Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that following passage of H.R. 2266, the DOD appropriations, the two votes on suspensions debated Monday, July 28, 1997, House Concurrent Resolution 735 and H.R. 1348, be 5 minutes each.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, you might title my 5 minutes this afternoon ``The Spectrum Giveaway is a Misnomer.'' The spectrum issue has generated a lot of misinformation, and as a member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, I feel obliged to clear up the confusion. Some pundits and politicians have the notion that providing broadcasters access to the digital spectrum represents a massive giveaway. They are not understanding the point. But first let us talk about what the spectrum is. It is broadcast airwaves, a series of frequencies for transmitting signals. The spectrum had no impact on human life until Mr. Farnsworth developed broadcast television. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there is a statue of Mr. Farnsworth in Statuary Hall here in the Capitol. Almost literally, something was made from nothing. Over the years, the media have invested billions of dollars to put the previously idle analog spectrum to productive use. As a Nation, we have benefited from these broadcasts through weather alerts, political debates and coverage of the first Moon walk. With the advent of high definition technologies, the broadcasters need access to a new spectrum, the digital spectrum. Again, the broadcasters will invest billions of dollars to deliver free TV over these frequencies. Individual stations will also have to convert at a cost of up to $20 million each. Now, obviously, this is a huge cost, particularly for most broadcasters in small- and medium-sized markets like many in my home State of Florida, where they have assets under $10 million. However, there are many who want broadcasters to give up the old analog spectrum, spend billions of dollars on new equipment to convert to digital TV, and then continue to deliver free TV and pay for the digital spectrum all together. Well, it cannot be done. Mr. Speaker, heaping auction costs on top of this transition cost will make it virtually impossible for many local broadcasters to provide free, over-the-air programming in the digitized world. It does not take a genius to figure out that if enough broadcasters are forced out of these auctions by these costs, consumers will have fewer choices in their viewing options. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with those advocating the up-front auction of the digital spectrum loaned to broadcasters. These advocates should look at this issue in the proper context. In the 1980's, the government and broadcasters developed an understanding to develop and promote high definition television over digital transmissions. The Federal Communications Commission, with the endorsement of Congress, agreed to provide broadcasters an additional 6 megahertz of spectrum. This added 6 megahertz of spectrum is necessary to assure that the old analog transmissions, current over-the-air TV, is not disrupted in the transition to digital transmission. This does not mean that I support a government giveaway to the media. We can still, Mr. Speaker, generate government revenue from this exchange, and let me explain. Once the transition from analog to digital is completed, we can then auction off the analog spectrum for cellular and other transmissions. In addition, the government may charge broadcasters a fee if they provide ancillary service such as paging or faxing in the new digital spectrum. Last week William Safire, a leading columnist, called this exchange a sweet payoff to broadcasters and compared it with the prospect of, ``giving Yellowstone National Park to the timber companies.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a different analogy this afternoon: The Homestead Act of 1862. Mr. Speaker, through this act, the Federal Government parceled out billions of acres of what it considered worthless western land. Now a settler received a 160-acre plot of land and the government got a pledge that the land would be cultivated and put to productive use. What was then considered the ``great American desert'' is now among the most valuable land in the world. My position is that a rational approach providing a win-win situation for all should be involved. The government wins because its coffers will be filled with analog action proceeds and fees from supplemental digital services. Those who care about free, over-the-air broadcasting win because television will not be interrupted in the transition from analog to digital. Broadcasters win because they will remain competitive in the new information age. But above all, consumers win with continued free access to news and information and more competition among information and entertainment providers. The up-front auction of the digital spectrum could be a roadblock to the new era of communications. Combined with other technologies, digital TV will yield a single box sitting in our living rooms; one device functioning as our TV, telephone, computer, modem, radio, and VCR. Mr. Speaker, let us not let misguided policies stand in the way of progress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I call all my colleagues' attention to the Medicare spending graph I have here. In 1995, this is what the President said. He said the plan of the Republicans was