Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, studies indicate that anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million American men and women are homeless in any given day. That is a very troubling problem, and I commend the work being done by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and all the Members of the House subcommittee for what they are doing to correct this. I applaud their efforts in bringing H.R. 217 to the floor, the Homeless Housing Programs Consolidation and Flexibility Act we have today. I would like, however, to urge that we also focus much more attention on the largest group of these homeless individuals. This sort of ties in with the comment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). It is shocking to realize that veterans of services in our Armed Forces represent approximately one-third of all homeless men. Provisions of H.R. 217 do acknowledge the plight of veterans among the ranks of the homeless, but while this bill is a good start, we really must do more for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, during the 103rd Congress, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs initiated and the Congress adopted a sense of the Congress regarding funding to support homeless veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution beofre the House to dismiss the election challenge by Congressman Robert Dornan. I believe the House is setting a terrible precedent on how to handle a contested election. Each Member is being asked to vote one way or the other on this highly important matter, but the vast majority of the Members have been unable to read, let alone see, the report from the House Oversight Committee regarding the contested election. My staff has been trying since last Friday to obtain a copy of the committee report to review the details of this case. As of this morning, my staff still has not been able to get a copy. This is no way to dismiss a contested election. How can I, as a Member of this body, fairly determine the accuracy of the House Oversight investigation without having the ability to review its report. The Committee has discounted 624 votes. Beyond these votes, the Committee has listed an additional 196 votes as indicating circumstantial illegal noncitizen voting. But the Committee is not adding the 196 additional possible illegal votes to the total. Why? We have not been shown adequately why the 196 votes have not been added to the total. If we add the 124 absentee ballots that have been disallowed by Orange County and the recent subtraction of another 26 votes by the County due to voting in a non-residence and double registering, the total illegal votes documented and alleged is now 970. Ms. Sanchez had been originally designated the winner by 979 votes, but now we have indication that a possible 970 votes were cast illegally--providing Ms. Sanchez with a victory by just nine votes. Are we ready to dismiss an election challenge that has been deemed to have been won by 9 votes with over 900 potential illegal votes. I do not believe we have given this election challenge its absolute fair review and the Committee has not done its job of informing the Members of the details of its investigation. County of Orange, General Services Agency, Santa Ana, CA, January 17, 1997. William R. Hart, Hart, King & Coldren, Santa Ana, CA. Dear Mr. Hart: Our office has concluded its review of the various lists submitted by you on December 17, 1996. Though it would be inappropriate to discuss individual voter records, I have provided below summary data which should clarify and offer perspective on the issues you have raised. business addresses Of the 50 addresses submitted representing 122 voters, 8 of the addresses representing 29 voters were duplicated on your list. The resulting 42 addresses representing 93 voters were reviewed by staff. From the review the following was determined: 39 addresses representing 88 voters were locations which served as the voters' residence and, therefore, met criteria for registering to vote. 2 addresses representing 4 voters were locations which were not the voters' residence. Those records are being forwarded to the District Attorney for review and appropriate action. 1 address representing 1 voter was improperly entered in the computer system. The address information has been corrected. Both addresses were within the same ballot type for the general election. registrations indicating the voter was under age Two records were submitted which appeared to indicate the voters were not 18 years of age at the time of election. After reviewing the original and prior affidavits of registration, staff has determined both individuals are over 18 years of age and the discrepancies were caused by data entry errors. absentee voter records Of the 128 records submitted, 5 records were duplicated on your list. The resulting 123 records were reviewed by staff. From that review the following was determined: 59 records appear to have met the basic criteria of absentee return in person, by certain authorized relatives, or in emergency by a designated representative. 60 records do not appear to have strictly conformed to the criteria of EC 3017 but were executed by the voter. 4 records that the absent voter had not properly executed. duplicate registrations indicating possible double voting Of the 114 registration groupings submitted, 17 registration groupings were duplicated on your list. The resulting 97 registration groupings were reviewed by staff. From that review the following was determined: 67 registration groups, though appearing to indicate duplicated records on your list, were actually separate individuals with similar registration data. 19 registration groupings had duplicate records. However, after reviewing original documents, information does not support the conclusion that any of these voters actually voted twice. The duplicate registrations have been canceled. 11 registration groupings, representing 11 voters, have been referred to the District Attorney for review for possible Elections Code violations. addresses with 6 or more registered voters Of the 145 addresses submitted with 6 or more registered voters, two addresses were also submitted and reviewed as part of the business address list. Staff reviewed the remaining 143 addresses with the following result. 127 addresses appear to be residences with multiple families or large family groups. 11 addresses are apartment complexes. 