Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``The only safe rule is to promise little and faithfully to keep every promise; to speak softly and carry a big stick.'' That is where that great quotation came from. Well, America's new policy seems to be one of empty promises and empty threats, a policy toward China where we speak softly and carry no stick whatsoever. My colleagues, we have the opportunity to send a message to the world that America will not support this rogue nation, that we will not condone terrorism, oppression, and intolerance. today we have the opportunity to effect a change in China's policies, and tell the rest of the world America allies itself with only those nations that advance and encourage fairness, those nations who foster democracy, and those nations who embrace freedom. We hold the power today, my colleagues, the power to help the people of China break the bonds of mass misery, not for their votes, not for their money, but because it is right. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, for 15 years now, we have given MFN status to the Chinese. And rather than getting better, the situation is worsening: we now have a $30 billion trade imbalance, human rights abuses are on the rise, Chinese companies continue to steal America's intellectual property, military spending is increasing, and anti-American sentiment is rising throughout China. Not only do we tolerate such behavior from China, but by granting MFN status--by voting against this resolution--we actually condone the behavior of the Chinese. We tell them to continue the systematic killing of their children and the state-sponsored abortions; we tell them that America condones communism, hostility, and oppression; we support and fund their Army through our trade imbalance; and we ignore the theft of millions of American dollars in intellectual property. We standby and we do nothing, and our apathy is just as bad as our involvement; it is, in simple terms, the American seal of approval. My colleagues, we have the opportunity today to send a message to the world that America will not support a rogue nation, that we will not condone terrorism, oppression, and intolerance. Today, we have the opportunity to affect a change in China's policies, and to tell the rest of the world: America allies itself with only those nations who advance and encourage fairness, the nations who foster democracy, and those nations who embrace freedom. My colleagues, I urge you to do the right thing: Vote for the resolution of disapproval; vote against MFN for China.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I must speak on this bill, and I echo the words of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. If you are on a train ride and year after year you go on and you keep riding on this train ride and it does not get to where you want; what do you do? You stop the train or you get off. This is where we are tonight. And what we have here is a responsible bill that takes us off the train heading in the wrong direction. Superfund was hastily enacted in 1980 following national publicity over a few chemical waste sites. Originally, EPA got $1.6 billion in funding to clean up over 1,000 nationwide sites. As my colleagues can see from this chart, after nearly 15 years and an estimated $20 billion in State and Federal and private funds spent on the Superfund Program, less than 10 percent, less than 10 percent of the 1,300 sites that the EPA has place on the Superfund national priority list have been completely cleaned up. Now, I do not think the taxpayers would be happy with that if we spent $20 billion and only 10 percent of the sties were cleaned up, and that is what this chart shows. Is that progress? Is that a train that is going in the right direction? Lord knows not. The EPA originally estimated it would take $7 million and 5 to 8 years to clean up an average site. Today the studies indicate an average of 11 years and $25 to $40 million in cost per site; estimates of the entire national cleanup effort range from $300 billion to $1 trillion. They are estimating it is going to cost $1 trillion when Federal facilities are included in the cleanup. What this means is simple. The existing Superfund Program must be replaced with a new program in which the benefits justify its costs, which is equitable, cost effective, and limited in size and scope when feasible. It should be targeted to address real, current, and significant risks to human health and environments posed by the past disposal of hazardous substances. Retroactive liability, a joint and several liability must be remedied. We must change and work on that, and the size and scope of the Federal national priority list should be kept. States should be given the opportunity to delegate implementation of the reforms of the Federal Superfund Program at the sites, as well as provided with incentives to implement their own reform programs in a fair and cost-effective manner. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is what this bil does, and what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] does is return us to the status quo, to the train that continues to go in the wrong direction after all of these years since 1980. So there is no use continuing to throw money into this program without reform. Mr. Chairman, this is why we need term limits around here. This is why we need to change Congress and not have one party dominate Congress for 40 years, because they are on the same train going in the wrong direction. There are no new ideas. But, lo and behold, the Republican majority comes in, we have Chairman Oxley with new ideas and a new program. And once and for all we start to say this train is going in the wrong direction, and we are going to move forward, stop this train and move it in the right direction. That is what this program does. So term limits is good for Members and term limits is good for the majority after 40 years of the Superfund Program. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. I might point out that this program can be improved vastly, and I call for the defeat of the Markey amendment and passage of the Republican plan.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I wish to follow up on Speaker Gingrich's comment on health care. It is very simple to see what is going on here. Liberals lost the battle over nationalizing health care. Now they want to scuttle any health care plan that does not make the Government bigger. It is a shame. It is a shame because millions of American families would benefit from the health care reform bill being held up by the liberals in the Senate. Millions of people would be able to establish medical savings accounts. Many others would be forced to remain in job lock because they have a prior condition. Madam Speaker, the health care reform bill now before Congress has bipartisan support. In fact, last week, 25 Democrats sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to support these commonsense reforms that the American people have been demanding for years. They do not want more government. They want portable, available, and affordable health care. Madam Speaker, let us pass the health care bipartisan reform bill now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I also stand here in the well to remember our dear colleague, Bill Emerson from Missouri. I can still see him in the back row, all the way in the back in the last aisle, standing there talking. And many of us used to go back to talk to him and ask him, Bill, what are the nuances of this vote and would he explain it. He was very knowledgeable about different bills on the House floor. But he would also give you a sense of humor, a point about the bill that would make you chuckle and laugh, knowing that sometimes Members were forced to vote on things they did not like, because within the whole bill there would be a small something you did like. But Bill Emerson had that way. And I also want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many times I spoke to him during his illness and encouraged him and gave him several articles, articles which talked about other Americans suffering from cancer and how they met this disease and the type of mind frame they put themselves in and tried to encourage it. But he did not need to be encouraged in terms of a positive attitude because his entire relationship that I had with him and saw on the House floor was one of optimism, one of being a positive American and showing other Americans, through his leadership and through his personality, the purpose of all of us is that we are to be caring and helpful for our fellow man. So I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I come here to the well, I can almost still see Bill in the back there, laughing, encouraging all of us, and giving that light chuckle he has, together with the sparkle in his eyes. So I bid him adieu and wish him and his family well and with deepest sympathy remind my colleagues of the great Congressman Bill Emerson.