excessive, and he vetoed our bill because of these excessive cuts. Now in 1997, he says, this budget over here keeps our fundamentals intact, protects Medicare for our parents, preserves and protects the program. Notice that this program is less spending than the one he vetoed in 1995. Let us review, Mr. Speaker. He vetoed a welfare bill three times, calling it extreme; yet he signed the identical welfare bill and tries to take credit. Then he goes on and talks about this Medicare program, this one with less spending, and says it protects our seniors whereas this one, which he vetoed, says it is extreme. Now he goes on to say, our tax cuts are excessive and will blow a hole in the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I think the President has credibility problems. Let us remember this history in this budget debate.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I will bet most Americans would be surprised to realize that they are rich. To accomplish this amazing feat, the Clinton administration has formulated a new exercise in wordspeak that simply defines a significant portion of all Americans as rich. But, frankly, most Americans probably do not feel rich. Most probably rely on two incomes, have a couple of children, a lot of bills to pay and, in fact, feel very far from being rich. But, more than anything else, Madam Speaker, they deserve a tax break today. Well, why should the White House have any interest in inventing a new measurement of wealth? Well, it is actually quite simple. In order for the administration to score political points at the expense of hard-working middle-class Americans, they must create millions of wealthy taxpayers where none exist. For decades, American taxpayers have paid taxes based upon the adjusted gross income, the AGI. The AGI is a rather simple and straightforward calculation of earnings. It is at the bottom of the first page of everyone's tax return. Perhaps the AGI is too simple for the White House, for they have worked diligently over the recent past to prejudice the AGI and with it the tax package that the President initiated. They have done everything in their power to modify and create a new formula to calculate the supposed wealth of American taxpayers today. Here is how it works. Instead of using the adjusted gross income in tax computations, the administration uses a complicated formula known as the Family Economic Income, or FEI, which adds to one's income the fringe benefits they receive every year: Keogh deductions, most nontaxable cash transfer payments, the buildup of the IRA, your pension. Here is the real catch. The FEI even adds something known as imputed rental income, or what a family would earn if they were to rent out their home. What? Yes. If you had to rent out your home, that is part of your family income. To say the least, this is an unusual and rather inaccurate definition of a family's income. To say the most, the administration is engaging in political gamesmanship, designed solely to demagog an issue that otherwise only serves to assist middle-income Americans. Madam Speaker, put simply, by employing the imputed income calculation, the administration is able to considerably overstate income levels for most households today, making middle-class taxpayers appear to be much richer than they themselves would ever, ever recognize. For example, employing the administration's new income formula, 1.7 million union members, 2.4 million teachers, 8.1 million government workers, and 4.2 million mechanics, repairmen, and construction workers are now considered rich by the administration and therefore are undeserving of a tax break. The problem is that the Clinton administration chooses to employ this odd income calculation to change the idea of who is wealthy. They are working hard to mislead the public and turn a positive situation into a negative political game. The bottom line is this: The Republican tax plan accurately targets America's middle-income class. In fact, 76 percent of the relief provided in the Republican plan will go to those Americans who make less than $75,000 a year. Although the President has worked hard to distort this fact, it remains difficult for anyone to argue that these Americans are rich and that they are undeserving of a tax break. Madam Speaker, the Republican Congress has passed real tax relief for all middle-class taxpayers at every stage of their lives, from child tax credits to estate tax reform. We are doing the right thing. Meanwhile, the President is trying to change the debate with this new ``imputed rental income formula.'' But the truth is in the numbers; and no amount of imagined, imputed income will turn hard-working middle- class Americans into what the President calls the evil rich. Middle-class Americans deserve a tax break today. The Republican Congress wants to give that to them. For the millions of Americans who do not consider themselves rich, for the two-earner families who struggle to provide a nice home and a good education for their children, for all the middle-class Americans, I implore the President today to put politics aside, stop the distortions, join the Republican Congress in providing some much-needed and much-deserved tax relief to middle-class Americans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise today in support of the Coburn amendment. As my colleagues know, in these debates now and then we get off track. I think we have to