5 addresses are large residential facilities. affidavits potentially held more than 3 days before submittal to the registrar of voters Holding records for more than three days not affect the voter's eligibility to vote. ``Voted Tape'' and ``Statement of Votes'' do not Match The ``voted tape'' is a tape of voter history and is not utilized in the official canvass. The ``voted tape'' is a computer product which is created from a static file of active voter registrations as of 29 days prior to the election and which are still active when the tape is created after the election and who have voted in the election. As a result the ``white provisional'' (NVRA Fail Safe) voters and ``new citizen'' voters are not included on the ``voted tape''. In addition, records canceled between election day and the creation of the tape will not appear on the ``voted tape''. Some voted records will not accurately reflect the method of voting. The data you submitted was compiled by ``regular'' precinct and not ``consolidated voting'' precinct. This accounts for many of the discrepancies in the detail portion of your list. Due to the nature of the ``voted tape'' and the fact that the Statement of Votes is compiled by ``consolidated voting'' precinct, this office will address only the summary totals on your report. The report submitted indicated 106,255 ballots cast on the Statement of Votes and 104,270 voters on the ``voted tape''. Staff has reviewed our ``voted tape'' and has determined there are 104,447 individual voter records on the ``voted tape''. Therefore, that shall be the base number used. ``Voted tape'' total.......................................... 104,447 ``White provisional'' voters not included on ``voted tape''... 666 ``New citizen'' voters not included on ``voted tape''......... 218 Canceled records not included on ``voted tape''............... 464

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, just when we thought things could not get worse at the IRS, they have. I picked up this Washington Post article last week. The title is ``IRS Goof Creates Returns That Keep Returning.'' At first I thought it was a joke, but then I learned that the IRS did make, in fact, a huge goof, about a million packets of 1040 forms sent out to the taxpayers had preprinted address labels. That is not going to do anyone any favors. The famous world class computer system over at the IRS will read the bar code on the preprinted label and, one might ask, will it then send it to the proper location for processing? No, sir. It will not. It will send the form right back to you. In fact, we can even imagine the making of an infinite loop, with our 1040s just making around-the-world tours, back and forth between our houses and the IRS. Mr. Speaker, the IRS is still out of control. It is enough. It is time for some radical reform at the IRS.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. You point out his family tradition. As I recollect now, I think he was been married about 43 years to one lovely woman----

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a pleasure to come on the House floor tonight to speak of my good friend Bob Dornan, who has been in the press recently dealing with the decision by Congress to allow the election to go forward in the Dornan-Sanchez race. My purpose tonight in coming forward is while Mr. Dornan has been in the press recently and there has been some controversy about this particular election, I sort of share his views, and I believe in many ways that he should still be here in Congress. My feeling is that eagles do not flock together, we have to find them one at a time. And Bob Dornan is really one of those outstanding Americans that should still be here. He represented the best of this House, and so I wanted to take a few moments tonight to talk a little bit about Bob Dornan. The hour is late, and many of my colleagues are on their way back home to their districts, and I will be going back tomorrow, but I thought it appropriate to come to the House floor and speak about this great individual, this good friend, and what I think is an American eagle, one of a kind. I think many of my colleagues know his personal history. He volunteered for pilot training at age 19. Was still in college and he served as a fighter pilot in the Air Force from 1952 to 1958. He served in the Air Force Reserves from 1962 to 1975 and served in the Air National Guard from 1958 to 1961. So he is a true patriot, a person that believes serving our country is important, and he is proud of his record and he makes no bones about the fact that he has great regard and respect for the military and he thinks Americans should serve their country. He worked as a civilian combat photographer. Five of his eight trips to wartime Vietnam were served in this capacity. One of the things about this individual I like the most is he is willing to speak his mind forthrightly. Many of us saw that great movie Jerry McGuire, in which Jerry McGuire is represented as a sports agent for Rod Tidwell in the movie, who was a football star. And Jerry McGuire writes this book which gets him fired, which essentially says I am going to tell the truth about what people really believe and not what they say. And this, of course, caused quite a stir in his sports agency and he was fired. But he went on to represent with great compassion Rod Tidwell, and eventually he was vindicated in the movie when Rod Tidwell received an $11.3 million contract when most people thought that this professional football player would not succeed. But Jerry McGuire had the faith and courage and, sometimes lack of confidence, but in the end persevered because he was willing to put his heart and mind in the same place; that his spirit and what he believed in his heart was what came out when he spoke: sincerity and honesty. Bob Dornan is such a man, and he is to be commended for being willing to say some things that people will not say at times. He represented leadership on the House floor that many of us commend him for. One of the areas in which he was particularly articulate and also a strong advocate was the pro-life position. He was the original sponsor of the Right to Life Act, which would effectively declare abortion unconstitutional. He led the fight to end Federal funding for fetal tissue research at military hospitals and government organizations. He was one of the strongest pro-life advocates in Congress. He made no bones about that, and many of us, like myself, agree with him and look to him for leadership in that area. He was also a humanitarian advocate, the former chairman of two important House subcommittees, the National Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel and Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. He gathered and learned information for his responsibilities firsthand by traveling around this globe and visiting areas of engagement like Central America and Somalia. He was loadmaster on twelve humanitarian missions to Africa. Now, a lot of us might go on these trips to England, we might go to France, or we might go to China and stay at the best hotels, but not Bob Dornan. When he went on a trip, he was involved at a grass roots level and as a loadmaster, not on one, not on five, not on eight, but on twelve humanitarian missions to Africa. He visited a refugee camp in Honduras as a longtime member of the Human Rights Caucus consistently. These were part of his activities. He opposed excessive cutbacks in defense spending, especially in California in his Congressional District. He added an amendment to the 1994 crime bill that imposed the death penalty for espionage that leads to the death of U.S. agents. The reason I talk about this is because I have