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Small Business; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will stay around for just a moment to listen to this. In 1994, the then House majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, Dick Gephardt, thought MSA's, medical savings accounts, were such a good idea that he included them in the Democrat leadership bill. In 1994, all but one Democrat on the House Committee on Ways and Means voted in favor of medical savings accounts in the Clinton health care reform plan. So I think the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and others on the Democrat side who complain about medical savings accounts should realize that their leadership, not only in the House but in the Senate, when the Medical Cost Containment Act of 1992 was--which included medical savings accounts--presented to the Senate, even Tom Daschle, was there sponsoring it. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I talk about medical savings accounts this morning. We have heard a great deal from that side of the aisle, talk about how they are tax breaks for the rich, which is absolutely false, and I think we have all these Democrat leaders who have supported it, so I think the bottom line is, it is good for America. They were based upon the premise that the consumer, in this case the purchaser of health care, should have control over their health care dollars. This is important, because those of us who believe that by empowering people to have more control over their health care spending, they will become more cost conscious and in all likelihood would seek information to shop around, look at the marketplace. Mr. Speaker, let us ask the basic question: What are medical savings accounts? During debate on the Clinton health care bill, we learned that Americans want health care reform that will provide consumers with the ability to choose the type of health care plans that best suit their needs. Medical savings accounts would provide consumers with just such an opportunity. Under current tax law, third-party insurance is subsidized and self- insurance is penalized. Every dollar an employer pays for third-party insurance is excluded from employee income. When employees try to save that money, it is taxed. Medical savings accounts should be given the same tax incentive as currently given to third-party health insurance premiums. Mr. Speaker, if we are to provide true health care reform, we must provide individuals with the options of being allowed to create medical savings accounts. On that side of the aisle, they have talked about giving retirement accounts for women who are at home and for working people. We had that in our American dream account. Medical savings accounts are under the same concept. They would enable consumers to use tax-free savings accounts to self-insure for routine, out-of-pocket medical expenses. The inclusion of a medical savings account would provide people with the opportunity to choose higher deductibles in the place of premium savings in individual medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, our health care bill, which the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] was talking about, provides that taxpayers would be permitted to have one account to make an annual deposit of no more than $2,000 if single, $4,000 if married. Under this bill, in order to make these contributions be tax deductible, an individual must be covered by a high deductible health care plan. By empowering consumers with choice and individual responsibility, healthy competition among insurance companies is created and it is better for all of us. In 1994, in the issue of the Journal of American Health Policy article entitled, ``Why Medical Savings Accounts Deserve a Closer Look,'' it said: ``Research has shown that these accounts give lower health care expenditures markedly without any negative health effects on individuals with such coverage.'' What are some of the advantages? They are portable, total freedom of choice, allows spending on long-term care premiums, will increase the number of insured Americans and, of course, Mr. Speaker, they create wealth through all of us increasing our savings rate. Critics claim that health care has become too complicated and that consumers are no longer capable of making cost-conscious decisions. Several studies show that health care consumers do make cost-conscious decisions provided they are given the financial incentive to do so. Critics also claim that consumers will not seek preventive care in order to save money for these accounts, but studies show that they do not deter preventive care. What we find is that savings result from a more discriminating use of optional services, and consumers select less expensive health care benefits. Perhaps the criticism we hear the most is that these accounts would attract the healthy, leaving the sick with conventional insurance. In that case, the adverse selection or what is called cherry-picking, would cause an increase in the cost of traditional insurance. But this has not been shown to be true. Companies using this type of account have not experienced this problem. Several different groups and organizations have already established these accounts for their employees, and I believe the success they have met in so doing is a surprise for some of the critics. What do the polls tell us about the public's reaction to medical savings accounts? Well, of the 1,000 workers responding to a survey conducted by the Marketing Research Institute, 87 percent said they would like to have medical savings accounts. Of course, when I mentioned earlier about the critics, we have the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], we have the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], we have all the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means voting for medical savings accounts, so it is clear it is bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, let me close by also pointing out that 18 State legislatures have passed medical savings accounts legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, 68 million Americans already have access. We need to bring the rest of them in.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House here to talk about the environment. I think as the election process starts this year, we are going to hear many elected officials talk about the environment and they will say one party is destroying the environment and the other party will say we are not destroying the environment. One party will talk about its record and the other party will talk about its record. So I thought it would be good to put in perspective some of the recent literature on eco-sanity, is what I call it, the ability to talk about the environment in terms of common sense. Most of what I will be talking about today, Mr. Speaker, comes from a book by that exact title, ``Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism,'' published by the Heartland Institute. The authors are Joseph Bast, Peter Hill, and Richard Rue. Now, one of the questions a lot of people ask, particularly back in the district, is can we not spend more Government money to solve this problem? Why can the Government not protect the environment and why can the Government not be the sole provider of this protection? Well, as many of you know, in 1962 there was a book published called ``The Silent Spring.'' That is roughly 34 years ago, and that started the environmental movement. Until that point we have always relied upon the Government to stop