go back and read what the amendment really says. So let me just refresh everyone's mind. It is not dealing with tourism, it is not dealing with talking about past accomplishments of different Government agencies or Government owned projects. It is basically dealing with the present funding of programs that originated in the U.N. These programs are being funded illegally. The amendment reads ``none of the funds made available by this act may be obligated or expended for the Man and Biosphere Program or the World Heritage Program administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.'' Now I would remind all my colleagues that on June 11, 1997, in Rollcall 198 we had this same vote. It passed 222 to 202. So for the folks on that side of the aisle I think they should remember this has already been voted on by the House and was passed overwhelmingly. Second, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources, had a vote on what is called the American Land Sovereignty Act. That passed overwhelmingly, 246 to 178. That act would require specific congressional approval before any area within the United States is included in an international land reserve and require specific accounting of all funds used to support the Biosphere Program. So we have on record two votes that clearly show that the majority of the Members here in Congress at least on the House side supported it. Now the Biosphere Program and the World Heritage Sites Program have designated a combined total of 67 different U.S. sites and hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' contributions without any authorization from State and local governments or any Members of Congress, from either body. These two programs are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization which is UNESCO. UNESCO was so poorly run and physically mismanaged that the United States withdrew from this agency in 1984. I say again, we withdrew. The United States withdrawal from UNESCO included disallowing any U.S. funds from going to this agency. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story, and that is why we are here today, and that is why we have had the two previous votes on this matter. The State Department doesn't get it. Overwhelmingly, the House approved it. UNESCO and the Biosphere Program have been illegally funded by usurping U.S. tax dollars. This has been done by the creation of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program as a separate office within the State Department. Now, there is no one here in this House who wants to have a separate program in the State Department funded without the approval of the duly elected Members of Congress. So our responsibility is to pass this amendment, and that is what we have done previously. Mr. Chairman, the committing of U.S. lands to the terms of an international agreement, particularly without approval of the people in this body, is flagrantly violating constitutional responsibility and infringes on the most sacred and important individual property rights that we have. First and foremost, State and local governments should have the full authority to choose whether an area within their jurisdiction should be part of any international designation. Then and only then should Congress become involved by also approving and then by authorizing funds to be used in such programs; under the current status, neither of these cases is occurring. But frankly, we don't want our lands ever being controlled by anyone except the U.S.A. This little simple amendment which has passed overwhelmingly twice this year is a correct and appropriate execution of our constitutional responsibilities to account for the expenditures of all public moneys. We need to do this amendment on every appropriations bill so that we stop the use of unauthorized funds. I strongly support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I would conclude by citing an article from the Jacksonville, FL, Times Union reported in May of this year that the Man and Biosphere Program and the American Heritage Program, agreed to pay for food, lodging and other expenses for a hundred experts to travel and to attend a conference in Maine dealing with the repair of the Everglades in Florida. They went up to Maine. Right? Maine is where they have their meeting, and the Everglades is in the southern tip of Florida. I am certain many taxpayers would question the use of Federal funds to pay for individuals in Florida to attend a conference in Maine to discuss solutions occurring in Florida. Mr. Chairman, we cannot let this continue. So I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. And remember we have passed it overwhelmingly before.