Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman, and I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2206, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1997. While this bill includes a number of important measures, its key provisions would improve care for homeless veterans and Persian Gulf veterans. The bill, as amended and reported out of the full committee, also incorporates other pieces of legislation which have the strong support of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the veterans community. First, H.R. 2206 would extend, consolidate, and strengthen VA programs which have proven effective in helping rehabilitate homeless veterans. One-third of homeless adults are veterans. Of that number, over 85 percent have a serious psychiatric or substance abuse disorder. Studies indicate that a substantial number of those who rely on VA care are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Madam Speaker, this bill recognizes that assisting the homeless is not solely a Federal or VA responsibility. In fact, it specifically envisions a VA role that involves working in partnership with Government agencies and community providers. Nevertheless, the bill would give the VA clearer and less restrictive authority to provide care and rehabilitative services to the homeless, and particularly those suffering from chronic and mental illness. It would enable veterans to provide a full range of needed services to restore health, independence, and dignity to many previously homeless veterans. Madam Speaker, other key aspects of this legislation reflect the high priority this committee has given during the 105th Congress to oversight and particularly to oversight of VA care and provisions of benefits to Persian Gulf veterans. The full committee and its subcommittees have held four oversight hearings this year devoted exclusively to Persian Gulf war issues. That record has certainly sent a strong, clear message to veterans as well as to the Department of Veterans Affairs that this committee will do everything in its power to ensure that the VA fulfill its obligation to these veterans. In fact, the National Commander of the American Legion commended the committee last month for ``Convening the most comprehensive and important hearings on Gulf War veterans since the end of the Gulf War.'' Central to our concerns has been the large number of veterans with unexplained and ill-defined health problems. What has become apparent to our committee is not only that these problems have been difficult to diagnose but they have been difficult to treat. We are encouraged that VA officials have recognized the need for different approaches to treating some of these chronically ill veterans who suffer from poorly understood health problems. Accordingly, this legislation requires the VA to establish and fund a competitive grant program under which participating VA facilities would develop and operate demonstration programs aimed at improving care to Persian Gulf war veterans with undiagnosed illnesses. Medical science has still not provided the answers so many gulf war veterans seek in understanding the nature and cause of their illness. This legislation, however, would make it clear that regardless of the nature of the cause or causes, and regardless of whether the problem can be linked to exposure to a toxic substance or environmental hazard, these veterans are eligible for VA health care. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to express my regret that a provision of this bill, based upon H.R. 1687 relating to physician and dentist retirements, was dropped due to disagreements with the Congressional Budget Office regarding its cost implications. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, this is an excellent bill and I urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this most important piece of legislation.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and, Madam Speaker, this is a stretch of circuitous logic to say that this bill is a tax increase. As I recollect, this bill, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] can point out, as I remember, this passed by unanimous consent, all the Democrats and Republicans. This has nothing to do with what the gentleman from Ohio is talking about. In fact, there is nothing in this bill that prevents worthy institutions from negotiating favorable prices for themselves, individually or collectively. We simply say that this institution should not piggyback on the Federal supply schedule. Remember, now, if we open up the Federal supply schedule and make it for everybody, then the price is going to go up for veterans, and that is why I think many of us in the committee were worried about. In fact, the General Accounting Office, I tell my colleague from Ohio, came to the committee and testified that the VA and other Federal agencies could experience price increases on almost 81 percent of all the drugs in the Federal supply schedule. And what would that mean for veterans? Let us talk about that, because this is what we are talking about. We are talking about the Veterans Administration. We are talking about a bill that would benefit veterans. The result, the VA Administration, the Clinton administration, not Republicans in the House, not our committee, the VA Administration told us that about 50,000 veterans would lose access to care. So with that in mind, both the Democrats and Republicans unanimously passed this bill. I think we have to remember that what we are trying to do is allow veterans, through the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to have access and have discounted prices. If we want to have discounted programs for veterans hospitals and veterans, let us keep it there and not open it up so that they are in the final analysis hurt.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, is it any wonder that the day after the Attorney General makes a supposedly impartial preliminary decision last Friday clearing President Clinton of criminal conduct, that the White House suddenly releases videotapes of fundraisers at the White House? It is no coincidence that these videotapes were released to congressional investigators and the Justice Department after the Attorney General's decision. Senate investigators had previously asked if these tapes existed. The White House said no, they did not even exist. Also, Madam Speaker, who is to also believe that somehow a 60-second portion of audio is missing from the tape of a June 18, 1996, fund- raising coffee at which witnesses recall John Huang asking for campaign contributions in the presence of the President? Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we go forward and call for a special independent prosecutor, to find out what is occurring here.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], let me remind her and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as a result of an initial investigation into this matter, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that is part of their administration, ordered that an arm of its citizenship testing program be shut down effective January 6, 1997. That is not Republicans, that is Democrats. Democrats decided to shut down a citizenship testing program after it was acknowledged and verified that there were proven cases of fraud. I am not a lawyer. We can put up here the best lawyers and we can talk about subpoenas and go on and on, but their administration found there was acknowledged and verified fraud. So this is a concern of not just Democrats and Republicans and Independents, this is a concern of every Member of Congress; there but for the grace of God go you, me, any one of us. If the administration of their party says on January 6, 1997, yes, there is fraud, we have acknowledged it, verified it, and we are going to stop citizenship testing programs, does that not concern the Members? Does that not tell them that she did not win by 900 votes, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] keeps talking about? No; we have already identified half of those 900 are corroborated that they are false votes. Mr. Dornan's request is not without precedence. We can go back to Supreme Court decisions. We can go back to McCloskey and McIntyre in the 99th Congress. We can back to Roush versus Chambers in the 87th Congress in the first session. And we can on and on with cases where we have the right and the House committee has the complete ability to order a recount in this congressional election if they want to. This country prides itself on the fact that we are a democracy and we abide by the axiom, one man, one vote. However, I would like to quote a well known philosopher. This philosopher said it correctly: It is not the voting that is democracy, it is the counting.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the imperative need for tax reform. It is not simply that Americans pay too much taxes, it is that the entire U.S. tax system is too complex, too bureaucratic, and too unfair. When the income tax was first enacted 84 years ago, there was one page of instructions coupled with a one-page form. Today, there are 480 IRS tax forms and 17,000 pages of IRS laws and regulations. Even the instructions alone for the 1040 EZ form are 28 pages long, and 293,760 trees must be cut down each year just to supply the 8 billion pages of paper needed for filing the country's income taxes. The complexity of the system requires 136,000 employees at the IRS and elsewhere in the Government to administer the laws, costing the American taxpayers $13.7 billion to enforce and oversee the Code. So while tax reduction is a very important, much-needed step forward, we must not forget that it is a first step in many that must be taken. We should continue to work to reduce the tax burden, but we also must simplify the Tax Code. To address the latter, Congress has an obligation to pursue tax fairness, yes, and simplification for all Americans, whether that be a flat tax, a national sales tax, a graduated tax, or even a value-added tax. Each has its merits, and certainly all are better than the current flawed system. It is essential that any overhaul ostensibly based on fairness must be just that: fair to everyone. Otherwise, we have not bettered the system, we have only exacerbated the already existing problem. Furthermore, and most importantly, the IRS itself is in dire need of reform. It is the exemplification of all that is wrong with our overly complex and burdensome Tax Code. In a recent survey, American taxpayers rated the IRS last in customer satisfaction among 200 private companies, local government agencies, even the U.S. Postal Service. Furthermore, the GAO reports that the IRS has been unable to accurately balance its own books for the last 4 years, reporting that in 1992 the IRS could not even account for 64 percent of its own budget. After spending $4 billion, the IRS acknowledged that its Tax Systems Modernization Computer Program still has not produced a working system. As a result, the IRS clerks continue to type away at a computer set up 30 years ago with an error rate of 22 percent. It should be obvious to everyone that the entire U.S. tax system is in desperate need of reform. Taxes are too high. The Tax Code is too complex and burdensome, and the IRS itself is a bureaucratic mess. Congress has an obligation to act, an obligation to reform the burdensome and monstrous Tax Code. We should seize this opportunity now. We should work to affect positive changes in our Nation's revenue collection agency, work toward simplifying our overly complex Tax Code, and work to bring some sanity to the incomprehensible Tax Code. The unfair and oppressive tax system of today is not unlike the system that gave rise to the American Revolution in 1776. We have, as I mentioned, an overly complicated system exemplified by an immense and impersonal Government bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, America deserves better. Americans deserve fairness. They deserve further tax relief; they deserve tax simplification, and they deserve a new, less intrusive and less burdensome IRS. We cannot just fix the system today, we must replace it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. We have to be honest with the American people. These trade agreements have a profound effect on them, and they have a profound effect on local, State, and Federal laws. That is why the gentleman from Vermont has offered this amendment. There is great concern that the United States laws, which lawmakers in Congress, State legislatures, and localities have worked hard to establish and pass, continue to be overturned by faceless bureaucrats during trade negotiations. These bureaucrats could be in the World Trade Organization