pollution, to safeguard human health, and to protect the wildlife, and we have always thought, well, why can we not just spend more money so that we can protect the environment? Well, if we go about giving immunizations, as we generally do; if we look at the cost per deaths averted because of this, it might be for diphtheria, $87, cost per death avoided. But, when we start to move up the chain here, for example, improving traffic signs, that is roughly $21,000 cost per death averted. Let us move a little higher up and go to breast cancer screening. That is $160,000 cost per death averted. But then if we go to the hazardous waste land disposal ban, that is roughly $4.2 billion. Now, that is pretty expensive for the cost per one death. Now, we can move even further up and we go to hazardous waste listing for wood preserving chemicals. Do you know what that cost, Mr. Speaker, to avert one death. That would cost $5.7 trillion. So you can see the Government cannot be expected to stop all environmental problems. So we must come up with a solution, and that is what Republicans try to do. So heavy is this reliance that many environmentalists measure the movement's progress by the strictness of Government-enforced air and water pollution standards, the amount of land placed under Government control, and the number of plants and animals given protected status under the Government-enforced Endangered Species Act. Is that the criteria we want to use, particularly in light of some of these astronomical figures that we see now in this book to try to prevent one death and how much cost the Government will have to spend? Remember, Mr. Speaker, when we do that we have to go out and tax the American public to do this. So is there another way? Is there another sound, commonsense approach here that we can get to solve this problem? I think there is and this is what brought me to the House floor today. I believe that there is a way to protect the environment and to do it without huge enormous litigation costs, without a huge amount of Government-run breaucracies. In fact, I do not think we have to solve the problem by another bureaucratic Government agency. It is unlikely, for example, that reduction in air and water pollution would have occurred as quickly in the absence of Government regulations, and I think that is true, to a certain extent Government is required, or for landfill safety. But these victories often came at much too high a price. As I mentioned earlier, billions were spent on litigation, footdragging, focusing on the wrong problem. Behind these victories, too, were conspicuous failures. Let us not forget this. Below-cost logging sales, farm and ranching subsidies, Superfund. How many of us have not been on the House floor to talk about the huge amount of litigation involved with Superfund, and yet we have still so many sites around the United States that are still clogged with these toxic chemicals. I have one in my district. We spent so much money and put up a huge trust fund and most of the money has gone for litigation. Many feel that the Endangered Species Act has not worked to the benefit of all of us. In fact, when you lay off 30,000 people for one endangered species, you have to question is there some way to solve this problem without more Government bureaucracy. And that is what I am here to say; that we can offer a way. Through the markets, through incentives, through property owner rights enforcement, and by making choices, we can move forward through the channel of politics to results where environmental protection is provided for all our citizens. This leads me to really the main reason I came on the House floor, is to talk about the rules for eco-sanity. The biggest barrier to further improvements in the environment quality is not a lack of money, even though you hear many people on this side of the aisle saying we need to spend more and more money. In fact, the President of the United States has said we need to spend vast amounts, more money to improve the environment. Spending on environmental protection in the United States is greater both in dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product than it has ever been before, also considerably higher than spending in many other countries. Our biggest problem is that it is in the politics. We think we have good men in the White House, both Republicans and Democrats. We have good people on the House floor. So we really cannot say that it is any one individual or perhaps any one type of committee or subcommittee or administration. What then is the biggest barrier to improving environmental protection? Mr. Speaker, I think it is the environmental movement itself. More specifically, I believe that the lack of understanding and critical thinking on the part of most environmentalists has compromised the movement's ability to be an effective force for real true environmental protection. Many environmentalists do not think clearly about the issues, relying instead on environmental organizations to do their thinking for them. This trust has been rewarded with campaigns against crises that do not exist and supporting policies that are clumsy, expensive, and sometimes counterproductive. Similarly, environmentalists have said let the Government do it, and then they fail to pay attention to what the Government actually does. A closer look reveals the Government's record on the environment is a poor one, and that Government often suffers from perverse incentive structures and information blackouts that render it unreliably an ally of the movement. So I wish to put into the Record some of these rules for eco-sanity, which I think is a little bit beyond the popular wisdom on some of the issues, and I think there has been a disconnect by the movement on some of these things that Republicans have done in Congress, and particularly when we try to relax some of the rules and regulations that cities and small towns have so that they can actually inspect for the toxic waste materials that are in their water instead of doing the entire EPA list. This list is so extensive that they have very little money left to really try to identify the toxic waste that is in that particular community, which is indigenous to that community. So we need to look at some way to equip ourselves to understand if we have a problem here and rules of critical thinking. So with the help of this book I will put into the Record the first rule of critical thinking in the eco-sanity debate. The first one, Mr. Speaker, is correlation is not causation. Now, this sounds a little complicated, but let us take it a little further. Correlation means that two things tend to happen at the same time. Causation means one thing is known to cause another thing. Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean one is causing the other. We need proof, including a reasonable theory, showing the path by which one thing causes another to occur. Mr. Speaker, these are many environmental scares, including global warming. Remember now last winter we had the most severe winter we have had in Washington, DC, in many years. There has been so much talk about electromagnetic fields and dioxin. They resulted in the correlation of two things which are mistaken. To avoid future errors we need to challenge people who rely on correlations to prove that one thing is actually causing another thing to happen. The second rule of critical thinking for eco-sanity is not everything can be explained. The truth is in 1994 that the causes of most specific cases of cancer, miscarriage, and child deformity in the United States are unexplained. We have no idea why it occurs. We simply do not know whether a specific case of brain cancer, for example, is due to a genetic condition, nutrition, alcohol, or drug abuse, and we can go round and round in circles and pointing the blame and asking for more Government regulations and more spending, but not everything can be explained. We have to recognize that fact. While we should sympathize with the victims of these afflictions, we should not confuse them with experts on the cause of these illnesses. A victim's guess is no more reliable and maybe less reliable than the guesses of many other nonexperts. Someday the work of all these professionals and other scientists may produce