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me take my colleagues back to 1995. Congressional colleagues passed and sent to the President a balanced budget plan that slowed Medicare spending in order to perpetuate and preserve the program. Of course, it being before an election year, the President promptly vetoed the bill, citing, quote, ``excessive cuts in Medicare,'' unquote, as the primary reason for his veto. Amazingly, the President and his Democrat friends went even further. They based their entire campaign for the Presidency in 1996 and for Congress on the Medicare cuts, the so-called Mediscare campaign. Of course, most Americans knew that the Democrats' fear tactics were baseless, that there were no cuts in Medicare spending. In fact, the budget we passed 2 years ago contained $1.252 trillion in spending on Medicare for the next 5 years, an increase in funding that more than exceeded twice the rate of inflation. I call the attention of my colleagues to the first chart on my left. In 1996, the President said, ``you remember that budget I vetoed last year because it had excessive cuts in Medicare?'' Well, 8 months later the President changed his tune on Medicare, but of course that is not surprising; the election was over. In 1997, the President said, ``America needs a balanced budget that is in balance with our values, that protects Medicare. That is exactly what this budget does. It keeps our fundamental commitment to our parents, preserving and protecting Medicare.'' My colleagues, we may be having a heat wave here in Washington, but it just cannot compare with the President's hot air. Look at this second chart. Under our 1995 budget plan, the one of course that was vetoed by President Clinton because it claimed it had excessive Medicare cuts, total spending on Medicare would have exceeded $1.25 trillion from 1998 to the year 2002. The balanced budget agreement reached this year between the President and Congress has total Medicare spending of less than $1.25 trillion over those same years. The 1995 budget plan, the one which proposes excessive cuts in Medicare, had more funding than the current budget plan. In 1996, $1.25 trillion in Medicare spending was labeled as having excessive cuts. This year, less than $1.25 trillion in Medicare spending, is used to preserve and protect this program. As the chart shows, the 1995 budget plan would have provided $4 billion more in Medicare spending than the current budget. Let me repeat, we spent more on Medicare in the 1995 plan than this 1997 plan endorsed by the President. I am glad that the President has joined us in an effort to save Medicare, but I hope that he also realizes that Medicare is just too important a program for political theater. If he and his supporters had put politics aside, had rejected petty demagoguery and had rolled up their sleeves to work with us in saving Medicare, be could have put the program in place back then on the path to financial security 2 years ago. My colleagues, there is no room for partisan games when the health of 30 million Americans is at stake. I am proud of our efforts to protect, preserve, and strengthen Medicare in 1995. It is sad, unfortunately, that others jeopardize the future of Medicare to score political points. We owe it to our 30 million fellow citizens to work together to ensure the solvency of the Medicare Program. Let us put our duty ahead of politics and build a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring our colleagues' attention to the FDA's proposed policy that would deny asthma patients the medicines they need to help them breathe. I and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] expect to propose a resolution urging the FDA and the EPA to postpone action on this matter. Mr. Speaker, 30 million people in the United States today rely on these medications and as each of us know, some better than others, these people use a product called a metered dose inhaler, which I will refer to as MDI, to deliver the medications they need into their lungs. Over the past 25 years, we have developed many new treatments for people with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, and other airway diseases that prevent people from breathing. In fact, there are now 70 different products available in metered dose inhalers. For people who cannot breathe, these products are lifesavers and allow people to lead normal lives. On March 6, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration surprisingly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that sets in motion a process to take these medications away from patients. According to the FDA, this proposed rule was developed in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency because of EPA's desire to eliminate all uses of chlorofluorocarbons. These are what are called CFC's, which I will refer to them as. CFC's are important in this picture because all metered dose inhalers, except one, use CFC's, a propellant that gets the medicine from the inhaler canister into the patients' lungs. Until recently, CFC's were the only propellant approved by the FDA to do so. I am told the makers of metered dose inhalers believe that elimination of CFC's is a worthy goal. Therefore, that is why the United States and 140 other countries signed a treaty to phase out CFC's use. I believe this treaty did a good job establishing a process that allows companies that make products that use CFC's to develop alternatives and get these to the customers. The treaty went for the big users of CFC's first. In the United States we no longer use CFC's in hair sprays, air fresheners, new cars containing air-conditioning systems, and new refrigerators. Some of us here in the House may question this altogether, but it is done. The treaty, however, also acknowledged that some uses were more difficult to phase out. Asthma medicines were one of them. So why is the FDA now proposing action that would unnecessarily move up the time line provided in this international treaty? Why, when FDA's mission is to provide patients with safe and effective medicines, is it seeking to ban the safe and effective medicines from patients who require them? Thousands of Americans