or they could be anywhere. What can we do, as elected representatives of this great Nation? We will stand up for the laws that are on the books. Many of us would obviously like to stop this constant disregard for U.S. laws, but we are limited in our ability to make such a stand during consideration of appropriations bills, and now we have an opportunity. Make no mistake about it, this vote is a miniature GATT Fast Track II. What we are saying here today is if Members vote for this, they are saying we should transfer money out of the administration of the Commerce Department to the U.S. Trade Representative, and let this department look at the impact of the World Trade Organization on Members' local and State laws. Members cannot be against that. They have a fiduciary relationship with the people in their districts to say, is the World Trade Organization impacting my congressional district? The President of the United States is talking up here on the Hill about pushing fast track. But many of us in this congressional House feel strongly that we need to have an early vote. I applaud the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for going ahead and putting this in place.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, and I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for his kindness in letting us at least just talk about it briefly here. Basically, what we are trying to do is give the U.S. Trade Representative more money so he can investigate, look at the U.S. laws, both local and State, that are impacted by the World Trade Organization when it makes decisions, and do they override actually in effect some of these laws at the local and State level. As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton, since he has taken office they have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements, and of these 200 trade agreements only 2 of them have had fast track. This, certainly, deflates the administration's claim that our Nation is in dire need of fast track. So I think the important point here is that this amendment that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is offering, and others including myself, will allow the U.S. Trade Representative to have additional resources to study the impact of the World Trade Organization on the laws, the sovereign laws at the State and the local level, and to get back to Congress to see what impact these trade negotiations are having. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Sanders-Stearns and friends amendment to this appropriations bill. Since President Clinton has taken office, the administration has negotiated more than 200 trade agreements. By the way only two of these 200 agreements have had fast-track authority, NAFTA and the Uruguay round of GATT. This fact certainly deflates the administration's claims that out Nation is in dire need for fast-track. We have to be honest with the American people. These trade agreements have a profound affect on them and they have a profound affect on local, State, and Federal laws. That is why Mr. Sanders originated this amendment. There is great concern that U.S. laws, which lawmakers in Congress, State legislatures, and localities have worked hard to establish, continue to be overturned by faceless bureaucrats during trade negotiations. And what can we do as the elected representatives of this great Nation that will stand up for the laws already in the books? Many of us would obviously like to stop this constant disregard for U.S. laws, but we are limited in our ability to make such a stand during consideration of an appropriation bill. This amendment will allow the U.S. Trade Representative to have additional resources needed to research and study the American laws that will be affected by trade negotiations. Even in the President's fast-track legislation, section 5(a)(1)(B) states that, ``within 60 calendar days after entering into (an) agreement, the President (must) submit to the Congress a description of those changes to existing laws that the President considers would be required in order to bring the United States into compliance with the (proposed) agreement.'' It seems obvious to me that the administration through fast-track, which I personally oppose, is preparing to overturn countless laws. This amendment will give the USTR greater ability in determining which laws are to be attacked. I would like to make one specific point about fast-track and the harm it has caused constituents throughout Florida, not just in my district. Last week, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave a speech before the Institute for International Economics. In her speech she said, We are preparing to negotiate a further opening in agricultural markets. Our farmers are by far the world's most productive. They help feed the world. But they do so despite tariffs on U.S. products that in some cases are as high as 100 percent. They also confront many nontariff barriers. In gaining access to this $500 billion a year market we want a level playing field for American agriculture. But to get it, we need fast-track. Well, if I am not mistaken, were these promises of agriculture access and reduced tariffs not made during consideration of NAFTA and the previous granting of fast-track? So what has been the track-record of the fast-track? 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 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 Sanders amendment is a first step to informing ourselves of the legal consequences of pervasive ``free'' trade agreements.