Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, coming here the wrong way is not the American way. I support this bill. I compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] for the work he has done. As a Representative from a State heavily impacted by our Nation's immigration policies, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the immigration in the national interest conference report. The sweeping reforms in H.R. 2202 will stem illegal immigration, secure our borders, and encourage personal responsibility for legal immigrants. While America is a nation of immigrants, its borders must be protected from illegal immigrants. According to INS there are 4.5 million illegal aliens in the United States. By doubling the number of border patrol agents, H.R. 2202 protects legal residents from the social and economic burdens of illegal immigrants. H.R. 2202 improves legal immigration policies to ensure those who sponsor immigrants have the means to support them. If we don't require sponsors to fulfill their financial obligations, taxpayers will continue to pay $26 billion annually for legal immigration. Sponsors must honor their obligations so legal immigrants may become self- reliant, productive residents of the United States rather than dependents of the welfare state. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2202.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. Approximately 5,000 veterans per month enter the State of Florida. The veterans population continues to increase in a number of States like mine, and many of these States have seasonal increases in the number of veterans seeking care. This causes long waiting periods and puts a strain on the facility and also on the personnel. Why should residents that live in these regions be subject to such delays before receiving treatment? As I understand it, the addition of the McCain amendment will ensure that all veterans will have similar access to health care, regardless of the region of the United States in which such veterans reside. This amendment, like my bill, H.R. 549, requires the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to develop a plan for allocation of health resources so these overburdened facilities are no longer being asked to provide more veterans with health care without providing the necessary funding. This goes along the lines of the bill that I have proposed, the Veterans Bill of Rights, which I have proposed since the 101st Congress. As a veteran myself, I am glad we have finally put the McCain amendment into this conference report, and I particularly think it will benefit my home State, which has not been funded in terms of benefits for its exploding veterans population over the years. Veterans and their families have paid a price. Now it is our duty to keep faith with these heroes. So I commend both the minority chairman and the majority chairman and subcommittee chairman for putting this in place in this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to comprehend an act that takes away the life of an infant just moments before his or her first breath. It is just as difficult to comprehend the veto of the bill that would halt this life-ending procedure by a President who claims to promote family values and respect for human life. I have received over 8,000 letters and postcards from my constituents urging me on to vote to override President Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion ban. I completely agree with these people. This procedure is a violation of the sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not murder. In fact, hundreds of doctors, including Dr. Karrer, from Jacksonville, FL, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist with 30 years' experience, all of them have come forward to say that partial birth abortions are never, never needed to preserve the life or fertility of the mother. As we may recall, President Clinton's argument for vetoing this legislation was that this procedure is needed to prevent a serious adverse health consequence. However, the Supreme Court's definition of the term ``health'' includes all factors: physical, emotional, psychological. Using these definitions, partial birth abortions are justified for reasons ranging from the mother's depression to a baby's cleft palate. Perhaps the President was misinformed, perhaps he turned a deaf ear to those who tried to give him these facts, or maybe he did not hear that 80 percent of partial birth abortions are performed for purely elective reasons. Whatever the case, President Clinton's arguments are flat-out wrong. If President Clinton hears nothing else in all of these arguments, I urge him to listen to the words of Mother Teresa who said, ``The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. Because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left? For me to kill you and you to kill me. There is nothing in between.'' I strenuously object to President Clinton's veto of this ban, and I urge my colleagues today to vote to override this shameful veto.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, so goes the saying, a careful reminder to all of us that history teaches us valuable lessons and that, if we learn from the past, we can avoid repeating the mistakes in the future. Yet despite this very warning, President Clinton and congressional Democrats are plotting a course plagued by controversy and opposition. The past few weeks have been strikingly reminiscent of President Clinton's first try at a nationalized Government-run health care system. The newspaper headlines of late are uncomfortably familiar. In fact, it is deja vu all over again. Recently in Florida, my home State, President Clinton announced the formation of a comprehensive commission charged with reviewing the health care system and making recommendations on how to improve the quality of care provided to patients and how to put in place more consumer protections. Does that sound familiar? Then he endorsed the notion of mandating what types of benefits health plans should provide and cover. Perhaps that sounds familiar. He then endorsed the notion that the Federal Government should get in the middle of the contract negotiations between private health care plans and private physicians. Of course that sounds familiar. The President is clearly headed down a road we have all traveled together before. Under the guise of consumer protection, he is very boldly unveiling the many pieces of his plan that was very familiar and soundly rejected by Congress and the American people only 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, we remember President Clinton's Health Security Act. This was an aggressive plan developed by him behind closed doors by his experts. His experts, of course, knew what was best for the American people. We remember after months of secret discussion the experts had developed the ultimate answer to the rising health care costs. And of course, we remember, despite polls indicating that what the American people wanted most from health care reform was portability of coverage and protection for preexisting conditions, which Republicans passed. The President instead proposed a complex federally controlled health care system complete with guarantees, comprehensive coverage, Federal price controls and other proscriptive rules regarding how employers and health care providers should all behave in the marketplace. This of course would mean waiting lines for all Americans, one-size-fits-all, dictated by bureaucrats. Remarkably, the President again is talking about commissions, entitlements, and government mandates which of course can only lead to price controls. First, entitlements. Mr. Speaker, Congress passed some very important legislation recently which gives the portability and preexisting conditions that we needed. And while the President proudly signed this piece of legislation, his campaign was eager to propose an additional initiative under which children and young adults would all be mandated with comprehensive health care by the government. While all agree that children are a most valuable resource, the President's proposal is merely the first installment towards a nationalized socialized health care system under which the government pays for all and provides health care to all Americans. A proposal has already been submitted to Congress to mandate that employers provide coverage to workers between the ages of 55 and 65, just prior to eligibility for Medicare. From here, it would only take a few steps to create an entitlement for the rest of the population. We should not be surprised that Senator