fear this proposed policy. I am keenly aware of the fear my constituents have. A woman in Ocala, my hometown of Florida, said, I understand there is an FDA proposal to withdraw certain inhaler medications. As an asthmatic patient with a daughter and 3 grandchildren who are also asthmatic, I protest your proposal vehemently. The CFC and the metered dose inhalers have minimal impact on the environment, and any one of my family could suffer or die because of your phasing out the proposal. You will be responsible. Another man from Ocala, FL, writes, In September 1993, I was discharged from the hospital under the care of a hospice. I had been confined for almost a month with viral pneumonia and was being treated with a wide range of medications, including 16 liters a minute of oxygen. The pulmonary specialist who had attended me had given up hope and estimated that I could live for perhaps 2 weeks. Needless to say, they were wrong and I survived but my lungs are severely damaged. I have been using three different MDI medications ever since my `recovery' and would not survive without them. Great strides have been made in elimination of these products in refrigeration systems and in various aerosol sprays but MDI products must be viewed in a totally different way. They are essential to the health of many persons as opposed to the other products which were used for comfort or convenience. Moreover, reasonable substitutes have been found for nonmedical products. This is not the case for MDI's. Potential substitutes must be subjected to the usual comprehensive scrutiny that the FDA applies to all medications. I cannot believe that the tiny amount of CFC's released by MDI's would produce a detectable level of CFC in the atmosphere between now and the time a medically safe substitute can be developed. I urge the FDA and the EPA to postpone action on elimination of CFC's from metered dose inhalers until such a medically safe substitute is found. In conclusion, another woman from Ocala states, My life depends on MDI's and I am never without three of them, and they all contain different medicines. I'm 69 years of age and I've used them most of my adult life and I cannot understand the big rush suddenly to ban the MDI's. It is frightening to think of the ban since my very life depends upon it. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the 10,000 letters that the FDA has received. I hope my colleagues will sponsor my bill. We must halt the FDA's action, which is harmful to patients.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this legislation sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], and reported out of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by another good friend, the gentleman from Orlando, FL, Mr. Bill McCollum. There is a quote by Sir Walter Scott that goes something like this: ``Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.'' I think that quote by Sir Walter Scott sort of sums up what we have here. It is perhaps a perfect description of the fraud committed by the unscrupulous telemarketers who prey on the susceptibility of our citizens. Particularly in Florida we have senior citizens, elderly people, and I think telemarketing would be something that people would use to prey on our citizens. I was the original cosponsor of this legislation when it was first introduced on January 21, 1997, when I believe the bill back then was H.R. 474. Now it is H.R. 1847. It has been strengthened, I think, through the committee process, so I think the current version is even better. As my colleague from Florida has mentioned, telemarketing fraud is estimated to rob the United States consumers of at least $40 billion annually. This legislation would finally send a clear signal to the con men who manipulate the public's telephone systems to commit fraud. Under current law, fraudulent telemarketers spend an average of only 1 year in jail. This bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to increase prison sentences for those convicted of telemarketing fraud. The commission is directed to increase the recommended penalties to a prison term of 2\1/2\ years with longer sentences for those who defraud the elderly, mentally disturbed, disabled, and other vulnerable consumers. H.R. 1847 also requires a person convicted of telemarketing fraud to forfeit all money made in executing the fraud and to forfeit any property used in connection with the fraudulent acts as well as forfeiting any investments or property purchased with the profits of the telemarketing fraud. So with all that in mind, I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of this important piece of legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] and my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, because the need for expanded health care for military retirees is so important, I am reintroducing my bill to permit Medicare-eligible retired members of the Armed Forces and their Medicare-eligible dependents to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. We made a commitment to those who chose to serve in defense of our country. Military retirees were promised health care for life. However, there is a catch-22 situation for Medicare-eligible retired military because once they either turn age 65 or qualify for disability treatment, they lose their CHAMPUS benefits. Unfortunately, they are placed last on the priority for treatment at military treatment