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, many people come to the floor to complain about things or complain about how things are done. But this morning, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to share a success story with my colleagues about the outstanding efforts of a dedicated group in my home State of Florida. I am talking about those involved with the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches. The Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, Inc., is celebrating 40 years of making a difference in the lives of our State and of our young people. Over 30,000 boys and girls have benefited from the guidance and care provided by this organization over the past four decades. Although created to serve Florida's 67 counties, the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches had its genesis in Texas, the result of a trip by two Florida sheriffs in 1955. Sheriff Don McLeod of my home county, Marion County, and Sheriff Ed Blackburn, Jr., of Hillsborough County were in Texas to pick up two fugitives from Florida. While talking with a local deputy, they heard about a nearby camp for needy and neglected boys. They learned that a former wrestler had started the camp with four boys salvaged from the local slums and how this caring individual turned their lives around by providing a home, support, and discipline. The next day they took charge of their prisoners for the drive back to Florida. One was a young man 18 years old and badly injured, and the other a 17-year-old girl who was 5 months pregnant, two young people who, without proper guidance, got into big, big trouble. The two sheriffs decided that if a former wrestler could make a difference, then certainly law officers working together could repair damaged lives. After all, they knew full well that the youthful victims of neglect, abuse, and indifference too often take to crime. Sheriffs McLeod and Blackburn presented their idea to the Florida Sheriffs Association. Later that year the Association persuaded the Elks Club of Suwanee County and a local businessman to donate 140 acres on the banks of the Suwanee River for the ranch. With loans from area banks and contributions to the Association, they began building the Florida Sheriffs Boys Ranch. Financial contributions, donations of materials, and volunteers helped build the first camp, and four boys moved into the facility in January 1959. Thirteen years later, the Sheriffs opened a camp for girls. And in 1976, a coed facility was built to reunite siblings. I would like to take note of the support provided by such individuals as Sheriff John P. Hall, Sr., who served as the first treasurer of the Youth Ranches and was sheriff of Clay County, in my congressional district, for a record 36 years. I also commend his children, J.P. Hall, Jr., and Dena Mae Lemen, for continuing their devoted services to the Youth Ranches. These folks are also in my congressional districts. Mr. Speaker, today there are six camps operated by the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches. The goal of these ranches is quite simple: to prevent juvenile delinquency and develop lawful, productive citizens through a broad range of family centered services. They use the basics, tried and true traditional values, to mend broken spirits and lives. The success of this program is found in the simple values embraced by most Americans today, basic family values that, when abandoned, lead to anguish and despair. By building character and instilling the concept of service and self-sacrifice, these young people learn the importance of community. Add in study, faith and hard work, and we have the ingredients for a future generation of outstanding citizens. The Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches are a product of a vision for building a better future for Florida's children, a vision which has flourished with the generous support of Florida's citizens. It is easy, Mr. Speaker, to look to the Government to solve the problems within our society. However, if we want results, we need to look to ourselves and communities for these solutions. There are many examples of this truth, and I commend the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches for making the difference in the lives of 30,000 troubled Florida youths. Thank you for 40 years of service to Florida and Florida's youth. I also commend J.P. Hall, Jr., and Dena Mae Lemen for coming up here and sharing this 40-year anniversary here in Congress, and I wish them another 40 years or more of success.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Speaker. The only thing more complicated today, Madam Speaker, than our current campaign finance system is the Tax Code. But the solution of ridding the ills of the current system is not by making things more complicated, as much of the legislation that is being offered today in Congress does. Now, some have suggested that our first amendment rights should be curtailed in order to create some type of mythical level playing field for Federal elections. Now, the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], was quoted this year as saying, in Time Magazine, 1997, February 3, ``What we have here are two important values in direct conflict. Freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns and a healthy democracy. You can't have both.'' Quite frankly, I find this viewpoint wrong. In fact, I believe one can have freedom of speech and healthy campaigns. The American people should never be forced to lose a part of their precious freedom in order to pursue a socially engineered campaign finance system. The courts have been very clear that the Government cannot restrict the freedom of American citizens in an effort to implement strict expenditure and contribution limits. In Buckley versus Valeo the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1976, ruled that ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the Government, but the people, individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees, who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.'' What we need to do is to enforce the campaign finance laws that are already on the books and then work together to simplify the laws so the American people are being well served. The modern campaign finance system was dramatically affected in 1908 during President Teddy Roosevelt's administration, when corporate contributions were banned. Congress then mandated in 1910 that Federal candidates disclose all campaign contributions. Congress thoughtfully extended a corporate ban to include labor unions beginning in 1943. Corporations and unions, after these bans, could then only give to Federal candidates through Political Action Committees, PAC's. PAC's are separate, segregated funds that pool voluntary contributions from designated classes of individuals such as members of unions and employees of a company to give or spend in Federal elections. Now, the Hatch Act in 1940 had also limited all campaign contributions to $5,000. The Hatch Act was then applied to union PAC's when union contributions were banned from Federal elections. Now, as we all know, the flurry of campaign finance laws in the 1970's revolved