the answers we seek, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that day has yet arrived. So the second rule of critical thinking is not everything can be explained. No. 3, trends cannot predict the future. What I as an individual do today, lots of times the environmentalists will project that out and that might not be right. During the 1970's global temperatures fell several years in a row, and, remember, experts like Dr. Steven Schneider predicted a new ice age. Well, during the 1980's temperatures rose several years in a row and the experts, including Mr. Schneider, predicted catastrophic global warming. So, first of all, we had the ice age that was predicted in the 1970's, and then we had this global warming where we are going to have the polar caps melt, and, of course, half of North America would be under the water. And they predicted this based upon predicting the future and certain trends. The cold winter of this year, and, of course, the cold winter of 1993-94 prompted Time Magazine, think about this, Time Magazine and some scientists warned of an approaching ice age. These predictions, along with the prediction of a population explosion and eventual resource depletion, were wrong because they were based upon projection of past trends. And, in fact, the population in the United States has more or less normalized. It is not going up at the projection many people said. So at this point trends cannot necessarily predict the future. The fourth rule of critical thinking and rules for eco-sanity are facts count for more than opinions. Now that might sound a little strange but it is the truth. A person with the loudest voice sometimes is heard above everybody else, or he or she might have the most controversial opinion. That person gets the attention on the 6 o'clock news. This is certainly true in the environmentalist movement where there are claims of impending environmental issues. A few numbers tell us more than 1,000 pictures. For example, the destruction of the world's rain forests changed from a crisis to a manageable problem once we recognized that rain forests are being diminished at a rate of well under 1 percent a year. Similarly, plastic containers moved to the bottom of our agenda when we learned they constitute less than 1.5 percent of the solid waste in a typical landfill. Yes, we all have heard about the plastic containers. No. 5 rule for eco-sanity is do not forget the past. All common sense things here, Mr. Speaker. During the 1970's many prominent environmentalists predicted an energy crisis, energy crisis in the 1980's and energy crisis in the 1990's and this huge population explosion. Well, some 25 years later oil reserves have grown and population growth is slowing. Ronald Bailey, a scientist commenting on Paul Erlich and Lester Brown, the environmentalists, say quote, One reason such apocalyptic abuses thrive is that the public has no longer-term memory. People are unlikely to remember that a doomster made a dire prediction 20 years ago that has since proved absolutely false. Bailey is right. We need to remember yesterday's false alarms and who sounded them if we are to respond correctly to future calls to action. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress we should start keeping track of all these doomsters and all these predictions from the people who say we will have an energy crisis or a population explosion, to all these different problems that they talk about. No. 6 in the rule of eco-sanity: We can never avoid risk completely. And this is one of the things that Republicans are trying to say, is we have choices. There can never be an absolutely pure, theoretically, absolutely safe situation. Everything we do carriers with it a risk. When I came up to Washington on the airplane it carried a risk. When I drove over here or when I walk on the curb there is a risk; even common activities such as a bath, you can drown; crossing a street, being hit by a car. Seemingly harmless things like balloons and toothpicks sometimes can kill people. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a product, decision, or action that carries no risk whatsoever. So when someone tells us hold on, there may be a risk that a chemical, nuclear plant, or landfill will endanger our health, we should not be frightened. Instead we should calmly ask, how much risk is there? If the risk is unknown, we should wait until reliable evidence is available for us to estimate the risk. If the risk is 1 in a million, the level of risk often found for things like incinerator fumes and pesticides, it may not be worth attempting to reduce it or spending enormous amounts of government money or setting up another government bureaucracy to do so. It may be a case to study and maybe we can find other ways, but in the end it may not be worth the cost to attempt to stop it any further. Keep in mind, that is one in a million risk. Keep in mind that the risk of drowning is 16 in a million. So you have a chance or, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the risk of drowning is 16 in a million whereas the risk from pesticide is 1 in a million. How about dying in an accident in the home; that is 90 in a million or dying in an automobile accident is 192 in a million, greatly exceeds the alleged environmental risk being decried by some organizations. So if you keep those statistics in mind, you realize that we do not have to set up another government bureaucracy just to handle some of these things because 1 in a million can be a very low risk. The last rule for ecosanity is rule No. 7, we have to make choices. We cannot buy two items in the grocery store with the same amount of money. We have to choose one or the other. The same, Mr. Speaker, is true of how we clean the environment. We have to choose among many different ways to do it. We cannot do everything at once, because trying to do so would be extremely wasteful, unnecessarily injure many people, and probably produce unintended consequences that harm the environment. Instead we must apply the same prudence that we apply to other parts of our lives, because the law of diminishing returns, a zero discharge policy would cost huge, huge sums of money and produce very little benefit. That, on this side of the aisle, we are trying to do, to understand the zero discharge, to understand what amount of moneys are required, what is at risk, and what benefit will be produced. We must, and here is the key word, Mr. Speaker, we must prioritize threats to the environment and find efficient ways to address these threats. The more carefully we do these, the more threats we will be able to successfully address. The importance of environmental issues does not somehow exempt them from this discipline. In fact, their importance makes careful planning and efficiency all the more necessary. I would conclude by saying, we on this side of the aisle are trying to bring a new idea to the environmental movement. We have had 36 years of more Government spending, more Government bureaucracies and at this point we realize there is a way to solve this without taxing the American people. That way is, of course, to bring some semblance to this environmental debate with ecosanity. Ecosanity is basically going to help us understand how to attack these problems and what in the end would be the best thing, best way to solve the problem. I would conclude by pointing out that if people own a property, that leads to better stewardship. We tend to take better care of things we own than things we rent or borrow. And if the Government and local community would enforce some of the already existing laws on the books, we should be able to bring the ownership and better stewardship and government compliance all together. Because in the end, incentives are better than commands. People are more apt to do things if you give them incentives rather than commands out of Washington. We think that through ownership and incentives, pollution problems can be reduced and we should clearly define the rights of property owners, clearly define what the Government is supposed to enforce and not have this vague set of books where the rules and enforcement are so vague that the actual citizen has no idea how to comply with the rules. I think the rules to air, water, and wildlife can be defined