facilities, and they are prevented from participating in the new TRICARE Program. This bill is identical to H.R. 3368, which I introduced in the last Congress. I plan to press for passage of this legislation because I believe we must fulfill our commitment to our Nation's military retirees and veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk to you about an amendment I offered at the Rules Committee to the Budget Reconciliation Act. This amendment would have established a national fund for health research. I offered this amendment because I believe one of the best ways to bring health care costs down is to fund health care research. Did you know that nearly four to five peer reviewed projects deemed worthy of funding by the National Institutes of Health [NIH] are not funded? The purpose of my amendment was to provide additional funds for biomedical research by investing 1 percent of the Medicare savings included in the bill in critical projects at NIH. This would accomplished by transferring to this account each year an amount equal to 1 percent of the savings which are achieved in that year from the Medicare amendment included in the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act. It is estimated that this would provide approximately $1.2 billion over 5 years. This amendment provides that funds deposited in the research fund shall be distributed among NIH centers in the same proportion as provided in the regular appropriations bill. It is estimated that an additional 1,000 or more research grants could be funded over 5 years in such critical areas as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, breast cancer, etc. It also ensures that the full $155 billion of savings required are still achieved by providing that no funds will be transferred to the NIH unless net savings to Medicare are estimated by CBO to reach the $115 billion level. Thus, no transfer would occur until gross savings exceed $116.5 billion. It does not impose any new taxes. Less than 3 percent of the nearly $1 trillion our Nation spends on health care is devoted to health research, while the defense industry spends 15 percent of its budget on research and development. Public opinion surveys have shown that Americans want more Federal resources put into health research and are willing to pay for it. That is why I support the initiative to double the NIH budget over the next 5 years. The Alliance for Aging has recently conducted a study that supports the savings for health care costs for the elderly and permanently disabled who are Medicare eligible by investing in biomedical research efforts as proposed under my amendment. In 1995, NIH issued a report that found the economic burden of several diseases was estimated to be of tremendous proportions. For instance: The costs involved with heart disease was $128 billion; cancer, $104 billion; Alzheimer's, $100 billion; diabetes, $138 billion; mental disorders, $148 billion; arthritis, $65 billion, stroke, $30 billion, and osteoporosis, $10 billion. It is apparent to me that we must do all that we can to either prevent or least slow down the onset of these diseases. And we know that many of these diseases do not strike until we are in our golden years. These years would, in fact, be golden if we could prevent or least find a way to treat diseases such as Alzheimer's. Current data tells us that one-third of the $1 trillion spent on health care today goes to people 65 and older. In a scant 15 years, the baby boom generation will begin qualifying for Social Security and Medicare and so, too, will their susceptibility to age-related diseases. That is why it is incumbent upon us to find better ways to treat, prevent, or slow down these diseases and we can and must do this through research funded by the National Institutes of Health because the future costs of health care will increase dramatically as the boomers begin to experience these age-related maladies. In these days of trying to balance the budget, we must not lose sight of the fact that by delaying the onset of diseases such as Alzheimer's, stroke, and cardiovascular disease we would save an estimated $35 billion through a reduction in the need for nursing home care. Now, to my way of thinking that's not chump change. Ample evidence exists to demonstrate that health research has improved the quality of health care in the United States. Advances such as the development of vaccines, the cure of many childhood cancers, drugs that effectively treat a host of diseases and disorders, a process to protect our Nation's blood supply from HIV virus, progress against cardiovascular disease including heart attack and stroke, and new strategies for the early detection and treatment of diseases such as colon, breast, and prostate cancer clearly demonstrates the benefits of health research. Expanded Medicare research is critical to holding down the long-term costs of the Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act. For example, recent research had demonstrated that delaying the onset of debilitating and costly conditions like Alzheimer's disease could reduce general health care and Medicare costs by billions of dollars annually. I am hopeful that such a proposal will be enacted by Congress in the future.