Kennedy argues that socialized national health care system is the ultimate goal. Again, although the notion of federally mandated benefits was rejected during the Clinton health care reform debate, the President has already endorsed mandating a minimum length of stays in hospitals. Mandating the length of stay for illnesses such as flu. Mr. Speaker, what is next? Mandating the length of stay for cosmetic surgery? Following the years of double-digit increases in health care spending, the cost of health care spending has finally begun to decline. Health plan premiums paid by large employers increased, on average, by a record-low 1.5 percent last year, while the premiums of certain types of managed care plans actually declined. So here we are. We cannot guarantee that everybody gets all the benefits and all the coverages without putting in some kind of price controls. And that, of course, Mr. Speaker, is what President Clinton will propose next. Price controls, as we all know, just do not work. Quality of care will suffer as investment research and innovation declines. Jobs will be lost. Services will be rationed, and choices will decline. Eventually the government will have to take over the entire health care delivery system. Just think, government mandated, operated, and controlled health care with government doctors and nurses. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has deliberately begun to reconstruct our health care system. It is deja vu all over again.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the issue of genetic privacy is of the utmost importance. With new forms of genetic testing, we will be able to test an individual's likelihood of contracting a number of diseases. The possibilities that arise that employers and health insurance can use this information to discriminate is out there. This is a civil rights issue and a civil rights issue we should be concerned with. People who are already at risk due to their genetic makeup should not have to worry about the additional hardship of losing their job or health insurance. The Republican Congress and the bill we passed yesterday included for the first time in human history the words ``genetic information.'' That is part of the bill that the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert, prepared as special task master to bring health care to the House floor, and we now have the words ``genetic information'' so that no one can be discriminated against because of genetic information. And I think all of our colleagues and all of the people across this country should realize for the first time in human history, we now have those words in the bill and we are making a start.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from Connecticut that their party has had 40 years to accomplish this bill, and yet it took our party just 2 short years to get portability of preexisting condition. I have to make that point. I rise in strong support of this rule. This legislation we will vote on today addresses the most fundamental and important issue that currently prevents a large majority of the uninsured from accessing health care. In his medical essays Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the truth is that medicine is as sensitive to outside influences, political, religious philosophical, imaginative, as well as a barometer to the changes of atmospheric pressure. Having been involved with the debate in 1993, all of us have been involved, and here we are today. Throughout the course of this congressional debate, I believe we have battled all the forces that Mr. Holmes has talked about. We have prevailed finally and achieved our common goal of providing what the American people said they wanted from health care reform. Passage of this bill will benefit all Americans, especially the 39 million who lack any type of health care coverage. These individuals must live in constant fear of becoming sick and not having the necessary insurance to meet their medical needs. Lastly, I am particularly pleased that through our Committee on Commerce and working with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, we had inserted the two words, ``genetic information,'' in the definition of health status agreed to in the final package. This will start to ensure that genetic privacy is with the American public and in the medical and insurance industries. Just these two words, ``genetic information,'' for the first time in the history of this country we have put those in this package. I believe it will go a long way to enhancing and making a better piece of legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from California, out of many, one. On this side we believe that one means language, too, which is English. I would like to quote for him and others the late Senator Hayakawa, who said, ``America is an open society, more open than any other in the world. People of every race, of every color, of every culture are welcomed here to create a new life for themselves and their families. And what do these people who enter into the American mainstream have in common? English, our shared common language.'' For that reason, I rise in strong support of the rule. This Nation of course is a melting pot, finding its strength in our citizens' unique diversity. However, we all share a common unifying bond, our English language. Mastering a nation's original native language is critical to succeeding in a society because it provides one with the opportunity to excel. This is not to say that the study of foreign languages should be discouraged. Quite the contrary, being fluent in a second or third language opens, more often than not, doors to new opportunities and experiences. But if the English language is not the top priority, the doors in our own Nation will remain closed to some, and they will be left behind. When one discourages another from learning English, they ensure that the non-English-speaking individual is denied their chance at attaining the great American dream. In a time when college graduates still have difficulty finding employment, what is left for those individuals who cannot communicate proficiently in English? While we continue to cherish the very cultures and heritage of the people that comprise this Nation, we need to have one language that unites and defines us as Americans if we are to ensure our continued success. Mr. Speaker, we need to communicate in one official language and that is English. That is why I urge support of the rule.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, our efforts to balance the budget by the year 2002 have been a long and hard-fought process. As a party, we did not choose this fight, Mr. Speaker. The American people sent a message in the 1994 election. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted to change business here in the House, the business that has been going on for 40 years. This weekend I held town meetings back in my district, in the State of Florida, central Florida. There were two issues that came up continually. The first, of course, was Medicare. We have a lot of seniors there, and a lot of the seniors were confused. They thought we were cutting Medicare. Of course, that is false. I will tell the Members later on why that is false. They were also concerned about the veterans budget. Of course, we have increased the veterans benefits and the budget for the Record. We are not cutting Medicare, and we are not cutting veterans benefits. In both cases, they are going up over last year. President Clinton finally admitted this in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN that Republicans are not cutting Medicare. He is right about that, because spending on this program will increase at twice the rate of inflation, which means that spending will rise from $5,100 this year to $7,000 in the year 2002. So how could spending, which increases from $5,200 a year in 1996 to $7,200 a year in 2002, be a cut? Nowhere also but in Washington. Perhaps more than any other issue, President Clinton has hammered away at the GOP's reform proposal by falsely accusing us of cutting Medicare. It is interesting to think about it that the President, when he was talking about his health care bill back in 1993, this is what he said? ``Today, Medicare and Medicaid are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. This is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, but a reduction in the rate of growth.'' On April 3, 1995, the Medicare Board of Trustees, which includes three of President Clinton's Cabinet Secretaries, concluded that the Medicare hospital insurance fund will be running