around the Watergate scandal. The legislation from the 1970's imposed limits on contributions, required uniform disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures, and established the Federal Election Campaign Commission, the FEC, as a central administrative enforcement agency. A part of these reforms that limited certain expenditures was struck down by the Supreme Court in the hallmark case of Buckley versus Valeo. These laws imposed limits of $1,000 per individual every election on contributions to candidates, parties, and PAC's, and a $5,000 limit for PAC's every year. An aggregate limit was set on individuals and PAC's at $25,000 per year that could be given to all Federal candidates, parties, and PAC's. Again, what is needed now is not to make the laws more complicated. Rather, simplicity is the path to strengthening our system and gaining credibility with the American people. We can also gain a tremendous amount of credibility with the American people by actually investigating and enforcing the current law. So, Madam Speaker, this morning my message is, like the Tax Code, simplicity and enforceability are what is needed today in the campaign finance reform matter. No matter what laws are put in place, we will have smart people stretching those laws. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books and keep them simple and understandable.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot in the newspapers recently about the gulf war syndrome, so I thought I would take a moment to comment on them. First of all, as chairman of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, we are active in marking up pieces of legislation that affect this matter, but I wanted to point out this morning, Mr. Speaker, that I want to commend the Presidential advisory committee on gulf war veterans' illnesses for recommending to the administration that it create a permanent statutory program of benefits and health care for the thousands of veterans who have been plagued with a variety of unexplained symptoms. Coincidentally, the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be marking up legislation that my subcommittee earlier formulated that will require the VA to create a $5-million program, competitive grant program, under which up to 10 VA facilities would establish demonstration projects to test new approaches to treating Persian Gulf veterans which meets with their satisfaction. This proposed legislation will require the VA to utilize three approaches. These approaches could be used alone or in combination. The new approaches are: First, a specialized clinic which serves Persian Gulf veterans; second, multi-disciplinary treatment aimed at managing symptoms; and third, the use of case managers. I have a bill in Congress, H.R. 2206, which of course also reaffirms the VA's obligation to provide verbal counseling to Persian Gulf veterans with respect to the finding of its registry examinations. This legislation would also specify that these veterans are eligible for VA health care for any problem related to service in the Gulf, not just those problems that may be linked to exposure to toxic substances or environmental hazards. While I commend the advisory committee for its recommendations to establish a permanent program of benefits and health care, Mr. Speaker, I must also voice my strong objection to the fact that it stands by a previous presidential commission report issued in January that declared that it could not find a causal link between the frequently reported symptoms of fatigue, headaches, sore joints, and rashes, commonly referred to as the gulf war syndrome. Furthermore, the committee report stated that it believed that stress was ``likely to have been an important contributing factor.'' Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may recall, in the last Congress we enacted legislation to extend priority health care for veterans exposed to agent orange and those who served in the Persian Gulf war through December 31, 1998. My commitment then and now is to provide priority health care to those who served in the gulf war. It is a longstanding commitment, and not just by virtue of my new position as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. With respect to what has been known as the gulf war syndrome, I took a deep interest in requesting that we agressively seek answers to the many unexplained illnesses experienced by gulf war veterans. One of the first casualties of this mysterious group of diseases was a constituent of mine, Michael Adcock of Ocala, FL, who died at the age of 22 after serving in Operation Desert Storm. After returning home from the gulf war, Michael suffered a number of symptoms which had befallen many other gulf war veterans, including persistent nausea, skin rashes, aching joints, hair loss, bleeding gums, blurred vision, and lack of energy, among others. Michael died in 1993, three years after coming home from the Desert Storm operation. We are still looking for answers to the causes of this mysterious syndrome which appears to be indigenous to those who served in the gulf war. I think we all know how terribly urgent it is that we continue with our research efforts until we find the answer to the cause of this syndrome that is so ubiquitous to those veterans. In light of the controversy surrounding unexplained illnesses Desert Storm veterans have and are experiencing, the VA, Department of Defense, NIH and the HHS have long been conducting extensive research into possible causes of the unexplained illnesses associated with this military campaign. Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic that through these efforts we might find the missing link that will explain this rash of perplexing illnesses which seem to be indigenous to those particular veterans. We all know how invaluable the research being conducted is and the need to find answers as to what is causing thousands of gulf war veterans to be plagued by a rash of unexplained symptoms. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Department of Defense and the VA will continue to both aggressively treat symptoms associated with Desert Storm syndrome and investigate its causes or cause.