been on a trip with Bob Dornan, when we went for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. This was an extraordinary time. It was bipartisan. We had 18 Senators and 25 Members of Congress. The delegation was led by Sonny Montgomery. And what was so extraordinary about this trip was to see some of these old veterans come back and to see the emotion and feeling in the people of France; how glad they were to see Americans return 50 years later, and to have the whole sense of this great movement in history because of D- Day and other successes against the Nazi government. Most of us went through the standard procedure for the 50th anniversary and went and attended most of the functions, and we would come back at 11 o'clock at night and be very tired. One night when we came back, Bob Dornan wanted to go out again, and so the Army was kind enough to provide him a driver and a jeep and he went out because he wanted to go to some of the graves. He wanted to walk and see some of those young soldiers that died. He wanted to see their grave sites. And he did not get back until about 5 or 6 o'clock the next morning. When we all assembled on the bus the next morning, Bob Dornan came on time and talked about the terrific experience he had, highly emotionalized experience that went to the core of the reason we were there, to show respect and honor for these men who gave their life for their country and for this momentous occasion that turned the entire history of the Western Civilization. He has always been a supporter of higher military pay and benefits, and endorsed the investigation of the POW-MIAs not accounted for in Vietnam. He initiated the POW-MIA bracelet. Remember, all the bracelets all of us started wearing? Bob Dornan is the one that initiated this bracelet, worn by many veterans. He led the charge to oppose the normalization of relations with Vietnam until full account of the POW- MIAs were provided, and he helped design a program to help to seek military personnel become teachers. I mean I have more here that I want to go on, and we are going to do a special order later on for Bob Dornan, but I was just compelled to come to the floor and I am joined here with another distinguished Member of Congress from California, who is also compelled out of sheer friendship, out of sheer respect, out of sheer love for our colleague, Bob Dornan. The gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Duncan Hunter) perhaps knows Bob Dornan better than anyone else on the House floor, so I will yield part of my time to the gentleman.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I think that is what happens, is that Bob Dornan had this ability to project issues. Where a lot of us cannot create the aura and the rhetoric necessary to bring this into the people's mind, he could do this. A lot of people would say that, if Bob Dornan gets ahold of an issue, he does not let it go. He sort of root hog or die, sort of the cry that the people had when they went West from the East in their covered wagons. They were going to make it one way or the other. That is the kind of determination that he had when he had an issue. He was a very substantive Member of Congress. He had issues. He had things he believed in. You know, I say to my colleague from San Diego, there is no use being here. There is no use getting elected every year if you do not stand for something. If you come here to go along and get along, it makes no point. You are on the board of the directors of this most wonderful, most powerful country in the world economically and militarily. You should not come to this district and hide. You should come to this district and point the way, be a beacon of light, be a light that other people can see and project what your ideas should be for all of America. So I think Mr. Dornan did that in an unbelievable fashion. In a very truthful way, he said, I am going to be a credible congressman. I am going to state my mind. Only if 435 members would actively get engaged like Bob Dornan can we actually come up with a solution which is right. Then the people can say, is that a proper way? Is that truth or not? Bob Dornan made those a strong advocate of ideas.

Mr. STEARNS. My colleague is correct there. I would like to reclaim my time for a moment here to also make the emphasis that Bob Dornan, while he had a national agenda and was concerned about the military personnel and had a humanitarian agenda, he was also a very wonderful, strong advocate for his congressional district. This is an individual that worked hard in his district, was available, was willing to listen to anybody at any time. I just want to talk a little bit about what he has done in his congressional district. Because the people might know Bob Dornan because of the bracelet. They might know about him because of his oratorical skills, about his advocacies for pro-life. They might talk about his traveling the country speaking against drugs and violent crime and child pornography and some of the social issues. He was willing to take a stand. He has won the endorsement and respect from law enforcement agencies and organizations around the country, but also, in his congressional district, the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, Latino Peace Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, Crime Victims United. But here is just some of the sampling of the things that he has done for the 46th District, his congressional district. He obtained more than $1 million for the Santa Ana Fiesta Marketplace, which is very important because it rebuilt the downtown Santa Ana neighborhood. He obtained Federal funding to assist in cleaning up neighborhoods in Buena Vista from a slum drug and prostitute area into a clean, drug- free environment for our kids. This meant he went down into the district, assessed the situation, and worked hard to get the Federal funding. Of course, my colleagues know we were in the minority at that point. We were not in the majority. So to have a Member of Congress to get this Federal funding back into the district in which he was in the minority party is important to realize. He assisted in obtaining police hiring grants to place new police officers in Garden Grove and Santa Ana. He facilitated in the construction of a four-acre police and fire training center in Santa Ana. He worked to ensure that the Department of Defense cleans toxic waste from El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, included a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform Bill to empower the cities in the 46th district to apply for Federal reimbursement for costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens. He helped obtain almost $1 million in Federal funds for Rancho San Diego College, and he sponsored a breast health awareness fair in his district. So, I mean, the list goes on and on of the achievements in his district on a local level for the people he represented. So even though we know Bob for some of his national agenda, these achievements are just a sample of what he has done just for the people in his district.

