cough up another $18 billion without a full debate on the House floor about the merits of such a proposal. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, three outstanding experts on international finance gave their views on the International Monetary Fund. George Shultz, President Reagan's Secretary of State; William Simon, Presidents Nixon and Ford's Secretary of Treasury; and Walter Wriston, former Chairman of Citicorp and Citibank. They asked the question, who needs the IMF? They point out that President Clinton and the IMF have shifted into overdrive in their efforts to save the economies of Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand, or to be more accurate, to save the pocketbooks of international investors who can face a tide of defaults if these markets are not now shored up. I welcome the support of these distinguished experts on this subject. The way I see it, the IMF places American taxpayers in the position of guaranteeing a return on investment to those who engage in these risky schemes. The likelihood of an IMF bailout removes the incentive for nations to not engage in bad economic policies or pursue unsound financial practices. As these distinguished gentlemen note in this article, the IMF can lull nations into complacency by acting as the self-appointed lender of last resort, a function never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. The world has changed a great deal since the IMF was founded in 1944 to assist in global trade by supporting currency convertibility and providing needed financing to defend exchange rates. The financial crisis in Asia results from decades of direct government regulation, the absence of foreign competition, and closed financial systems. By relying on heavy-handed bureaucracies managing every aspect of their economies, these nations are destroying themselves financially. This observation was echoed in the Wall Street Journal article recently. ``Asian nations are facing financial difficulties not because outside forces have imposed bad economic policies on them, but because they have imposed these policies on themselves.'' According to Shultz, Simon and Wriston, ``the Mexican people suffered a massive decline in their standard of living as a result of their crisis. As is typical when the IMF intervenes, the governments and the lenders are rescued, but not the people.'' They conclude the following. ``The IMF is ineffective, unnecessary and obsolete. We do not need another IMF. Once the Asian crisis is over, we should abolish the one we have.'' Now the President is asking us to increase our quota to the IMF without a constructive debate on the merits of this proposal. In fact, there is clear evidence that the IMF has sufficient capital to withstand any immediate financial distress anywhere in the world. The IMF right now has close to $50 billion in reserves and access to another $25 billion through their general arrangements to borrow. In addition, the IMF will receive nearly $28 billion in loan repayments from other borrowing nations by the end of the year 2000. If we add the more than $100 billion being borrowed and repaid by Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea, the IMF will basically have $200 billion in its coffers, the same amount it had before the Asian crisis began. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues, what is the rush of throwing more American taxpayer money at the IMF, when there is substantial capital already in place? It is for one reason only. The proponents of the IMF do not want to just replenish the IMF fund; they want to expand the breadth and scope of the IMF itself so that the IMF will play an even more dominating role in global finances. It is our responsibility in Congress to prevent this latest abuse of taxpayers' money and to defeat the proposal to increase the U.S. share of IMF money by $18 billion.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for setting aside time tonight to talk about our friend, our dear friend. When I think of Steve, I think of his sense of humor. Perhaps not many people have mentioned that. He used to be in the cloakroom, he would have his time back there, he would have a small sandwich, he would have something to drink, we would talk and sit side by side. He and I came in together in 1988. We were elected in the 101st Congress. Our class is pretty small. We came in with George Bush when he was President. I think George Bush helped a number of us get in, but we had a very small class, so we would meet. There were about 16 of us. I think from the moment we all came together and we were with Steve, we realized that there was something about him, something righteous. It was the way he either carried himself, the way he spoke, the way he looked, the countenance on his face. It was one of a righteous soul, somebody that you could trust, somebody that you could go into business with, somebody who would be your lawyer and as I understand he was a district attorney. You just sort of would gravitate toward Steve and would listen to what he had to say and with that sort of twinkle in his eye, I remember that twinkle in his eye he had when he would look at you, you just know what he was saying was almost the gospel. I extend my deepest sympathy and compassion for his family. I think that we are all going to miss him very much. Sometimes we kid each other, because I would vote and he would vote and we would compare each other and he would say, ``Well, there you go, Cliff, you're voting with the right wing,'' and I would say ``There you go, Steve, you're voting with the moderates.'' He said, ``No, it's not moderate, Cliff. I'm voting as an enlightened Member of Congress.'' We had our side jokes. I think tonight it is obviously a great deal of sadness we have that he is not with us. His tragic death is remembered tonight. I think he will be remembered for many, many years. I come to the House floor tonight to pay my respects and again offer my condolences to his family.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3211, as amended. This bill establishes an important policy. It provides clear specific statutory criteria for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. In doing so, the bill would rule out a troubling policy of granting exceptions to eligibility rules which, until now, have been set in regulations. As the oversight of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has shown, the practice of entertaining requests for waivers and exceptions at Arlington has opened a door to inconsistency and subjectivity. I hardly need to remind Members of the stains such practices have created. The bill would close the door to exceptions and restore a sense of honor to administration of this precious, precious site. Burial at Arlington should be reserved to those with distinguished military service. This bill would crystallize that policy. This bill codifies key elements of the current regulations governing eligibility for burial at Arlington. H.R. 3211 draws some hard lines, but they are lines that need to be drawn. They include the following: No waivers could be granted to the military service requirements for burial. The only nonveterans eligible for burial would be the immediate family members of those veterans eligible for burial, and Members of Congress and other Federal officials who do not meet the military criteria would no longer be eligible for burial at Arlington. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not set this policy in place lightly. H.R. 3211 is a product of careful, comprehensive oversight, extensive consultation with veterans and military service organizations and a great deal of hard work. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this fine bill and commend my colleagues for their fine work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to have my father buried at Arlington National Cemetery for the work he did in the Navy and receiving the Bronze Star in the Iwo Jima campaign. And then I have a great great grandfather who is also buried there who has the same criteria. So it is with a great deal of heartfelt feeling on this issue that I commend this bill to my colleagues and I hope they will pass it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have come to a crossroads in American history. We have reached a point in our history where we have an opportunity this afternoon to carefully clarify the constitutional powers and the separate roles of the executive branch and the legislative branch as it regards the formation of our Nation's foreign policy, especially as it concerns the deployment of the United States military internationally. I commend the efforts of my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this resolution forward to begin the debate on the proper use of military force by the President of this Nation. Like others in this body, I have grown steadily uncomfortable with the blatant disregard the executive branch has displayed for the Congress in creating foreign policy in general and with the use of military force specifically. The case of the U.S. deployment of forces in Bosnia perfectly illustrates the disregard the administration has shown for Congress. The powers of Congress were eroded by the executive branch with a decade-long struggle against the evils of communism. I also agree that, to achieve victory in the Cold War, it was necessary for these Presidents to have a more commanding role in foreign affairs. However, Mr. Speaker, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, we have the ability to redefine what the framers of our Constitution truly had in mind regarding the powers of Congress. The Founders believed that it was a proper role of Congress to prevent the President from entangling our Nation endlessly in foreign situations. The Founders gave us that ability by giving Congress the power to declare war. The role of Congress regarding troop deployment was further enhanced by the adoption of the War Powers Act. The power of Congress has been harmed by this administration's current policy regarding the U.S. deployment in Bosnia. The President committed U.S. troops to Bosnia in December of 1995 as part of the NATO peacekeeping force to enforce the Dayton Peace Accord. At that moment, the President stated, ``The mission will be precisely defined with clear, realistic goals that can be achieved in a definite period of time. This mission should take about 1 year.'' Well, even before a year had expired, the President announced that he would be extending the U.S. commitment for another 18 months, again without the authorization or approval by Congress. The President conveniently notified the American public of this after the Presidential election in 1996. Congress created last year a deadline of June 30, 1998, to end our deployment in Bosnia unless U.S. presence in the region was in our national security interests. Again, the President has extended our commitment without once again seeking congressional approval or authorization and without even defining at this point how Bosnia affects U.S. national security interests. The United States military is not the private army of the President. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H. Con. Res. 227 to put congressional oversight on the use of military deployments in its proper and constitutional context.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the Members. I want to call the Members' attention to an upcoming event, the United States Olympic Committee's fifth Olympic dinner. As co-chair of this dinner, I can assure the membership this will be a great event. The President and Vice President usually attend, along with Members of the House and Senate. Dozens and dozens of Olympic athletes, many making their first appearance since performing in Nagano, will be there so that we all can honor them. The day of the dinner, many of the Olympians will visit areas schools as part of the Champions in Life program, as athletes get a firsthand opportunity to instill the values of the Olympic movement in the minds and hearts of young people in this community. The United States is one of the few countries in the world whose government does not support its Olympic athletes financially. Our athletes are supported by the American people, volunteers and contributors. The least we can do is endorse their efforts. Mr. Speaker, the dinner is April 29 and I hope all my colleagues will attend.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving on the board of trustees for the Monroe Regional Medical Center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. It is an honor for me this morning to take the floor to recognize the 100th anniversary of this wonderful hospital. In 1898, the Marion Surgical Hospital was organized into two rooms on the third floor of an office building in Ocala, Florida. Since then, the hospital has been in different locations under different names but its mission has remained constant, serving the medical needs of those within the community. We are proud that our hospital provides care for patients without regard to race, religion, national origin or financial status. The Monroe Regional Medical Center has changed dramatically from its modest beginnings. It is now a modern 323-bed, acute-care facility. This is a not-for-profit hospital. It is owned and supported by our community. I appreciate this opportunity to pay tribute to the fourth oldest hospital in the State of Florida for 100 years of service. Congratulations.