and I think they can be enforced so when you bring in the clear definition of these rules, you bring in the idea of ownership being better stewardship; incentives are better than command, I think pollution can, in the end, be diminished. Also we need to understand that when you set up government programs, they suffer in themselves. They are like a black hole. They require more money and sometimes the Government will act with improper knowledge. If we abide by a set of rules for ecosanity, I think we can prevent that. Also I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes Government subsidies cause waste. When you have the Government involved spending this money, it sometimes creates less efficiency and leads to greater pollution because in the end if you do not have the efficiency, you cannot have less pollution. Of course, I would conclude by saying the media gives false alarms by extensive publicity, as I point out. A good example is in the area of the energy crisis as well as talking about overpopulation. So all of us need to be aware of stories that come out of the media when, in fact, if we obey these seven rules of ecosanity, we can have a better understanding how to cope. We need to understand and not react out of fear. Mr. Speaker here is a commonsense agenda for further protecting and improving the environment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Honorable Bill Emerson.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I am not surprised by an article in last Friday's Washington Post regarding yet another environmental health risk. The article discusses a new scientific study showing major health risk posed by chemicals commonly found in our environment. Despite even the best of intentions, a number of unnerving health trends are being linked with increased human contamination by chemical hormones. The chemicals responsible for causing endocrine system dysfunctions have been used in common pesticides and industrial chemicals for decades. Known as environmental estrogens, these chemicals can actually mimic the hormone estrogen that naturally occurs in the human body. These synthetic hormones have the capacity to severely alter one's endocrine system, leading to an increased risk of major health problems, including breast cancer. Breast cancer is expected to strike over 180,000 American women in 1996, and the lifetime risk for the disease has increased from a 1 in 20 chance in the 1950's to a 1 in 8 chance today. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death of women between the ages of 35 and 52, and 70 percent of newly diagnosed cases have no family history of this deadly cancer. Environmental estrogens are largely responsible for these alarming figures. A recent study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine showed that women with high exposures to DDT had four times the breast cancer risk of women with low exposures. No matter how careful we are in watching what we eat and drink, exposure to chemical hormones is unavoidable in today's world. They occur in the herbicides we apply to our lawns, shoe polishes, paints, paper products we use every day, and in pesticides on the food we eat. While we still have much to learn about toxic chemicals, what we do know thus far is cause for major concern and serious action. As a member of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, I am proud to have supported the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in the Commerce Committee markup last week. This important legislation includes many reform proposals which address the most serious risks presented by contaminants in drinking water. The proposed amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act will provide for an estrogenic substances screening program. Under this program, substances will be measured to determine if they produce effects in humans similar to those produced by naturally occurring estrogens. In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, increasing resources for cancer research and broadening the mandate of the National Cancer Institute, a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health. The infusion of funds following this act led to the genetic revolution in cancer and biomedicine in general. Continued funding for the NIH represents an investment in research as well as in investment to improve the Nation's health. To protect the rights of those with identifiable disease characteristics like breast cancer in their genetic makeup, I have introduced H.R. 2690, the Genetic Privacy Act. This legislation will ensure that the new discoveries made in genetic testing research are not misused. For example, in the past 2 years, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 were identified as major breast cancer genes. Together they account for perhaps 90 percent of familial breast cancer. While this finding indeed benefits women, enabling them to take necessary preventive measures, negative consequences are also very likely. My bill establishes guidelines concerning disclosure and use of genetic information with regard to insurability, employability, and confidentiality. Reducing the burden of cancer can be measured in terms of fewer deaths, fewer new cases, increased length of survival, and increased quality of life of cancer survivors. While improvements in cancer treatment have been made, overall cancer incidence continues to rise, emphasizing the formidable task ahead. The goal of a reduced cancer burden can only be achieved by the successful translation of discoveries to the benefit of all people who are at risk and who have been diagnosed with cancer. Last weekend marked the seventh annual national race for the cure. The race was named ``Doing It For Martha'' in honor of Martha Maloney, a long-time staffer of Senator Wendell Ford. The race will serve as a reminder to everyone of the impending threat of breast cancer. I was proud to have my staff participating as a team in the 1996 race for the cure. Cervantes once said, ``The beginning of health is to know the disease.'' To succeed in the fight against cancer requires that we have the vision to recognize new opportunities and the flexibility and energy to capture such opportunities for progress. Our responsibility is to all people, for cancer threatens all of our lives. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that a cooperative effort by Congress, the scientific community, and regulators will yield new findings and beneficial results not only for the environmental health of this country, but for the health of current and future generations.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in 1980, China was first granted MFN status. Since then, very little has changed. In fact, it would be easy to argue that the situation has worsened. In the last 5 years, China has accumulated a $117 billion trade surplus with the United States, most of which is being used by the Chinese Government to build a war machine--a United States financed and outfitted Communist army. Also troubling is the continued theft of American intellectual property rights. Even the Clinton administration has called the Chinese ``the most egregious violator of agreements intended to combat the piracy of American products. Our apathy and appeasement have actually worsened our position as a trade partner and as a steward of democracy in one of the world's most volatile regions. The House will soon vote to end China's privilege. We will soon have the opportunity to send a message to the world that America will not support a rogue nation. We cannot continue to ignore the truth' we must be proactive in changing China's policies.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I had a town meeting Saturday in Hampton, FL, and Janice Sanford was there at the town meeting and she gave me hundreds of petitions dealing with the partial-birth abortion veto by the President. President Clinton has once again demonstrated that he favors legal, unrestricted, and easily available abortions on demand, even in the ninth month of pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said, The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government. I share this commitment to actively support legislation that sustains the Federal Government's traditional goals in family planning. Members of both Houses of Congress already voted to promote these goals when we said no to partial-birth abortions. I strenuously oppose President Clinton's veto of the ban, and urge my colleagues to say no once again when we have the opportunity to override this veto. Once again, I congratulate Janice Sanford for her active efforts to demonstrate this by the petition she gave me last Saturday.