Mr. STEARNS. Further reclaiming my time, let me take back my time and return to my colleague. The gentleman went right into one of the things that I wanted to mention, which was his favorite line of scripture. Because he believes this is what our military and police officers today do for us on a daily basis and embodies the ideal of patriotism that he believes is so very important. This line of scripture sort of ties into what my colleague mentioned when he tried to separate the Members of Congress when they got into a little scuffle here. The line is, ``Greater love than this no man has than he lay down his life for his friends.'' When I think about Bob Dornan's willingness to sacrifice--and, as my colleagues know, his full name is Robert Kenneth Patrick Dornan. Almost, when I saw the movie Brave Heart, I could not help but think of Bob Dornan because of his spiritedness and his mission and willingness to go to any lengths to help his fellow man, not just on the basis of humanitarian purposes but on honor and duty and country.

Mr. STEARNS. God bless Bob Dornan.

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman will yield for a second, I wanted to read some of the aircraft he has piloted. A lot of us go out on these field trips and we look at these aircraft, but Bob Dornan is a little different than most of us. He has actually piloted some of these. Of course, he piloted, as the gentleman mentioned, the B-1 bomber, plus the SR-71 Blackbird, the B-52, the U-2, the FB-111, the F-15, F-16, the F-18, the AV-8 Harrier, A-10, F-111F, the F-5 Tiger and 17 other high performance fighters. I mean this is a Congressman that got involved. He was not a back- bencher. He was not somebody that stood by and said let us talk about the appropriations for some of these aircraft. I want to find out if they operate. I want to see how well they operate, and I want to talk to the pilots and the people that operate, the repairmen, the enlisted people, noncommissioned officers. It is just an extraordinary thing to realize that this Member of Congress went out and did those things. And I yield again to the gentleman.

Mr. STEARNS. Sally. His family life exemplifies his whole life, in the sense that he is a strong family man for family, God, and all the decency that exists today in our culture. So we will take another time to talk about our great friend and great patriot, Bob Dornan, but on this evening, we have let our sentiments to our colleagues be known.

Mr. STEARNS. Do you remember when you were in leadership and you assigned me as chairman of a personnel task force and, at that time, we were discussing lifting the ban on gays in the United States military and the new policy and we had several hearings? Bob Dornan was active in that. Perhaps a lot of Members did not necessarily agree with Bob Dornan. But Bob Dornan had a strong principle in which he stated his position; but, at the same time, he was willing to listen to other people on this very controversial issue. I remember having our hearings, of which you were helping us to bring in witnesses. He would attend those hearings, and he would ask the most concise and cogent questions. He helped to form our policy in the Republican Party dealing with this whole policy. Today, in this important area of, you know, lifting the ban on gays in the military, he stood in the gap. I commend him for that. Something else we should remember is that he participated in Dr. Martin Luther King's historic march on Washington. A lot of Members of Congress watched it on TV. A lot of Members of Congress said, well, that is just an issue I am not involved in. But Bob Dornan believes in the rights of individuals. He does not believe that any man or woman should be discriminated on the basis of race, creed color, or national origin. So he was out there participating, and you can see his picture in some of these photographs from the civil rights movement, in which there is Bob Dornan, out there participating. Because this is part of his personality. He wanted to get involved, he knew it was the right thing to do. He traveled to Mississippi to assist in efforts to register black voters, despite death threats from the KKK.

Mr. STEARNS. That is why earlier I mentioned that he is a true humanitarian. He makes a statement in his life and in his past activities that ``I believe freedom that works; I believe all men and women should have the opportunity to enjoy success,'' and he was just a patriot. He was an individual that was an active proactive individual, with a high level of energy and an enormous intelligence. So I think tonight, that is why you and I felt it so important to come down here, because we were just moved, based on what we had seen in the newspapers today, we thought, by golly, we have got to come down here and talk about, as you pointed out, his participation in this historic march on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning called ``Who Needs the IMF?'' It is written by George Schultz, who is the former Secretary of State under President Reagan; Mr. William Simon, who was Secretary of Treasury under Presidents Nixon and Ford; and Mr. Riften, who is a former Chairman of Citicorp/Citibank. The American taxpayers are being asked to bail out the IMF, and I believe they are being taken advantage of. The bailout has been organized by the IMF fund to which the United States has contributed roughly 18 percent of the IMF's reserve fund. The IMF, as of 1996, there was about $210 billion in the reserve fund. The United States has been liable for approximately $47 billion of this. This fund has responded to the East Asian financial crisis by nearly liquidating its assets. Thailand has received $17 billion in bailout money; $40 billion has been handed to Indonesia, and South Korea has been given a staggering $68 billion in funds. The total cost of this bailout amounts to more than 14 percent of East Asia's gross domestic product. Let us put this in perspective: 14 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product would equal over $1 trillion. This breathtaking figure would be 61 percent of the Federal budget. The IMF is engaging in a policy of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. So instead of helping beleaguered nations, the American taxpayer is guaranteeing a return of investment, of course with a profit attached, to the various investment institutions and investors who knew that they were engaging in highly risky investments. The protected markets, not the open ones, are in trouble. The financial crisis in East Asia is not the result of excess capitalism. The crisis has been caused and exacerbated by the Asian economies that have been forcibly insulated from the free market through quasi-protectionist practices, especially as it concerns banning foreign financial services to operate in these markets. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, reports, quote, the financial crisis in Asia is a culmination of decades of hands-on government regulation of the region's economies, distrust of foreign capital and competition, concentration of power in a family-owned business group with close ties to the government, and closed financial systems and quotes. As the case with Japan, which has experienced nearly a decade-long recession, these Asian nations have created managed economies by picking economic winners and losers instead of allowing competition to sort out the free market winners and losers. By trying to guide their economies through bureaucratic hands, Thailand, Indonesia, and South Korea have worsened their economic crisis because they have been incapable of taking immediate action to fight the effects of a growing economic free fall. The IMF can lull nations into complacency by acting as a self-appointed leader of last resort. This fund was originally created in 1944 to assist in global trade by supporting currency convertibility and providing needed financing to defend exchange rates. The purpose of the IMF was entirely dissolved with the demise of the fixed exchange system in 1937 and the advent of international capital markets. But instead of putting the IMF out of business as it should have been, the IMF was allowed by its member nations to redefine itself by becoming a lender to developing nations. Such a change in its mandate automatically increased the risk to its reserve funds and duplicated the efforts of other international financial institutions such as the World Bank. The IMF money has made investors more reckless with their decisions because they have come to expect that this money will be an insurance plan against the risk of investing in questionable economic settings in foreign nations. They realize their investments will be practically guaranteed. Instead of making wise business decisions, certain investors and institutions get consumed with the thought of great profits despite significant risks. Most importantly this crisis should teach the world, especially in countries like Japan and China, that true economic reform is needed to wean nations off managed economic policies. By allowing the free market to rule, the nations of East Asia will have the security to avoid these economic downturns that currently have befallen them. Asian nations are facing financial difficulties, not because of outside forces having imposed bad economic policies on them, but because they have imposed these bad policies on themselves.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing legislation to prohibit federal funding for the cloning of human beings. My bill also calls for an international ban on human cloning. I would like to remind my colleagues that it took 273 tries to develop Dolly. But what about the other 272 animals? Most of them were either aborted, destroyed, or maimed. Do we want to do this with humans beings? There are serious ethical and moral implications involved with cloning of humans. Theologians and ethicists have raised three broad objections. Cloning humans could lead to a new eugenics movement, where even if cloning begins with a benign purpose, it could lead to the establishment of ``scientific'' categories of superior and inferior people. Cloning is a form of playing God, since it interferes with the natural order of creation. Cloning could have long-term effects that are unknown and harmful. People have a right to their own identity and their own genetic makeup, which should not be replicated. I, for one, do not think we can just sit idly by when there are people like Dr. Seed out there who look upon human life in much different terms than most Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by cosponsoring my legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to support the FDA reform bill, and to compliment the chairman and ranking member, and, of course, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], who is a colleague. But I am disappointed that this legislation lacks a provision preventing the FDA from going forward with its proposed plan to ban certain metered-dose inhalers. I have introduced legislation, and myself and other colleagues have worked hard to try and lobby the conference. We were not successful. The FDA is proposing to ban metered-dose inhalers containing chlorofluoro- carbons sooner than America agreed to in the Montreal Protocol. I am going to reach out to both sides to see if we can pass a standing piece of legislation, because CFC damage is there, it hurts the ozone layer, but, frankly, we need to phase it out and not move abruptly. The Federal Government allows the use of CFCs for bear repellant and wasp and hornet sprays, yet the FDA wants to take away medicines for metered-dose inhalers because they have CFCs. Are killing bugs and chasing away bears really more important than the health of our children? I do not think so. Next session, Mr. Speaker, let us keep the FDA from banning these inhalers until safe and effective alternatives are developed.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, as we take up this bill just 2 days before Veterans Day, we are in a very concrete way underscoring our commitment to veterans. Among its key provisions, these amendments to S. 714 provide important direction to the Department of Veterans Affairs to address what we believe is a glaring problem, the need to improve the care VA provides to Persian Gulf veterans. Our committee has held what the American Legion 2 months ago described as ``the most comprehensive and important hearings on Gulf War veterans since the end of the Gulf War.'' This legislation stems from those hearings and would require VA to take a new approach, beginning with creating and funding demonstration programs. This should lead VA to develop new, improved models for treating veterans with undiagnosed or ill-defined conditions. The bill would also clarify that Persian Gulf veterans are eligible for care of any condition which may be due to their service in the gulf, whether or not it can be linked to toxic substances or environmental hazards. These amendments would also extend many expiring programs, including VA's authority to provide noninstitutional services to the elderly and needed assistance for homeless veterans. Mr. Speaker, the legislation also provides needed authorization for VA medical facility construction and leasing initiatives for fiscal year 1998. For these and many other reasons, I support this bill. This is an excellent bill, and I urge all the Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I include the following statement for the Record: Mr. Speaker, as we take up this bill just 2 days before Veterans Day, we are in a very concrete way underscoring our commitment to veterans. Among its key provisions, these amendments to S. 714 provide important direction to the Department of Veterans Affairs to address what is both one of the most glaring problems in the area of veterans affairs, and the most pressing problem facing many Persian Gulf war veterans--the need for effective health care. In wrestling with this problem, our committee has held what the American Legion 2 months ago described as ``the most comprehensive and important hearings on Gulf War veterans since the end of the Gulf War.'' Our findings and resultant legislation have frankly not commanded the attention associated with still speculative questions regarding toxic chemical exposures. We have found that VA treatment, particularly of veterans with hard to diagnose problems, has been uneven from facility to facility. Too often, veterans have fallen through the cracks, and complex cases have not received coordinated