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing from that side of the aisle, they talk about fairness and equality. Let me ask them to listen carefully to an example of a classroom of students about to take a final exam. Some students worked hard all year, were well prepared for the exam, while other students routinely chose to blow off homework assignments and skip most of the reading. I think most school teachers today recognize that scenario. The students who worked hard all year, surprise, surprise, almost always do better on the final exam than those who goofed off. But what if the exam results were tallied and then the equality police, on this side of the aisle, came in and said ``That's not fair. That's not equal. We need to have equality''? So they go in, the equality police come in and take a few points from those that scored the highest and give it to those that scored at the bottom. Suddenly they declare, ``Then, that is fair.'' My question is, ``Fair to whom?''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something that probably has never once occurred to the other side. Consider this. According to the IRS, the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay 95.2 percent of the income tax. Let me just repeat that. According to the IRS, the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay 95.2 percent of the income tax. If Members understand that, then they can immediately see that of course those earning above the median income benefit the most from tax relief. After all, they bear the brunt of the tax burden. In other words, when the folks on that side talk about tax cuts going to the benefit of only the wealthy, what they are really stating is nothing more than the fact that people with higher incomes pay higher taxes, which is not exactly news. If one person makes $30,000 a year and another person makes $50,000 a year and both get a tax cut of 10 percent, could someone on that side of the aisle please explain to me how that is unfair to the person earning $30,000 a year? Could someone on that side please explain to me how the person making $30,000 a year is now getting a bad deal?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about something that has received a great deal of attention today, and that is the consumer price index, or CPI. Basically, what I am doing today is calling for a hearing here in Congress so that we may better understand it. The CPI is known to most Americans as the most notable measure of inflation. A number of Federal Government programs are regularly adjusted to account for changes in the CPI, including the Social Security, veterans' benefits, Federal retirements, and the income tax rate schedule. The CPI is also employed in the private sector as a price or lease escalator. Unfortunately, the CPI, which has so many important consequences for all Americans, is also greatly misunderstood. Most Americans do not know what the CPI stands for, much less how it is calculated and what its consequences are. As a matter of brief instruction, the CPI is a Bureau of Labor Statistics measure of inflation. Established by the BLS in 1913, the CPI is based on a number of sample surveys. The surveys estimate the purchasing power and patterns of typical households, the shopping patterns, the prices on goods and services purchased by these households. In short, it is a Labor Department check on 71,000 different items at 22,000 different retail outlets. Because of its enormous base and its political neutrality, the CPI has always been considered reliable. As a result, the CPI permeates every aspect of our daily lives and is embedded in nearly every essential Federal budgetary matter. It is estimated that changes in the CPI affect the incomes of over 70 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, given this far-reaching effect, consensus over the accuracy of the CPI results in inevitable turmoil. All of a sudden Americans are either richer or poorer, benefits are either overstated or understated, income taxes are maladjusted, the poverty line is incorrect, and on and on and on. Such a scenario is not only confusing but troubling. Unfortunately, such is the current climate. Last year the celebrated Boskin Advisory Commission issued a Senate-ordered report that estimated the CPI overestimates inflation by 1.1 percent per year. Instantly, Americans are wealthier, taxes are too low, the economy has been growing faster than we thought, and the budgetary world is just a little bit rosier. Or is it, Mr. Speaker? Certainly, the CPI is not perfect. How can the commission measure inflation without an error? The answer is simple. They cannot. It is generally understood that the CPI is not perfect, that it does, in fact, overstate inflation to some degree. Nevertheless, it is foolish to assume that the error is fixed at 1.1 percent. Probably it is much lower some years; much higher in other years. The CPI is a complex measure of the real rate of inflation. As such, it is not an accurate cost-of-living measure. Put simply, the CPI is not subjective, while the cost or benefit of living is. Economists cannot put a price or a cost on quality-of-life issues. For example, it is obvious that medical care is more expensive than it was 30 years ago, but it is also better. Diseases are better understood and easier to diagnose. Surgery is less dangerous and we simply live longer and healthier lives. So while the costs may have increased, so did the benefits or goods. In simple terms many of the goods, although the same in theory, are truly quite different; a comparison of apples to oranges. This is just one of a number