out of money in 1996 and will be bankrupt in the year 2002. In its 1996 report released on June 5, it showed a $4.2 billion shortfall in this trust fund. This means that the program will be bankrupt in the year 2001 instead of 2002, so that should be a concern for all Americans. Congress and the President are very close now on the level of increased spending on Medicare. In fact, the Republican proposal and the Democrat proposal are practically the same. So for the President to talk about cuts is incorrect, when he and I and the Republican Party have proposed practically the same thing in the amount it increases. Not only have our efforts to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare been totally misrepresented, but the Speaker has been vilified for a statement which was falsely attributed to him. We hear this repeated on the House floor over and over again. They said he said, ``Now we don't get rid of it round one because we don't think that's politically smart. We don't think that's the way to do it through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine.'' He was not talking about Medicare, he was talking about the Health Care Financing Administration. This is more precisely what he said: ``Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized government bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now, we don't get rid of it in round one.'' ``We don't think that's politically smart. We don't think that's the way to do it through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine.'' So you see, they took the statement of the Speaker out of context. He was not referring, of course, to the Medicare Program. He was talking to Big Government, a Big Government bureaucratic machine that processes the laws around here that deals ultimately with health care in America but not the Medicare Program. In fact, this is so true that 19 television stations have pulled or refused to air the AFL-CIO ads that deal with this quote. So I think we should realize that now the media, both the television and radio media, has decided to pull these ads because they are false and totally misleading. Mr. Speaker, when we look at what the Clinton administration said back when they were running for the Presidency, let us look at their book, ``Putting People First.'' Remember that book? In that book, President Clinton and Vice President Gore said in 1992, ``We will scrap the Health Care Financing Administration and replace it with a health standards board made up of consumers, providers, business, labor, and government.'' That is interesting. Somehow the press seemed to neglect to report that fact in the book, ``Putting People First.'' The Clinton and Gore team said the same thing which the Speaker said about the Health Care Financing Administration, that ultimately we would like to scrap it. So I do not see how they can actually criticize the Speaker when they said the same thing in their book, ``Putting People First.'' There is another program in the budget which they have attempted to politicize and misrepresent. I might add, some of the colleagues on this side of the aisle have indicated that we are cutting veterans benefits. This is also false. We have increased veterans benefits. I am a former veteran, my father was a veteran, and I believe that it is important to represent veterans. That is why I am on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. There is some talk about cutting veterans back in the district, but I have pointed out to them that we have actually increased the funding for the veterans, and in fact, the VA budget that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs submitted was higher than the administration's budget. That was brought out in a hearing, during the hearing in which I talked to Secretary Brown about the veterans budget. I said to him, ``What do you think about your VA budget compared to our VA budget?'' And he said, ``I just want to be put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that this committee,'' the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, ``is proposing more than the VA is offering.'' I think the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has shown its integrity even beyond what the Secretary has proposed. I think it is admirable that he would go on record pointing out that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has proposed and ultimately passed more money than the administration proposed. I think that is a credit to the Secretary for being so honest. I thought it was important, Mr. Speaker, to bring these words to the House floor and to present the truth to clear up the misrepresentation on this side of the aisle with talking about reducing Medicare and veterans benefits when actually, in fact, the Republican majority has increased in both cases the amount of money spent on these two programs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation today which takes the first step toward comprehensive veterans' health care reform. Passage of this bill will ensure changes in the tricky eligibility rules that currently bar access to health care for our Nation's veterans. The health care eligibility bill accelerates the shift from expensive inpatient care to more cost effective primary and outpatient care. The reform is necessary to ensure that the VA refocuses its efforts toward assisting those who served our country. Under current VA rules, veterans are required to check into hospitals to receive their intended treatment. The savings alone from this switch to outpatient care services will allow more veterans to have access to the health care system. The legislation continues the path of decentralization and restructures the VA with regard to the management of its health care system. By increasing the number of VA partnerships with community providers, access to outpatient services, and protecting the VA's special disability programs, H.R. 3118 will be a major step in the right direction for veterans' health care reform. I want to emphasize that this measure is only the first step toward achieving health care reform for our veterans. It is imperative that we meet this challenge and preserve health care for those who have given selflessly to serve our country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here is we have the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and we have the present chairman of Committee on Commerce, under the Republicans, both agreeing that this is an issue where we should not charge the broadcasters to go into the higher spectrum. The analogy I would like to bring you your attention is the Homestead Act. What happened was, we gave people land and we said, develop this land. Just like we gave the broadcasters the analog spectrum and we said, develop it. Now we are saying to the people on the homestead piece of land, we want you to go somewhere else. We are not going to go ahead and charge all these people to go somewhere else. We are asking them to go and try it out, and then we will auction off what they have. It is analogous to the Homestead Act. I think if you think of it in those terms, you will realize we cannot charge the broadcasters for this. They already have huge mortgage payments, development of capital they have already invested. They cannot go ahead and reinvest on this new spectrum first without paying their old debt. So what I am saying is, we need to allow them to go forward. Then we can auction off their old piece of property, their old analog. For that reason, I am against the Frank amendment. Mr. Chairman, the telecommunications legislation we passed earlier this year calls for broadcasters to swap their current license to broadcast analog television for a new license to broadcast digital television. This approach allows for auctions to occur, which Mr. Frank supports. However, it preserves the ability of American households' access to the best free television system in the world, something that does not seem to be of much interest of Mr. Frank. This approach, supported by many in Congress, follows the concepts agreed to about 8 years ago when the FCC directed broadcasters to develop advanced television. In an effort to develop and promote advanced television which uses the digital transmission of television signals as opposed to the analog transmission of signals, the FCC, with Congress' endorsement, agreed to provide broadcasters with an additional six megahertz of spectrum. Digital transmission is superior to analog transmission because it provides consumers with a clearer picture, higher-quality sound, greater interactivity, and improved data