care. VA's primary care system appears ill-suited to help the many veterans who suffer from ill-defined, multiple-system health problems. Lack of understanding of the illnesses affecting Persian Gulf war veterans has fueled a perception in many veterans that VA clinicians lack empathy for their conditions. This legislation would begin to remedy the kinds of problems Persian Gulf veterans and independent observers have highlighted about the treatment these veterans have, and in some cases have not, received. This legislation would require VA to take a new approach in caring for these veterans, beginning with creating and funding demonstration programs to test new approaches to treating Persian Gulf veterans with undiagnosed or ill-defined conditions. Among the approaches VA is to develop under the bill are the use of case managers to oversee all facets of the veteran's care, establishment of specialized clinics serving only Persian Gulf veterans, and the use of multidisciplinary treatment aimed at symptom management. The bill would also expand VA law regarding Persian Gulf veterans' eligibility for care to clarify that such veterans are eligible for care of any condition which may be due to their service in the gulf, whether or not such condition may be attributable to toxic substances or environmental hazards. Our amendments to S. 714 would also extend a number of expiring health care programs on which our veterans depend. I am very pleased that the bill includes provisions I authored which give VA ongoing authority to provide noninstitutional care and services to the elderly, and which extend, streamline, and improve VA programs serving veterans who are chronically mentally ill and the homeless. This legislation gives VA the tools it needs to serve this population, as well as to work in partnership with communities to help eradicate veteran homelessness. I am pleased that, increasingly, VA is expanding its partnership activities in this and other areas. In that regard, this bill would also enable VA to develop more beneficial public/private partnerships. In adopting provisions passed by the House in April, this measure would allow VA to expand an effective program of leasing unused property for development of facilities such as assistive living facilities, day care centers, and other uses that can benefit veterans or the medical centers that serve them. The legislation also provides needed authorization for a limited number of VA medical facility construction and leasing initiatives for fiscal year 1998. I am pleased at what we have accomplished for our veterans in this legislation. I would acknowledge that a number of House-passed provisions on which the Senate had held no hearing are not included in this measure. These provisions include sections 7 and 8 of H.R. 2206. Section 7 would have provided a needed exemption of VA research personnel from an existing policy aimed at reducing the number of VA personnel in certain employment grades. While our committee has not objected to efforts to reduce the numbers of middle management positions in the VA, the failure to exempt researchers is particularly short-sighted and damaging to a program so integral to VA's health care mission. We strongly urge that the Department adopt an exemption, and not wait for us to enact this provision next session. The enactment of section 8 of H.R. 2206 would have ruled out future legislative efforts to open the Federal supply schedule on pharmaceuticals. The committee recognizes, however, that in repealing section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 this year, Congress has, as a matter of law, effectively rejected as ill-advised the concept of opening the Federal supply schedule to cooperative purchasing. Overall, this is an excellent bill. I urge Members to support it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2367, the Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, which was introduced by Chairman Stump. It is fitting and right that our Nation's veterans be given a full COLA for fiscal year 1998. The 2.6 million veterans who receive disability compensation are entitled to this increase in their benefits. After all, these benefits were earned by these men and women in service to their country. They deserve to be compensated because in many cases their earning capacity was diminished due to injuries sustained during their military service. Many veterans reside in Florida and I know firsthand how difficult it is for many of them to make ends meet. Passage of this bill will offer these valiant men and women who served our country a little more purchasing power. This legislation also provides a partial compensation to the widows and children of veterans whose deaths were found to be service-connected. This too is fitting and right. Again, I commend your leadership on this bill, Chairman Stump, and I am pleased to offer my unqualified support for its passage.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the real question in the debate surrounding the contested election in California's 46th District is do we want noncitizens voting in elections? It is not about Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez. It is about whether or not we want to see our election process compromised. Someone would have us believe that this current investigation is unique. Would it surprise my colleagues to know that since the Civil War the House of Representatives has been involved in over 100 such investigations? Another thing critics of this investigation will not tell us is that the supporters of Ms. Sanchez acknowledge that 303 noncitizens, illegally registered to vote by Hermandad, voted in the 46th Congressional District. There is strong evidence to support the fact that far more than 303 votes were fraudulently cast in this race. Do we really want to devalue the votes cast by legally registered American citizens? I think not. Our opponents on the other side of the aisle should welcome this investigation if they truly believe that their candidate won fair and square. The truth must be allowed to come out.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about a very controversial and highly important historical event. I am speaking about the visit of China's President Jiang Zemin to our Nation. President Jiang's visit will be the first visit for a Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping was received by President Carter in 1979. The relationship between China and the United States will be the world's most important and most interesting in the dawn of the unfolding millennium. This visit will help set the table of whether this relationship will be based on distrust and animosity that will give rise to a new global confrontation between two giant superpowers or if this relationship will be based upon a working relationship of understanding and mutual respect between two partners. I would like to see the latter relationship develop, but I believe its development will be based upon China's willingness to be a global leader that applies the standards of democracy and true free markets to their own Nation. The term ``comprehensive engagement'' is being used to detail the talks this week. I believe most of us in Congress and most of our Nation desires a peaceful relationship with China