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today deals with one basic and fundamental issue. Do we want to continue with the current welfare system, or do we want to make available to those people currently receiving these benefits a more promising and rewarding future? I, for one, firmly believe that the vast majority of individuals currently receiving welfare would prefer cashing a pay check to cashing a welfare check. Not only is it counterproductive, it is also wrong. It is wrong because it locks people into a cycle of welfare dependency and does nothing to improve their quality of life. This issue strikes at the very core of what we are trying to accomplish in this Congress. We need to turn back to the States the programs they must administer. Today, we are simply trying to comply with the President's wishes. He said he would like to see Wisconsin granted a waiver and that we should look to this plan as a model for future national reform. My own State of Florida was granted a waiver to conduct two welfare demonstration projects. While the Federal waiver was granted in a more timely fashion than other States requesting such a waiver; the time span was still 5 months long. Wisconsin passed its waiver with bipartisan support by receiving a two-thirds majority vote. This waiver was agreed to by the State legislature after 18 months of public debate. It certainly has had a significant review. Welfare robs people of their self esteem and leaves them with little self respect. Let us put these people to work and give them the dignity they want and will receive when they are no longer on the dole. My colleagues on the other side should remember that it is the President who endorsed this plan. Now we are being accused to playing politics. Why don't we pass this legislation and allow the people of Wisconsin to make their own decisions about the future of its State in terms of the type of welfare program it would like to have. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by reciting a passage from Genesis in the Old testament which sums up what this debate is really all about. It reads, ``If any would not work, neither should he eat.'' Welfare represents the antithesis of what this line from Scriptures states.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have about a minute left. I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment. I have to say tonight that there are a lot of people that have come on the floor to speak against it. So I think this is the third time the gentleman has offered it. Certainly, I think the feeling is that this amendment certainly would not be appropriate after they have had their largest election in world history in which about half a billion people have voted. I think most people would regard the election as universally free and fair. And I think, as William Safire of the New York Times put it: ``It is the most breathtaking example of government by the people in the history of the world.'' Every year I offer a resolution, a House Resolution to recognize India's national independence. This is the 49th year. I think now is not the time to pass a personal affront to this country when they have been so successful a democracy. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], the former Governor of Colorado has been speaking over the weekend to the Perot party. He indicated he supported President Clinton in 1992 but he can no longer support President Clinton because the Democrats and the President are demagoging the issue on Medicare. There are indeed no cuts. In fact, the amount of money that is going to Medicare is going up every year; it is going up almost 7.3 percent. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the gender gap and how women identify with this as a political issue. Now this gender gap is touted by the National Organization of Women as being in their favor. It is mentioned in the Presidential election that one candidate has a gender gap problem among voters. What does this all really mean? Well, Concerned Women for America recently hired the Wirthlin Group to conduct a survey, which directly challenges the stereotypical view of the gender gap drawing women to the liberal position on controversial social issues. Its conducted survey found when asking their party affiliation, it did show 40 percent of the women out of this 1,000 people that they asked, 40 percent of the women identified themselves as Democrat, 29 percent as Republican and 25 percent as Independent. The Democrats appear to have an advantage because the gender gap assumes women voters hold liberal positions on many issues. This assumption would appear to create a risk for candidates who take a conservative position on issues. In terms of political philosophy, however, 53 percent of all the women surveyed identified themselves as conservative; that is, women who identified themselves as Democrats were also identifying themselves as conservatives. This clearly shows party affiliation does not automatically translate into liberal ideology nor an outright rejection of conservatism. While the NOW organization is often accepted as the standard position for women voters, this organization actually emphasizes the gender gap by promoting the notion that women's issues such as abortion are the sole determinant for women voters. Well, this is not true. Only 36 percent of the women surveyed have a formidable and favorable impression of NOW which portrays itself as a voice of American women. The survey also found out that only 1 percent of women listing abortion as their key issue of all the issues. When asked about abortion, 55 percent of women were pro-life, contrasting the views of NOW who are strongly pro-abortion. An even larger majority, 66 percent, favor adoption for tax credit, using tax credits. These findings indeed support a gender gap in favor of conservative voters. Women identified a decline in family values as the single most important issue. The NOW group proposes a generally liberal position with regard to family views, particularly dealing with homosexual rights and welfare reform. Welfare reform pits 66 percent of women against the views of liberals and the NOW group and in favor of reforms such as family caps. The Wirthlin study depicts the gender gap as really not a gap at all. Rather, there has been a lack of effective leadership to articulate the conservative position to women. On abortion, adoption, family values, welfare reform, and homosexuality rights women are just frankly conservative and frankly share the Republican view. The media has played a large part in discouraging conservative candidates by concluding conservative social policies alienate women voters. This poll shows just the opposite, and what we have, frankly, Mr. Speaker, is a liberal spin on the issue of the gender gap. Liberal politicians are already detecting this, though, They realize the conservative positions are the way to go and to promote ideas. Conservatives during the Reagan era were able to attract millions of registered Democrat voters largely on the strength of Reagan's social conservatism. As conservative leaders, we have the ability to attract these voters, including these so-called women's issues. The gender gap is removed. Mr. Speaker, the gender gap is a figment of the liberals and the media's imagination. For once the issues are clearly explained by the overwhelming majority of women today of all political persuasions accepting the conservative approach to abortion, adoption, family values, welfare reform, and homosexual rights. Today's women are basically conservative.