of apparent blind spots on the CPI, blind spots that are recognized by everyone including the Boskin Commission. So while the Boskin report certainly recognizes deficiencies of the CPI, it also notes the folly in attempting to put an exact figure in the change in the cost and quality of living. Those who point to the report as evidence of a need to adjust the CPI are quick to point to the CPI's admitted deficiencies, but are slow to point out that the discrepancy is inherently subjective and impossible to calculate. Lawrence Katz, a Harvard University economist and the former top economist at the Labor Department, warns against quick adjustments in either direction. He warns that it is ``logically inconceivable'' that the bias has been a consistent 1.1 percent for an extended period of time. In other words, inflation and the standard of living are going up but not at the same rate and not even at the same pace. To say the least, we should be very careful about what we are doing. It would be far better for our country if we were to return the debate surrounding CPI revision to the economists and to the universities where it belongs. Congress should instead address the real problems that face our Nation by balancing the budget and paying off the national debt. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider and to study the CPI in great depth and, Mr. Speaker, I call for a hearing here in Congress so that the American people can better understand the experts.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question can be summed up in two words: self-aggrandizement. Is our interest in self-aggrandizement in this Nation more important than the principles involved? Are we a Nation whose purpose is expanding business at all costs, no matter what? Or do we have a Nation where some principles are important to us? Is expanding trade with China more important than the fundamental principles that define the beginning of this Nation? Is the loss of trade harmful to the economy, so harmful that we are willing to sacrifice any principle, or is there a higher good in which to lead our Nation in our trading practices? I believe there is a much higher purpose today. How can we support trade policy with a Nation that believes in the power of the State rather than the power of the people? We are subsidizing through our trade policy China's economic interests, which is controlled by the State, and the people who are existing in that country get no benefit. Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know all the answers. Maybe there is a compromise. China in the very near future can become a strategic threat, and this strategic threat is more important to us than trade. The esteemed Frank Gaffney, the director of the Center for Security Policy, this is what he said: ``China is utilizing most of the huge trade surplus that it enjoys, thanks to this privileged trading status, to mount a strategic threat to the United States and its vital interests in Asia, the Middle East, and beyond.'' The United States trade deficit with China is $40 billion for 1996 alone. Because the State owns nearly all the businesses in China, the hard currency they receive from the United States trade deficit is used to purchase advanced military weaponry, such as advanced naval vessels from Russia that can be a direct threat to the United States in the western Pacific. Our vote today is very important. Keep the principles in mind.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to put an end to this unauthorized operation by creating a date certain.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] said this afternoon let us be proud to be peacekeepers.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California let us also be proud to abide by the Constitution.

Mr. STEARNS. President Clinton, will the gentleman take President Clinton to court?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], did not President Bush come here, get a vote?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is this is going on and on with no definite time when this is going to end. Let me read quickly what Corp. Zechariah Gransbury of Orlando said. He is in Bosnia, he should know: It is getting worse and worse. The repetition is awful. Morale in my battalion is terrible. Most soldiers do not do the job they are trained to do. No one is motivated. I think a lot of us concluded that we are not making any real change in Bosnia. . Now this is someone that is in Bosnia, not somebody on the House floor. It is time Congress put an end to this unauthorized operation by creating a date certain for the exit of United States combat troops on the ground in Bosnia, and that is why I support the Hilleary amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Where in the U.S. Constitution does a President have the power to unilaterally place U.S. troops in combat environment without any congressional approval, let alone without notifying Congress?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] it is clear under Desert Storm when President Bush came here and asked Congress for approval for that conflict, and every President eventually came to Congress to do that, yet here we are, the law is not changed, the President does not have the constitutional authority to send U.S. combat troops into an indefinite situation, and even the President agreed they would be out far ahead of this time, yet it is not true.