and to be engaged comprehensively. But the administration has to prioritize the issues of contention between our nations in order to make President Jiang's visit an achievement. As one observer has said, this summit will demand something that the Clinton administration has yet to produce, a clearly articulated set of priorities. Without prioritizing United States interests in China, the administration's present construct of engagement is meaningless. What China needs to do is to change its domestic law and make a commitment that it will uphold international obligations embodied in applicable international treaties. One of the larger problems with China is its current trade imbalance. The trade deficit with China reached $40 billion in 1996 alone, and it is expected that the 1997 trade deficit with China will be even greater. This translates into amazing figures that every American spends approximately $150 a year more on Chinese goods than China spends on United States products. President Clinton should urge President Jiang to work to reduce tariffs and nontariff barriers to aid United States businesses who are trying to compete in China. As it seems with most of our trading partners, it is easier for Chinese products to enter into the United States than for American products to have access to the Chinese market. Reducing applicable tariffs will encourage United States sales and will help reduce the trade imbalance with China. Another factor, Mr. Speaker, in opening up the Chinese market will be to encourage President Jiang to dismantle as quickly as possible the overwhelming amount of state-owned enterprises. The traditional bureaucratic state control of businesses acts as an economic drag and increases the tendency for trade deficits. By privatizing these enterprises China will allow market forces to determine their success and would allow United States companies an even playing field in order to compete. China's No. 1 economic priority is to ascend to the World Trade Organization. The United States should continue resisting China's membership to the WTO unless they begin reducing their own tariffs and if they begin adhering to international legal standards as if it applies to business contracts and other legal norms. In addition, Mr. Speaker, China lacks many of the laws that apply to global commerce. China needs the proper legal infrastructure regarding contracts, private property ownership and arbitration in order to support China's continued economic growth. So the United States businesses receive the legal protection to operate in full capacity in the Chinese market. China needs to adhere to democratic values. They must continue the development of democratic values in China that should receive priority attention on the summit's agenda. Other things, such as religious persecution, international covenants on human rights, legislative and judicial exchanges, and grassroots democracy must also be on the agenda. A modern, open, legislative and judicial system in China is necessary to protect religious, economic and political freedoms. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this morning I hope the visit of President Jiang is a first step in resolving our differences with China, and I hope that President Jiang will follow up on some of the things we talked about this morning. That will be a significant accomplishment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, since NAFTA has begun, Florida agriculture has lost in excess of $1 billion; Florida tomato farmers have alone lost $750 million. So much for level playing fields and reduced tariffs. According to the O'Conner & Hannan law firm of Washington DC, ``For tomatoes, the losses are clearly due to the dumping of Mexican tomatoes in the U.S. market as determined by the Commerce Department. The primary cause of the injuries to Florida agriculture is NAFTA and its ineffectual safeguard provisions.'' The Florida Department of Citrus has further informed me, that after 3 years of NAFTA, Florida citrus is still not even allowed into Mexico. How is this possibly free or fair trade? Congress needs to stand up to this destruction of American industries such as agriculture. The administration and the proponents of granting renewed fast-track authority have failed to articulate the economic imperative of granting such authority. Trade deals should be negotiated when possible on a case-by-case basis and given the stature of a formal treaty.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on March 6, 1997, the FDA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which set forth its plan to ban CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers once certain criteria are met. The plan was developed in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency and is intended to eliminate the minuscule amount of CFC's currently allowed to be used for medication delivered by metered-dose inhalers. CFC is the abbreviated term used to refer to chlorofluorocarbon gas. There are tens of millions of Americans who suffer from asthma; 5 million of those are children. These patients depend upon CFC-propelled metered-dose inhalers to treat their asthma and to help them breathe. With over 5,000 deaths each year in America due to asthma, I am convinced that the FDA's rule would eliminate treatment options for asthmatic patients. Today, I want to talk about H.R. 2221, legislation that I, along with my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], introduced on July 22 of this year. Since that time I have received tremendous support from all over the country. With 28 cosponsors, the bill continues to receive new cosponsors daily. The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take no further action on the FDA's proposed ban on CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers. My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and I are working with Members from the House and Senate from the relevant committees in an effort to add language in the conference report to the Food and Drug Reform legislation. It will direct the FDA to withdraw its March 6, 1997, advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and to take no further action to promulgate a proposed final rule on the basis of such advanced notice. Madam Speaker, recently it has been pointed out in several leading publications, including the Wall Street Journal editorial dated September 17, 1997, that asthma is on the rise in our Nation. It is the most common chronic illness affecting children. In fact, among children's chronic diseases, asthma is the No. 1 reason for school absenteeism. Asthma mortality is also on the rise. Explanations for the increasing prevalence, morbidity and mortality are varied. Regardless, these populations include children, especially poor children living in urban areas. Are not these the very children that the EPA claims it is helping with its new air quality standards? This misguided policy is definitely the case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. With one hand, the EPA presents new air quality standards that are supposed to protect the health of asthmatic children, while on the other, the FDA proposes to ban life-saving metered-dose inhalers from the market. The result of these actions would be to deny these children the treatment to help them to lead almost normal lives. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the conference to adopt the language that I have presented and outlined in their final report. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, H.R. 2221, by becoming a cosponsor.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2571, the fiscal year 1998 VA major construction authorization bill, and urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation. This bill authorizes several major medical construction projects as well as leases. First, this bill authorizes $34.6 million to complete seismic corrections begun earlier at the Memphis VA Medical Center. It is important that we authorize this project because the Memphis facility does not conform to current seismic standards and lies on a fault line which has a high probability for earthquake activity. It is important to note that this is the only project in the bill for which new funding for major construction is recommended. The bill also authorizes the expenditure of previously appropriated construction funds for several interrelated projects in northern California. The bill would authorize VA to undertake seismic corrections and clinical and other improvements at the McClellan Hospital at Mather Field in Sacramento, CA, and to make outpatient improvements at two other sites in northern California. The bill would authorize the VA to undertake these projects in lieu of previous plans to construct a 234-bed hospital at Travis Air Force Base. The proposed Travis project was intended as a replacement for the VA medical center in Martinez which was closed in 1991 because of earthquake damage. Studies done by the General Accounting Office and Price Waterhouse recommended against proceeding with the replacement project. The committee concurs with the view that the veterans of northern California will be better served by a plan that does not rely on a single hospital site as a source of hospital care for this large region. The McClellan Hospital, however, has the capacity to serve the Sacramento area effectively, and VA anticipates that the McClellan facility will be transferred at no cost from the Air Force under the BRAC process. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2571 also authorizes some $15 million for the VA to enter into lease agreements for needed satellite outpatient clinics in Jacksonville, FL; Boston, MA; Canton, OH; Portland, OR; and Tulsa, OK; and information resources management field offices in Birmingham, AL, and Salt Lake City, UT. H.R. 2571 is a sound, fiscally responsible bill. It defers further major construction spending authorizations until VA makes more progress on strategic planning requirements that have been initiated by our committee. VA itself has urged that the Congress authorize these projects, and I urge Members to support this measure.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Washington witnessed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of men who joined together to proclaim their commitment to God, family, and freedom. I am talking about the Promise Keepers. Although maligned by some folks, I applaud these individuals for looking into themselves and into others for self- improvement. I also commend them for highlighting the importance of the family. No single unit of any society is as important as a family. It lies at the core of building sound individuals by offering love, support, and guidance. I sympathize with the difficult plight of those single parents who are struggling to raise their children, but it is true that two-parent households provide the most maturing environments. Sadly, the traditional family structure is under assault. The dissolution of the American family is not merely a personal crisis, it imposes terrible consequences throughout our society. What is one of the greatest concerns of the American people? Obviously one of them is crime. Forty-three percent of all inmates grew up in a single-parent household. According to the Cato Institute, a 1 percentage point increase in births to single mothers appeared to increase the violent crime rate about 1.7 percent. The disturbing fact is that men from single-parent families are twice as likely to commit crimes compared with men from two-parent families. The corruption of family values is not only mirrored in crime rates, but studies also show that a weak family structure is unhealthy. Men and women who divorce have a 40 percent greater risk of premature death than those who stay steadfastly married. What is the impact on children? Children of divorced parents see their mortality rate increase by 44 percent. Strong families produce healthy, productive individuals. It is in the interest of everyone to promote stable families. However, the values that build strong families and a strong Nation are constantly being undermined through our popular culture. In addition, families are threatened by the policies of our own government. There is much that we can do and should do to strengthen American families. But today I would like to point out an easy means of reducing the pressure that is helping to tear our families apart. One simple step that we can take in Congress is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Not only is its unfair to punish married couples through higher taxes, it is morally wrong to penalize the cornerstone of a strong, stable family, the institution of marriage. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2456, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1997. What is this marriage penalty? Under the present tax system, many couples filing jointly are pushed into a higher tax bracket. This often results in taxing the income of a family's second wage earner at a much higher rate than if that earner filed as an individual. For example, an individual with an income of $24,000 would be taxed at a 15-percent rate. However, a working couple with incomes of $24,000 each would be taxed at 28 percent if filing jointly. How widespread is this penalty? According to the Congressional Budget Office, over 21 million couples have paid a marriage penalty which averages about $1,400. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act simply allows families to decide how they file their income taxes, either individually or jointly, whichever gives them the greatest tax benefit. Just this past year Congress passed the $500-per-child tax credit to help families get by and enacted educational tax relief to help parents educate their children. We are moving in the right direction in defense of the family. We should continue our efforts by eliminating the marriage penalty. For many Members, $1,400 in tax penalties for married couples may not seem like much. However, this amount can make a real difference in improving the family situation, providing for their children, reducing the financial pressure under which most Americans struggle. I am under no illusion that this will reverse the decline in families, but it is a step down the right road, a means to reduce the erosion of the family structure. It is an issue of fairness and of recognizing the value of strong families through strong marriages. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Marriage Tax Elimination Act.