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, heaven is not reached by a single bound. But we build the ladder by which we rise. Mr. Chairman, the international space station has, and will continue, to provide Americans with substantial benefits in areas including medicine, the environment, transportation, and even communications. And the benefits don't just stop there. Since the inception of the U.S. space program, the secondary applications of space technology have yielded $9 to the economy for every tax dollar spent. The returns are clearly well worth the investment. The partnerships created through the space station serve as an exceptional model for future international ventures. The partners of this program have already contributed billions of dollars to the space station, demonstrating their commitment to completing the largest cooperative science program in history. The international space station will be a world-class orbiting laboratory, which will serve as a test-bed for hundreds of science and technology experiments that could not be conducted on this planet. We will learn new research techniques for growing tissue samples outside of the human body, for use in cancer research and bone injuries. There will be new understandings of the aging process, with subsequent developments in counteracting the effects of aging. Imagine the possibilities of academic involvement in the space station's activities. Through the cooperative efforts of NASA and academic institutions throughout the world, the space station will launch future generations into a brand new dimension of learning about space science. Author J.G. Holland said, ``Heaven is not reached by a single bound. But we build the ladder by which we rise.'' We are currently building that ladder, in a series of bounds. What we find at the top of this ladder will inspire future generations to imagine, explore, and actually see, first-hand, the unprecedented advances that the space station will provide. We must retain funding for the space station. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Roemer-Ganske amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton amendment and what he is trying to do. I think the simple word ``science'' without the word ``engineering'' connotes that it is applied research. With ``engineering,'' it has practical aspects and it also represents a broad consensus in America that engineers have a role, so their name should be part of this. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I think the gentleman has taken a courageous stand for engineers across this country, and I think we should support him.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with the stagnant wages that are making life more difficult for so many working Americans. I believe that Congress should best address this problem by cutting taxes, balancing the budget, and spurring economic growth. Increasing the minimum wage is an unfunded mandate on American businesses, on the States and the local governments. It is not the way to go. Mr. Speaker, this is not the right way to get the money to the people who need it. Already those minimum wage earners who have families are eligible for food stamps and the earned income tax credit. All government supplements consider the very least a family of four can earn is currently $7.40 an hour. So the question we hear from the Democrats when they say no one can afford to raise a family on minimum wage, frankly, my colleagues, no one actually is. I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying many of us have sponsored a bill by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] in which we decided the best way to handle this issue is let each State decide if they are going to increase their minimum wage and not have it on a Federal level. That is the proposal we should be voting on. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concerns about the proposal to mandate an increase in the minimum wage and to support the Goodling amendments. The Democrats have pushed and pushed this political issue, and today they're finally going to finally get what they want: increased unemployment, a multi-billion dollar mandate on the State and local governments, more welfare dependency, higher unemployment and inflationary price increases. All in the name of class warfare. They want to compare the salary of Bill Gates to that of a 18 year old. But they forget that Bill Gates worked for minimum wage too and was glad to get that first job. This is not the right way to get money to those who need it. Already, those minimum wage earners who have families are eligible for food stamps and the earned income tax credit. All government supplements considered, the very least a family of four can earn is almost double the minimum wage. Why aren't the Democrats acknowledging this? So when you hear Democrats say no one can afford to raise a family on minimum wage, frankly, no one actually has to. If the Democrats truly want to increase family earnings, if they truly want to help those who need assistance, then I suggest that we do just that--that instead of passing unfunded mandates, we better target the EITC, we reform welfare, and we enact legislation with incentives that encourage job creation, not discourage it. At least we have a compromise in the Goodling amendment, which offers small businesses incentives and opportunities so that they may offer workers jobs at competitive prices. This, coupled with H.R. 1227 and H.R. 3448 will work to create jobs and help Americans, not hurt them like the unqualified mandated increase in the minimum wage. As Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``the most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency.'' I urge my colleagues, do not hurt the people that we were elected to help. Oppose the effort to eliminate thousands of jobs, the effort to create inflation, and the effort to worsen our Nation's welfare problem. Support the Goodling amendment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform is something that the American people want. Both parties have promised to reform our current broken-down system, but I believe Republicans have delivered. This Republican Congress sent a strong welfare package to President Clinton, and he vetoed it. Today Republicans are going to try again. We are introducing a strong welfare reform bill that concentrates on family and individual responsibility. Our package lifts families out of the destructive welfare cycle of poverty and despair. It stresses work, and allows States the flexibility to design programs that fight their residents' needs. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this time around the President keeps his promise and signs a strong welfare reform package. His record on this issue has not gone unnoticed by the American people. It is time to reform welfare. Let us do it now.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recently we passed groundbreaking legislation that will unshackle companies and inject competition into the telecommunications industry. This competition will bring about more consumer choice, better services, and lower prices. However, in 1996, this dynamic telecommunications industry is expected to suffer from fraud surpassing $3.7 billion. I would like to commend the Alliance to Outfox Phone Fraud, a group of companies who have come together to educate consumers and businesses about telecommunications fraud. Big businesses are victims of phone fraud too. A recent survey of 90 businesses who were victims of toll fraud found losses ranged from a few thousand dollars to $4 million. Those who commit fraud don't just steal from a big telecommunications company, they also steal from you and me. We, as consumers, are forced to pay higher prices in order to make up the loss these telecommunications companies incur, when they are defrauded. If we all follow the alliances' commonsense tips, we will do our part to help outfox fraud and bring down consumer prices.