transmission. Because broadcasters can't use existing spectrum to broadcast digital signals, it was agreed that a second channel would be provided to smooth the transition from the old analog format to the new digitized one. The purpose of having two channels was not to make the broadcasters happy, but to ensure that citizens yet to purchase new, and costly, digitally capable television sets would not lose their access to free, over-the-air services on their current television sets as the transition took place. This plan ensures that viewers will not lose access to current free over-the-air-television--which provides households with access to local news, weather, public service events, sports, not to mention entertainment. The second channel is a straight swap of spectrum--not a giveaway. Once there are enough digital televisions in use throughout the country, the transition period would end. Then all broadcasts are to be digitally transmitted and the old analog spectrum currently in use would be returned to the Government which could auction it. If advanced television is a flop, broadcasters could return the digital spectrum and keep the old analog spectrum. Either way, the Government will have spectrum it can repackage into larger more valuable sections and then auction for other purposes such as cellular or PCS. In addition, the Government may charge broadcasters a fee if they provide ancillary or supplemental services such as faxing, paging or other subscription fee services on the spectrum. This straight swap preserves, protects, and improves television capability in our Nation. Under the well-established 8-year-old plan which provides for the transition from an analog world to a digital world, each television station will already have to pay $8 to $10 million in moving, equipment, and upgrading costs. Obviously, this is a huge cost for many, but particularly for most broadcasters in small and medium-sized markets, like Ocala and Jacksonville, FL, in my district, with assets under $10 million. 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 the industry because of these costs, consumers will have less choice in their viewing options. This effect runs counter to the very purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which we envision to create more consumer choice. There is no reason the continuation of free television should be jeopardized needlessly in the information age. Clearly, this rational approach is a win-win situation for all involved. Government wins because its coffers will be filled with auction proceeds and fees from ancillary or supplemental services. Those who care about the continued livelihood of free, over-the-air broadcasting win because television programming won't 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 because by following sensible public policy we will ensure their continued access to news and information and will keep their analog television sets from becoming obsolete overnight. In passing the groundbreaking Telecommunications Act of 1996 we allowed every segment of the telecommunications industry to move forward and offer us new, innovative, and less expensive products. Lets not hold back the only segment of the telecommunications industry that provides us with a free service. Oppose the Frank amendment and support the preservation of free-over-the-air broadcasting.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the honorable minority whip knows that the Speaker was not talking about Medicare. He was talking about the Health Care Financing Administration. And in the book ``Putting People First,'' by Mr. Gore and President Clinton, they talked about scrapping the Health Care Financing Administration just as the Speaker did. Now they are accusing the Speaker of talking about Medicare when he was not. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, Cecil Field Naval Air Station was approved for closure by the President and this Congress. The base has long served the military community of Jacksonville, FL, and its surrounding area. In order to continue to serve our veterans, I am proposing a bill that would designate 1,500 acres of Cecil Field for a veterans cemetery as well as convert the current barracks into a veterans nursing home. Florida's total veterans population is the second largest in the country and it needs these facilities. So I hope my colleagues will help me to sponsor this new bill to help Cecil Field develop a cemetery for veterans. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, Cecil Field Naval Air Station was approved for closure by the President and this Congress. This base has long served the military community of Jacksonville, FL, and its surrounding areas. In order to continue to serve our military veterans, I am proposing a bill that will designate 1,500 acres of Cecil Field for a veterans cemetery, as well as convert the current barracks into a veterans nursing home. Florida's total veterans population is the second largest in the country, with over 274,000 veterans within a 100 mile radius of Cecil Field. The barracks are currently in use, housing naval officers and enlisted personnel, and could easily be converted to a nursing home facility for veterans. It is a tragedy that many veterans who fought to secure our freedom, have had to suffer and sometimes die at home because there was not enough room in the current VA facilities. Likewise, the cemetery would require very little money to start up, and would provide those who valiantly fought for this country with a proper burial. Please join me and support this bill to use our current resources for the good of our veterans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say parenthetically that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] knows that that quote is out of context. In fact most of the television stations across this country are not longer running their (Democrats) ads because they know it is not the truth. The Speaker was talking about the Health Care Financing Administration, not Medicare. He was talking about trying to downsize it. Who else, Mr. Speaker, said we should scrap the Health Care Financing Administration? President Clinton and Vice President Gore in their Putting People First book. They outline exactly the same thing that they are accusing the Speaker when he talked about getting rid of the bureaucracy here in Washington with the Health Care Financing Administration. I think we need to establish the truth. Mr. Speaker, I want to share my thoughts today about the crash of TWA Flight 800. But before I do so, I wish to say to the family and friends and loved ones of the passengers and the crew who were aboard that ill- fated flight that our prayers here in the House, in the Senate and Congress are with all of you at this very difficult time. The tragic ending of over 230 passengers on this flight is a grim reminder of another flight, Mr. Speaker, Pan Am 103, which went down over Lockerbie, Scotland. It has yet to be established whether sabotage played a role in the crash of this flight. Unfortunately, an overwhelmingly difficult and grim task has been made even more difficult by the inclement weather. However, when additional fuselage has been retrieved from the ocean, the antiterrorist experts that have been called in to investigate will be in a better position to render a judgment. Chemical residue has been detected by the EGIS machine which was developed in the mid-1980's, which is specifically designed to detect plastic explosives. In time, we will know the cause of this disaster and if it is, as suspected, an act of terrorism, I pray to the Almighty God above that the perpetrators are caught and dealt with and the punishment will fit the crime. Even if we find it was not an act of sabotage, the time has come for this country to treat acts of terrorism for what they are: An assault on Pan Am Flight 103 was a direct attack on this country. Mr. Speaker, Government must treat American aviation security as a national defense issue and not as a regulatory issue. That is why I am here and I am talking about drafting a bill, a piece of legislation to do just that. One cannot help but hearken back to the tragedy at Lockerbie. After officials, in channeling of the investigation of the Pan Am flight, determined that the plane was carrying plastic explosives which blew the plane out of the sky, Congress held hearings and passed legislation, the Aviation Security Act of 1990. Section 108 of the public law was entitled ``Deployment of Explosive Detection Equipment.'' Certain guidelines were put in place for the deployment of high-technology equipment which could detect plastic explosives such as used in Pan Am 103. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1996, The Washington Post ran a story with the following headline: ``U.S. Airports Lack High-Tech Scan Devices To Detect Explosives.'' This article details how the Federal Aviation Administration developed several high-technology pieces of equipment to detect plastic explosives. Currently, the Europeans have about 90 such machines in use. Germany has approximately 50 machines like this in use, the rest being in the United Kingdom and France. That is all well and good. I think they are right to want to protect their citizens. Do my colleagues know how many of these machines are used in the United States? None. We are now testing about four of these machines in San Francisco and Atlanta because of the large volume of visitors passing through these airports, but we have only four of these type machines in use in a testing mode in the United States. Something is definitely wrong with this situation. We developed this high-technology equipment at taxpayers' expense here in the United States. Then we sell it overseas and we do not even use it here at home. I believe legislation to rectify this problem is long overdue because, as much as I wish I were wrong, I believe such barbarous and cowardly acts of violence will continue to be committed against the United States as well as other countries. Machines such as the EGIS and the updated CTX-5000 that works like a CAT scan, slicing up objects visually, ensure that we will find all such bombs and plastic devices on board. We are now using 20-year-old x-ray machines that can only detect 10 percent of this. I hope all my colleagues will join me in sponsoring my legislation to protect all Americans.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, Margaret Thatcher once said, ``Pennies do not come from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.'' For years we have asked the question, does increased social spending equate with a better childhood? Since 1960, the $5 trillion spent on social programs has increased at a rate above inflation. The simple answer, however, is that children are still suffering because the system is flawed. I would like to give, Madam Chairman, another quote. ``Work banishes those three great evils: Boredom, vice, and poverty.'' That came from the great philosopher, Voltaire. There is nothing wrong with work. Our plan increases funding for welfare. Now, we are going to hear on that side of the aisle that there are huge cuts that affect children, huge cuts that affect the underprivileged. But as Margaret Thatcher said and the philosopher Voltaire said, work does not hurt anyone. Yet, even notwithstanding that fact, if we look at this graph, we will see welfare spending will increase 31 percent. Spending will increase $137 billion under the House welfare reform plan. Clearly when we hear the President say there is not enough money, there is going to be plenty, ample amounts of money for their program. I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, it is time we force the President to end this double talk on welfare and keep his promise to end welfare as we know it, correcting the inequalities that are in the system. This bill does it. The Republican bill does it, and it enforces the things that President Clinton talked about in his 1992 campaign. So, by signing our bill, he has nothing to lose. Continuing to pour more money into the welfare system is not the answer.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 1462, due to my concerns that it allows the NIH to expand its research using tissue from aborted babies.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoyer amendment, which would allow, as brought out here before, abortion on demand under the Federal employee health insurance plan. The question I pose to my colleagues is, should the American taxpayers have an interest in the health care coverage of Federal employees? Of course, they should. Why not. They pay for it. They are the employers of the Federal workers. OK, so if the people who pay for it have an interest, why do we not ask them? Well, we have done that. The CBS news poll done this year, the end of March, 72 percent of the people who are polled say they do not want their tax dollars going toward abortion on demand. Another poll was done by the Journal of American Medical Association; 69 percent said the same thing. The American taxpayers do not want their tax dollars going for abortion on demand. This amendment goes way beyond the bounds of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. This issue involves providing abortions for anyone enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, regardless of income level. The concept of the anyone subsidizing abortion is difficult enough, but asking the American taxpayers to pay for abortions for Federal employees under this plan is wrong, realizing that this is abortion on demands, even into the third trimester. Supporters of this amendment claim that the Federal benefits health program should pay for all the medical procedures. However, in agreement with a 1980 Supreme Court decision, I say that an abortion cannot be considered as part of these procedures. It is, in fact, the termination of a life we are talking about here, Mr. Chairman, not a simple health care procedure. So when the Members on this side, perhaps some on this side of the aisle, would say this is a simple health care procedure, we just have to go to the 1980 Supreme Court decision. It clearly says this is not a simple health care procedure we are talking about. So do not be confused. So I ask my colleagues to think about what the majority of American taxpayers, roughly 70 percent in two separate polls have said. They do not want to pay for abortion on demand for Federal employees. So, truly, let us defeat the Hoyer amendment, regardless of your stance on abortion on this debate. You must recognize what this amendment does. I ask all of my colleagues to defeat this amendment today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to read something. President Clinton and Vice President Gore said this in their book, ``Putting People First'': ``We will scrap the Health Care Financing Administration and replace it with a health standard board made up of consumers, providers, business, labor, and government.'' No cry from the press about that. But let us see what the Speaker is being criticized for when he talked about ``wither on the vine.'' This is what he really said. The Democrats have taken it out of context. What did he say? ``Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It is a centralized bureaucracy. It's everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now, we don't want to get rid of it in round one * * * we want it to wither on the vine.'' Speaker Gingrich was not referring to the Medicare Program, but he was referring to the big government bureaucratic machine that processes it. That is the same thing President Clinton and Al Gore said in their book, ``Putting People First.'' So all this criticism on the Speaker, on his ``withering on the vine,'' comment, is hypocritical. President Clinton said the same thing about the Health Care Financing Administration. In both cases, no one was talking about Medicare. Think about it.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 1995, I introduced H.R. 2634, a bill to allow persons to carry concealed firearms in every State if they have been issued a license to do so by any State. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently referred to Subcommittee on Crime. H.R. 2634 provided that a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in one State may carry a concealed firearm in any State ``in accordance with the terms of the license.'' This meant that a person with a license from State A could carry in State B according to the rules of State A. Therefore, individuals' rights and privileges would differ in the same State depending on their State of origin. For example, a person licensed in State A traveling to State B would be able to exercise different privileges in State B than an individual licensed in State C who was traveling to State B, as well. This language would require law enforcement officers to know the right-to- carry laws of all 50 States because individuals licensed in different States would be allowed to carry in their State under varying laws. To address the above mentioned problems, I have introduced the new Stearns right-to-carry bill, which is designed to facilitate its implementation by allowing (a) that the law of each State governs conduct within the State where the State has a right-to-carry statute; and (b) that Federal law provide a bright-line standard of conduct applicable to States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Under the new Stearns bill, if State A has a right-to-carry statute, an individual's conduct who was licensed in State B would be governed by the right-to-carry laws of State A while he was traveling with State A. Therefore, if State A imparts more privileges upon individual licensed to carry than State B, then the individual licensed in State B would be governed by the right to carry laws of State A while he was in State A. The individual licensed in State B would also be in compliance with the law if he carried in State C with no right-to-carry statute pursuant to the Federal bright-line standard. The Federal bright-line standard governing those States with no right-to-carry statute would solve the problem of States with no carry licenses and thus no standards. This Federal bright-line standard governs conduct only, meaning it governs where one may not carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the fact that they have a license to carry. It is intended to make clear that an individual may not carry a concealed firearm in certain highly sensitive locations such as court rooms, police stations, schools, and other locations. The Federal bright-line standard is not a licensing mechanism. Licenses to carry would still need to be lawfully obtained from a State which has a licensing mechanism. Precedent already exists for Federal standards which preempt State law in this area. Title 15 United States Code, section 902 provides that members of armored car crews with licenses to carry issued by a State ``shall be entitled to lawfully carry any weapons to which such license relates in any State while such crew member is acting in the service of such company.'' A Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. However, States that do have their own right-to-carry statutes can be assured that their State laws will be respected by nonresidents who are within their borders. This legislation greatly benefits and protects this Nation's every increasingly mobile society. I believe citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families anywhere in America. It does not make sense for Americans to forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on a business trip. However, if the law of a given State explicitly allows licensee's to carry in some places not authorized in the Federal standard, it certainly makes no sense for the nonresident to be in violation while the resident would not be held in violation. The new Stearns bill would authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm by a licensee if the licensees conduct meets the conditions of the State law through which the nonresident is traveling or if their conduct meets the Federal bright-line rule. I also added language to address the concerns of the law enforcement community. The new bill exempts qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. I urge all of the cosponsors of my first bill, H.R. 2634 to cosponsor this newly drafted and much improved concealed weapons reciprocity bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in an era of international economic competition, education is more important than ever. The link between education and our economic competitiveness is clear. In this decade, 89 percent of the jobs being created require some form of post-secondary training. That is why I rise today in support of this measure which increases the monetary amount and expands access to certain members of the Army and National Guard for the Montgomery GI bill. By allowing participants in the Veterans' Education Assistance Program to transfer into the Montgomery GI bill, veterans will be afforded a greater education benefit, and an unpopular and relatively unsuccessful program will be brought nearer to closure. It is in our Nation's best interest to provide improved education opportunities whenever possible. This legislation represents a substantial stride toward transforming the Department of Veterans' Affairs into a more effective and efficient organization that can better serve our Nation's veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and thus demonstrate its commitment to our outstanding young men and women who are the backbone of our Armed Forces.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we consider today, H.R. 3643, is a credit to the Veterans Committee. I want to compliment both Chairman Bob Stump and ranking minority member Representative Sonny Montgomery for the bipartisan spirit they have shown in getting this bill to the House floor. This bill extends priority health care for veterans exposed to agent orange and those who served in the Persian Gulf war through December 31, 1998. Mr. Speaker, my commitment to providing priority health care to the Vietnam veterans who were exposed to agent orange and to those who served in gulf war is longstanding. As you know, I have long supported efforts to find a link between exposure to agent orange and the plethora of illnesses which have occurred in Vietnam veterans. With respect to what has been known as the gulf war syndrome, I took a deep interest in requesting that we aggressively seek answers to the many unexplained illnesses experienced by gulf war veterans. One of first casualties of this mysterious group of disease was a constituent of mine, Michael C. 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 from 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, 3 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 for this syndrome which is so ubiquitous to veterans of Desert Storm. In light of the controversy surrounding unexplained illnesses Desert Storm veterans are experiencing, the VA, DOD, NIH, and HHS have been conducting extensive research into possible causes of the unexplained illnesses associated with this military campaign. On March 19, 1995, Dr. Kizer testified that the VA would be initiating a national survey of Persian Gulf veterans and that this study that would involve selecting a random sample of 15,000 Persian Gulf veterans and 15,000 contemporaneous non-Persian Gulf era veterans. The survey would include a mail-in health questionnaire as well as physical examinations for a subgroup of those veterans included in a broader survey. Hopefully, the data collected will shed further light and provide us with additional clues surrounding the various illnesses being experienced by the men and women who served in Desert Storm. I believe the results of the VA mortality followup study comparing Persian Gulf veterans with a control group of Persian-Gulf-era veterans could produce some answers to several troubling questions. I am optimistic that through such efforts we might find the missing link that will explain this rash of perplexing illnesses which seem to be indigenous to these 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. I hope that the DOD and the VA will continue to both aggressively treat symptoms associated with Desert Storm syndrome and investigate its cause or causes. My reason for sounding skeptical is that the medical follow up agency of medicine [IOM] made an independent study of the collective efforts to date. The IOM was rather harsh in its evaluation of the piecemeal study and the duplication of efforts between DOD, VA, and HHS. The IOM made several suggestions regarding the data and databases, the coordination process, and the consideration of study design needs. Hopefully, implementation of these suggestions will prove beneficial. I also noted that the IOM concluded that it could not find any reliable intelligence of medical or biological justification for allegations that U.S. troops were exposed to chemical warfare agencies. Unfortunately, this seems to be at odds with statements from our troops both then and now. On March 14, 1996, ``Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996'' found sufficient evidence between herbicide exposure and soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, chloracne, and porphyria cutanea tarda. The primary focus in these updated studies was whether or not there is a connection between birth defects of children of those servicemen who were sprayed with herbicides while serving in Vietnam. Previous studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences for the Department of Veterans Affairs at the direction of Congress found a link between agent orange and that at certain levels it caused a plethora of cancers and other health hazards. It is my hope that further studies may be conducted so that we have a final pronouncement as to whether or not agent orange is culpable for causing such deformities in children born to Vietnam veterans. This bill would also establish five centers of excellence for mental illness, research, education and clinical activities [MIRECC]. I have long advocated that we provide our veterans with access to mental health services and care. In fact, I proposed a 120-bed psychiatric unit be a component of the ambulatory care addition in Gainesville. While I am gratified by the fact the VA in Gainesville just received a $19.8 million grant for this ambulatory care center, I suggest here today that one of these proposed centers, be housing in the VA in Gainesville, FL. Another important component of this bill is that it requires VA to promulgate mammography quality standards, and it also directs the VA to report to Congress and efforts being made by the Department to ensure privacy and safety for women veterans who require hospitalization for psychiatric reasons. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important legislation and urge my colleagues to give it their full support and pass this bill today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3458 The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I believe that H.R. 3458 takes great strides in securing that our veterans are fairly and adequately compensated for their service to our country. The bill calls for an increased rate of compensation for the 2.2 million veterans whose injuries are connected to their military service, as well as 300,000 survivors of veterans who died from service-connected injuries. We have an obligation to provide for those injured while serving to defend our country. This bill provides for a much needed increase in compensation, bringing it up to the same level as Social Security benefits. The current estimate of a 2.8-percent increase will provide relief from the impaired earning capacity of disabled veterans and their families. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's disabled veterans and adjust their compensation fairly. This legislation serves our veterans, as they so selflessly and heroically served our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my colleagues in the House, this is a defining issue. I believe it even goes further than what we have talked about. It is defining in terms of Republicans and Democrats. On this side of the aisle so many people have lined up to speak, so many people feel so passionately about this, we do not even have enough time. But you know, one thing I would like to talk about just to be clear and not emotional about this, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] mentions the fact that, he mentions that the Defense of Marriage Act preempts States' rights. This is wrong. This is not correct. This legislation provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage license if issued by another State, nor does it prevent other States from choosing to give effect to same-sex marriage licenses from other States. This legislation merely provides that States who do not sanction this distortion of marriage do not have to recognize it. Sixty-seven percent of the people in America agree with this legislation. I would like to respond to what I think are Mr. Frank's main arguments against the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Frank says by abandoning the true definition of marriage, traditional marriages are not threatened. You are right Mr. Frank you are not threatening my marriage. You do not threaten my marriage but you do threaten the moral fiber that keeps this Nation together. You threaten the future of families which have traditional marriage at their very heart. If traditional marriage is thrown by the wayside, brought down by your manipulation of the definition that has been accepted since the beginning of civilized society, children will suffer because family will lose its very essence. Instead of trying to ruin families we should be preserving them for future generations. You say if we pass the Defense of Marriage Act we are preempting States rights. You are wrong Mr. Frank. This legislation provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage license if issued by another State; nor does it prevent other States from choosing to give effect to same-sex marriage licenses from other States. This legislation merely provides States who do not sanction this distortion of marriage do not have to recognize it. With at least 67 percent of people polled opposing the legalization of same-sex marriages, we are doing the right thing. Mr. Frank may not agree with this also but he is here today pushing a definition of marriage which the majority of Americans don't agree with. He may use debaters' techniques to divert our attention on this matter, but the facts remain.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the East Coast is currently being battered by Hurricane Bertha. As we all know, such disasters can occur at any time. The Midwest has been hit by floods in the past. The West Coast has been hit by natural disasters. Since Hurricane Hugo in 1989, the Federal Government has paid out over $67 billion on disaster relief. Insurance companies have also paid out over $33 billion since 1989. But now, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that will help out. It is called the Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act. It forges together Government and private entities to provide geographic areas insurance protection. This legislation will reduce cost and physical damage from natural disasters by requiring States to adopt improved enforcement of model building codes, and would also provide a grant program, financed by the private sector, to provide badly needed resources to implement preparation and loss reduction strategies. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we should all support this initiative.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues, when we hear from that side of the aisle that this is a political issue, we have heard the President of the United States indicate that he would sign this bill, so I think the President is almost saying that he agrees with what we are doing and he would like to see as soon as possible the bill brought to him for his signature. So we really cannot say it is a political one when the President of the United States, who represents the Democrats, says he wants the bill, too. I rise in strong support of this rule. I commend the gentleman for bringing this rule forward. And I might point out to my colleagues that it is our party that brought this bill here; that this bill probably would never have seen the light of day if it had not been for the new majority in Congress, and I think it is important to point that out. I would like to conclude by saying that we all know that families are the foundation of every civilized society, and marriage lies at the heart, the core, of what a family is. If we change how marriage is defined, we change the entire meaning of the family. So what we are doing today, I say to the gentleman from Colorado, is extremely important and all of us should realize we must pass this rule.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I came to the well of the floor to talk a little bit about Medicare because I have had town meetings back in my district, and time and time again I hear from both my colleagues who have talked to the Democrats, perhaps in Florida, about the cuts in Medicare. I want to again present some information about this erroneous claim. I know the President is continuing to run advertising claiming Republicans are cutting Medicare, which is not true. So I thought I would again just take a moment and talk about President Clinton, the budget cuts, and sort of defend what we are doing and put it in perspective. The President has claimed that with his rhetoric about Medicare, he is saying, ``When I talk about Medicare, there's no difference about what I say about Medicare than when the Republicans talk about defense.'' The reality, however, is that since 1987 there has been a steady decline in defense spending. In fact, it is at the lowest percent of our gross national product ever. This parallel between defense spending and Medicare is not quite there. I will go into that a little further along. Recently, in response to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, President Clinton admitted in fact that Republicans are not cutting Medicare. He is right about that because spending on this program will increase at almost 7 