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come down here to the House to lend my support and approval for H.R. 2369, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act. For me and my congressional district and for the State of Florida, the key, important aspect of this bill is the change made to protect the needs of the amateur radio community and the needs of news organizations and others that rely on scanners to perform their duties. As my colleagues know, my home State of Florida is slightly susceptible to natural disasters, and we are just now beginning to recover from the horrific tornado-driven storms from the past weekend. Without the aid of the amateur radio operators, Florida would suffer more during these disasters. The operators perform an invaluable service in helping coordinate disaster assistance. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the countless individuals who dedicate their time and services in order to help their neighbors in times of emergencies. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for addressing their needs. I strongly believe that this legislation will strengthen privacy in personal communications by allowing for the prosecution of either interception or divulgence of cellular and other radio communications, both analog and digital. This is a good bill. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his effectiveness in this matter.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for example, let us say it turns out commonwealth gets 46 percent, statehood gets 43 percent, and the remaining goes for a sovereign nation. Then you would have the runoff of the commonwealth and the statehood. Those people who believe in independence would probably support Commonwealth, and it would move to probably 53 or 54 percent. So then we in Congress would know immediately that they prefer the commonwealth or independence alternative rather than statehood. I think that information is very important for the people in Puerto Rico to know and important for Members of Congress to know when we determine whether this country should move forward to statehood. It is another critical piece of information. It gives democracy a chance to work, and gives the people who support independence an opportunity to vote again.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the amendment to be read because a lot of Members will not know what it is about and I thought they could hear the amendment itself. Basically, this is an amendment to provide for a runoff referendum if the first referendum required in the bill does not result in a 50 plus percent vote for independence or statehood. My amendment is a simple method of improving H.R. 856 to make the self-determination process more fair for the Puerto Rican people. My amendment seeks to abbreviate this self-determination process by holding a runoff referendum no more than 90 days after the first referendum. Because there would be only two choices at this point, voters could more easily achieve a binding majority vote for statehood, commonwealth, or independence in my proposed runoff. Such a process would avoid the lengthy process we have in the bill. Let us review this again. First, should the runoff referendum result in a majority for one of the 3 processes, yet it did not have a full 51 percent, then we would have another election, 90 days later, and the top 2 would be voted on to see which one would be the winner. The runoff would serve to coalesce the interests of the voters because those who first voted for the third option would then be forced to vote for the first or second options in the runoff. This knowledge of Puerto Rico's preference on the issues could help us here in Congress tailor future referenda to their preferences. I am introducing this amendment to H.R. 856 because I think it is important to expedite the process. What the current polls show is that 45 percent of the Puerto Rican voters support commonwealth and only 35 percent support statehood. Nevertheless, should Puerto Rico choose commonwealth, H.R. 856 mandates continued referenda until either statehood or independence gains the majority. Would it not be nice within 90 days after the first referendum to have the top two voter preferences voted again and we decide immediately what the Puerto Rican voters support? They would be subjected to the same thing we have here in Congress. When people run for Congress during the primary, the first two in the primary run for a final runoff before the general election. Why keep having the same vote over and over on such a protracted time frame? In the alternative, why not consider the desires of the Puerto Ricans when allowing them to hold future votes and tailor future referenda to achieve a concrete result? Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to abbreviate the lengthy process outlined in the bill and to clarify immediately, within 90 days, the desires of the Puerto Rican people for future referenda, both through a runoff referendum in 90 days. Supporting this amendment will produce an improved bill for Puerto Rico's self-determination. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. I would be very happy to work with him. The gentleman has been very active in this area, and I think he is one of the leaders here in Congress on behalf of the homeless veterans. Mr. Speaker, the measure that I am thinking about called for substantially increasing the funding for organizations that provide assistance primarily to homeless veterans, so that their share more closely approximates the proportion of veterans in the homeless population. This is a goal I think we need to keep in our sights and work hard to achieve. As a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, I have seen firsthand the kinds of problems that lead to homelessness among those who have sacrificed for this country. I support H.R. 217 but urge this body to do more to assist those organizations which have targeted their efforts primarily at veterans. In passing, and in part of reference, I wish to add my feelings on this on a personal matter. Many of these homeless populations are down on their luck. I know that is true. They have had problems with their health. There is something else that is occurring here, however. Many of the homeless have learning disabilities that make it very difficult for these persons to retain and keep a job, a job that is above minimum wage. So in the future, I hope Congress will look at the impact of learning disabilities on homeless veterans and see what we can do to help them in the early stages, so they do not end up as part of the homeless population.