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, behind me on the wall, behind the Speaker's chair, high up on the wall, in fact way up there, is inscribed the following words by Congressman Daniel Webster: Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. In the quote I am trying to emphasize perform something worthy to be remembered in our generation. His words are a creed to live by. They are words by which our actions as representatives of the people should be judged, and I urge the American people to do just that. Judge us by whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. I am confident that we have done just that, that we have done something worthy to remember, that in our action last week in passing a balanced budget resolution we have proactively and for the good of the country changed the course of American history; that we have halted 40 years of reckless spending and that we have at long last set the country back on track. In our day and our generation we have faced the defining issue and we have offered a solution to the problem. Simply and emphatically, balancing the budget is the most important action Washington can take for the American people. Why, one might ask. Because not balancing the budget would be disastrous. It would mark the end of many of the things that we take for granted. It would, in effect, mark the beginning of the end of the American way of life as we know it. The national debt already stands at over $5 trillion and it is growing at a rate of $14,000 per second, which actually means in the 5 minutes it takes me to give this speech, our debt will have increased by $4.2 million, totaling over $50 billion an hour, or $1.2 billion a day. Consider this, my colleagues. If Congress does nothing and allows spending to continue at its present course, a child, perhaps one of our children or our grandchildren, born today, will have to pay $187,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime just to cover the interest on the national debt. But getting Federal spending under control is not just about putting off this fiscal doomsday, it is also about tremendous and vital benefits, the foremost of which would be a dramatic drop in interest rates for all of us. The study by the economics firm of McGraw Hill predicts that balancing the budget would lower the interest rates on the average mortgage by almost 3 percentage points. On a 30-year $75,000 loan, that would translate into a total savings over the life of the loan of over $37,000. What will it take to balance the budget? Simply put, letting spending continue to go up, but more slowly than it otherwise would. Let us look at the numbers. This year Federal spending will total $1.6 trillion. If Congress does nothing, spending by 2002 will rise to $2.1 trillion, an increase of $600 billion. Under last week's budget resolution, spending in 2002 would rise to $1.9 trillion, an increase of some $400 billion. By any measure, a $400 billion increase in spending does not represent a cut. Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said: The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save this country. We must save this country. We are at the crossroads, Mr. Speaker, at the occasion in our history when, we must disenthrall ourselves and save our country. To do this we must make the difficult decisions. We must take the steps to guarantee the fiscal solvency of our country so that our children and our grandchildren will have the same chances we had, so that they, too, have a chance to grow and to prosper in a land of greatness and of opportunity. For our Nation, for our solvency, and for our children we must balance the budget. This is not about politics and rhetoric, it is about the right of Americans to pursue and secure their dreams. it is about doing what is right and what is, as Daniel Webster said, ``worthy to be remembered.'' So the question is not whether we can afford to balance the budget, but whether we can afford not to.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the statistics are bone chilling. Three out of four American women will be a victim of a violent crime in their lifetime. For every 5 minutes that passes, another women is raped. Every 9 seconds another woman is abused. And don't think it doesn't happen in your community. While most men are respectful toward women, the statistics indicate that in every community there lives at least one weak, cowardly, and spineless man who feels the compulsion to humiliate and torment a woman. Don't fool yourself into believing that you couldn't know a woman who is suffering. These women are someone's mother, someone's sister, someone's daughter, someone's coworker, someone's friend. This abuse breeds fear, pain, and shame in women. It's time to alert and educate the public about the violence that is being inflicted on women and how to stop it. Violence is inexcusable in any civilized society. Only by exposing this destructive vile behavior will there be an end to the pain and suffering. Anything less is unacceptable. I urge everyone to do their part to end the violence.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Let me refresh the memory of my colleagues. Who said the era of big government is over? I think we all know President Clinton said that. Who also said the rising tide lifts all boats? Many Democrat Presidents have said that. Let me give information from the Labor Department, February 20, 1996: It released its employment cost index showing the smallest gain in wages and benefits since the Government began keeping statistics in 1982. Surely we need tax cuts. We have had since 1981, 19 tax increases in this country. Surely the Republican budget can have a tax cut. Bob Michel was on the floor, the former leader of our party, and he used to say son of a buck, we need some kind of tax cut for the American people. We can do better. Middle-class families work hard. They deserve tax relief. And frankly, my friends, and I credit the folks on the other side for their budget, but there are no tax reductions there. After 19 tax increases it is time we had these tax cuts, and I am glad to say the Republican budget has that. We also want to see changes in welfare. Now we have a different approach with welfare, but we believe again that we need to improve it. You keep the status quo. So the Republicans' budget is not extreme. It is reliable, reasonable and, most importantly, the Republican budget is honest. It uses honest numbers. And we have tax reductions for American families. We can do better. We can help Americans earn more, keep more so they can do more, and that is why when President Clinton said the era of big government is over and many Democrat Presidents also said rising tides lift all boats, these Democrats understood that you can do that best by tax reductions for the middle class. I have to say to my colleagues on that side of the aisle, your budget does not have any tax relief for these American families. The Labor Department statistics shows the smallest gain in wages and benefits since the Government began keeping these statistics in 1982. So surely, as Bob Michel used to say, son of a buck, we have to give some tax relief for American families.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Let me give an analogy on this debate. Let us say you are overweight by 100 pounds. You are trying to lose weight over a 7-year period. Would you take a plan where in the first 2 years you gain 100 pounds and then in the next 2 years you try to lose it, then in the final year you really make an effort to reduce that 100 pounds? Of course not, it will not work. This same principle is applying to the Clinton budget. The President's budget is such that the largest spending reductions are in the 7th year. Also under the President's budget, deficits go up in the early years. We certainly do not need that, either. How many of this floor remember what the President said in 1993 about his tax increase? He said, ``You might think I raised your taxes too much. Well, it might surprise you to know that I think I raised your taxes too much too.'' And in fact his tax increase was the largest of the 19 increases we have had on this floor since 1981. Mr. Chairman, I ask, ``Isn't it time that after 15 years we should have one single tax cut?'' We should not have to wait another 17 years. Also, my colleagues, Prof. Thomas Hopkins of the University of Rochester indicated that the annual cost of Federal regulation has risen since 1981 over the equivalent of $6,000 for every single American while the party of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has been in control for the last 40 years. Come on, Mr. President. It is time for a new direction. Even the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, came on this House floor and said he is not going to vote for the Clinton budget, so why should Mr. Sabo?