percent a year. So the spending not only is going up, but it is going up above inflation at roughly 7 percent a year. How could spending which increases from $5,200 a year in 1996 to $7,200 a year for each beneficiary in the Medicare program in 2002 ever be called a cut? We always hear the expression, only in Washington is that considered a cut. I think what has to be said to the people of this country who are in the Medicare program, We have increased it 7 percent a year to 2002. We think this is enough. We think if you allow us to continue this increased spending at 7 percent and allow some choices, we can prevent this program from going bankrupt. Perhaps more than any other issue, President Clinton has hammered away at this Medicare issue by falsely accusing the GOP of, quote, cutting Medicare, when again it is going up at 7 percent a year to 2002. When the President was trying to sell his health care package to the American people, his message was quite different. I would like to read exactly what he said when he was proposing in 1993 a new health care plan. He said: Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at 3 times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at 2 times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, but a reduction in the rate of growth. So, frankly, there is the President of the United States saying exactly what we have heard Republicans say, yet the President is participating in this distortion of what is happening to Medicare. Those who are quick to criticize or condemn what we are trying to do to save Medicare and Medicaid should exercise a little caution. It is wrong to scare our senior citizens this way. No one has proposed cutting any benefits. This will not happen. In fact, as the budget goes along, we are increasing it 7 percent a year. Now, let us talk about the First Lady. During the debate on the ill- fated Clinton health care bill, this is what she said. ``We feel, confident that we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare recipients.'' For the past year, the administration officials have been singing a different tune, it appears. So both the President in 1993, and the First Lady in 1993, when they talked about their health care bill, they talked about we feel confident, ``That we can reduce the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality by slowing the growth.'' In fact, let us even look at one of their Cabinet officials, Secretary Shalala. What did she say about this? She said, ``Our argument is that if you are slowing down growth here and that is below what is happening in terms of cost out there, it is a real cut.'' So when the President proposed slowing down the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid, it was not a cut, but now that our budget contains something similar, very similar, they say it is a cut. As I stated earlier, only in Washington could an increase of 7 percent a year be called a cut, a cut be called an increase. Defense spending is misconstrued by the President. I heard the President say, well, you know the Republicans are slowing the growth of spending on defense and that argument is applicable to Medicare. But we really have reduced spending in defense. President Clinton describes defense spending as a slowdown in spending growth cuts. The reality is that since 1987, defense spending has not kept pace even with inflation, whereas the program that we have here with Medicare, what the Republicans proposed and passed on the House floor, is 7 percent, twice inflation. I want to be sure that we all understand the President's position on Medicare and defense spending. Medicare will grow again at twice the rate of inflation, yet the President says that is a cut. Defense spending was 2 percent of the budget in 1987. Mr. Clinton has put it at 15 percent in his 1997 budget. Even though defense spending has sustained sharp decreases in spending since 1987, this is categorized as an increase by the administration; that is, the Republicans are increasing spending in defense when, in fact, if you look at 1987 compared to 1997, there have been sharp decreases. How can anyone possibly who knows these facts want to believe what the President says? This is one time that old saying ``actions speak louder than words'' could be applied. On another issue, let us take a look at what President Clinton said during the 1992 Presidential campaign about welfare. One of his major campaign themes was, I want to change welfare as we know it today. Most recently in a radio address, he has said, quote, Wisconsin has submitted to me for approval the outlines of a sweeping welfare reform plan, one of the boldest yet attempted in America. All in all, Wisconsin has the makings of a solid, bold welfare plan. We should get it done. Those are his exact words. Well, what did President Clinton do? Well, he did veto two of the welfare bills that we submitted to him. Why do we not take a look at the President's position on the need for a balanced budget? In his State of the Union Message in 1993, he made the following statement: My budget plan will use independent budget office numbers, CBO. I did this so that no one could say I was estimating my way out of this difficulty. I did this so the American people will think we are shooting straight with them. Well, what did he do? Well, after many other broken promises and with no proposal of his own, he vetoed the balanced budget that we presented to him in 1992. The President, while on the ``Larry King Show,'' stated emphatically, I will balance the budget in 5 years. As we remember all too well, he could not decide whether to balance the budget in 5 years, 7 years, 10 years or somewhere in between. He also refused to negotiate with us for a 7-year balanced budget using real numbers scored by CBO. He finally agreed after many, many months of negotiations. Previously during his State of the Union, he said that this budget that we offered was acceptable. Well, what did he do during the budget negotiations in the latter part of 1995? He said CBO numbers are unacceptable to us because it commits us to accepting Republican cuts. Let me read that again: CBO numbers are unacceptable to us because it commits us to accepting Republican cuts. First of all, the President said he wanted to abide by CBO numbers and, second, they are not Republican cuts that he talked about. It is increasing at 7 percent a year. Now, when President Reagan took command of the White House, he kept his word and delivered on his promise to cut taxes. He believed, just as President Kennedy did, that tax cuts would stimulate the economy. It worked in the early 1960's, and he believed it was just what the economy needed. President Kennedy felt that way. In the 1980's, the American economy boomed. While President Reagan kept his side of the agreement, the Democrat Congress doubled spending during the same period. Ironically, President Reagan was constantly being accused by his critics of cutting the budget. The President campaigned, President Clinton campaigned, for the Presidency saying that he would give the middle class some much needed relief by lowering their taxes. Well, what did he do? He gave Americans the largest tax increase in the country's history, $245 billion to be exact. Some of my colleagues and the people who are watching perhaps can remember that quiz show from the early 1960's which was hosted by Johnny Carson. The show was called ``Who Do You Trust?'' My colleagues, I bring this to your attention because we have heard during the early start of this campaign the cry that Republicans are cutting Medicare. This is far from the truth. We have heard the President say that we have defense spending going up when, in fact, it is decreasing as a percent of the gross national product. We have heard the President say he wanted to balance the budget in 5, 7, and 10, and then finally came reluctantly to agree with our 7-year balanced budget. He talked about welfare, making it workfare, but he vetoed two welfare bills. He talks about a middle-class tax cut during his campaign, yet he has not provided the same. In fact, after he was elected, he gave us the largest tax increase in American history. So Mr. Speaker, the 1996 Presidential race might be based on the same question that Johnny Carson issued when he hosted his show, a quiz show in the early 1960's. The show of course was called ``Who Do You Trust?'' Whom do you trust to lead this country for the next 4 years? I think it is clear that our candidate, Senator Dole, could be trusted and, based upon the information I have given to you today, I ask all the Members, who do you trust?