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I rise also against the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton. As many of you know, every year I have offered a resolution to recognize India's independence. This year I offered it again. Thanks to Mr. Bereuter, the resolution was made part of legislation, and it has now passed this House; and I am very pleased that after all these years of my offering a recognition amendment, that it has finally passed the House. When I listen to the debate, there have been a lot of people speaking on both sides. I do not really think the debate is one of U.S. foreign assistance. When we think of the $50 million we are giving them relative to the $12.5 billion in the foreign aid bill, it is a very, very small amount. I think the issue is not one of foreign assistance. It comes down basically to this sentence. It comes down to whether we want to stigmatize India with passage of the Burton amendment. We have two great powers. These two great powers are working together. There is another issue I might touch on that was recognized in a Washington Times story on Thursday, July 10, 1997. Let me quote from it: ``New Chinese missiles target all of East Asia.'' That includes India. We have had satellite reconnaissance information, and it is all outlined in this article how India itself is being targeted by China. We have great interest in protecting India and working with India. At this time we do not want to set up any type of amendment which would create hostility toward India and not continue this working relationship at India's 50th anniversary. Let me point out that India is one-sixth of the world's population. It is a dominant force in South Asia. Of course, it is an emerging world power. We need to cooperate with this country. India is a big emerging market. The United States is its leading trading partner and source of foreign investment. India is a nuclear- capable state that has fought three wars with a non-nuclear capable Pakistan, and is a prime focus of U.S. concerns about nonproliferation in reducing regional tension. I bring this to the attention of my colleagues because this is a larger issue, not just talking about the fiscal side. We are not just talking about foreign aid, we are talking about how these two countries can work together, not only in the area of democracy, but also dealing with our mutual interests and the protection of democracy in that part of the globe. We need to encourage support for their policies. We need to gain their support for nonproliferation of nuclear capability, and we must encourage its policies that serve both our interests and theirs. We must continue to expand bilateral cooperation, including an enhancement of Indian peacekeeping capabilities. We need, of course, on the drug side to cooperate on narcotic issues. Improve human rights performance? By all means. They have done that by setting up their commission and trying to be much more forceful in that area. Lastly, we need to understand that India, above all, is one of the oldest democracies in the world. So I believe the United States should continue its friendship with India. India has tried to strengthen their democracy through free elections. We must strengthen our ties with them and, of course, with all of the South Asia region and the global community. For this and the other reasons I mentioned, I urge the defeat of the Burton amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] that simply, frankly, expresses the sense of Congress that all member countries of NATO should be responsible for paying their fair share for the cost of the Partnership for Peace Program and to future NATO expansion. Mr. Chairman, let me read my amendment specifically just for those Members who wish it to be clarified. It says that, ``It is the sense of Congress that all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should contribute their proportionate share to pay for the costs of the Partnership for Peace program and for any future costs attributable to the expansion of NATO.'' Mr. Chairman, many of us are concerned with recent statements by Mr. Chirac of France that his nation would be unwilling to contribute to the expansion of NATO. Now, as all my colleagues know, NATO agreed to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the organization last week in Spain. Mr. Chirac is apparently upset that the nations of Romania and Slovenia will not yet be admitted into NATO and is, therefore, threatening not to pay for this current expansion. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our responsibility to send Mr. Chirac and our NATO allies in Europe a strong message that they must pay their proportionate share of the defense of Europe. If they do not, the Congress must look at various options in response. One option would be refusing the reentry of France into NATO's unified military command structure, from which France unilaterally withdrew in 1966. Or perhaps we should adhere to a cap in spending on NATO expansion, as other Members have suggested. Congress may even debate whether we should force nations that do not pay for the current expansion to incur all the costs for the next round of NATO expansion. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, whatever we choose to do in the future, I believe this is a good amendment for right now that will send a clear message to certain European allies in NATO that Congress will not allow the United States to continue paying a larger share of Europe's defense, while other nations opt out of contributing their fair share. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we have two on this side that I know of. How many does the gentleman have on that side?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, so we could do it in 25 minutes, 4 minutes each. We could do it in 20 minutes.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for this question. I think it is very important. As a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health, let me answer by saying we in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs have agreed with the proposal to allow the VA to retain $600 million per year, or over a 5-year period it is $3 billion, in collections from third parties. But we are also aware of the uncertainty among veterans this policy creates. We in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs have addressed these fears by developing language in the bill that would authorize an automatic supplemental appropriations if collections fall short by more than $25 million.