Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, who said this? ``Washington has abandoned working families. Millions of Americans are running harder and harder just to stay in place. Wages are flat * * *'' On February 20, 1996 the Labor Department released its employment cost index, showing the smallest gain in wages and benefits since the Government began keeping statistics in 1982. A far more disturbing figure was given about the median family income. Under Ronald Reagan's watch, 1982-89, real income increased an average of 2 percent annually. President Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union ``Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.'' How does the current rate of recovery compare to other periods of recovery over the past 35 years? In 1961 through 1969 the increased real gross domestic product was 23.5 percent from the low point of the recession. The 1975-80 figure increased by 20 percent. The 1982-90 recovery saw an increase of 17.9 percent. I wonder how President Clinton could make such a claim about the state of our Nation's economy since the recovery from the recession in March 1991 has only been 13.1 percent so far. A major factor in the 1992 Presidential election was the economy. ``It's the economy, stupid'' was the hue and cry of the Clinton campaign. Just as President Bush was reminded over and over again during the 1992 campaign about the promise he made: ``Read my lips, no new taxes.'' President Clinton may also come to realize just how salty his words may become. No doubt he will be haunted by ``it's the economy, stupid'' during his campaign for reelection. President Bush took his lickings about his tax promise; President Clinton will be subjected to the same standard of scrutiny and criticism. After all, he did run on improving the economy. He stated that he believed America should come first. That he would make the U.S. economy vibrant and he would be known for his domestic policy, not just his foreign policy. He said America will come first. Well here we are 4 years later. Guess what? The economy does not seem to be improving, rather it is stagnating. Edward Yardeni, chief economist at Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, has stated: ``The U.S. is already in recession,'' ``even though we haven't had two straight quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product.'' He believes that GDP will shrink at a 1.5 percent annual rate during the first half of 1996. How did he draw this conclusion? Since the Commodity Research Bureau's price index of raw industrial materials fell 6 percent for the 12 months in January, this was the signal that led him to make this conclusion. Let's be clear about one very important fact. In the third quarter of 1992, the economy grew 5.8 percent--the Commerce Department announced this number after the 1992 election. President Bush tried in vain to get this message across but neither the press nor the media seemed the least bit interested. Why give the American public the facts? For the record, the growth rate for the fourth quarter was an outstanding 8.6 percent. So, President Clinton could claim that under his administration the average annual rate of growth was 2.5 percent since 1993. Let's examine what happened in 1995, the first year President Clinton's economic policies were fully in effect. Growth that year was a dismal 1.4 percent. How does this compare to other administrations? From 1982 to 1989, the average rate of growth was 3.9 percent. During that same period the annual median family income rose about 2 percent yearly. How does the Clinton administration compare with the Reagan administration? Unfortunately, for all of us the family income has only risen 0.25 percent per annum. You might say to yourself that all might be true but President Clinton fulfilled his promise and created almost 8 million new jobs. OK, let's take a look at his claim. The Bureau of Labor Statistics backs up the President's numbers. He has lived up to his promise and created 7.5 million new jobs since taking office in January 1993. What is deceptive about these numbers is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts people, not the number of hours they work. For instance, two 20 hour per week part-timers are counted as two jobs. If you look at the number of hours worked, then only 758,000 new jobs have been created annually since 1993. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 24, 1996 that during a Democrat focus group, a pollster announced that thanks to Clinton 8 million new jobs had been created. At that point, one woman yelled out: ``Yeah, I know, I have three of them.'' This response reinforces what the Bureau of Labor Statistics found during its review of the number and types of jobs that were actually created under the Clinton administration. It has become very apparent, especially in the last few months, that people are feeling insecure and anxious. Many have expressed the fear that if they lose their job they will not be able to find a new job that will provide them with the salary that will allow them to have the same standard of living. What has caused American workers to think this way? There are several factors which account for this negative outlook. Corporate downsizing has had the greatest impact upon middle managers. The statistics bear out the fact that many of these people trying to reenter the market must accept lower pay. Between 1990 and 1992, on average, these workers were forced to take a pay cut of 20 percent. You might find it hard to believe but the median income is less now than it was in 1986. There is compelling evidence to show that reaching middle class earnings has been on the decline since 1980. According to the University of Michigan's Panel Study on Dynamics, which has tracked the same families since 1968, they found that 65 percent of white American men who turned 21 before 1980 were earning middle class wages--twice the poverty level--by the age of 30. By comparison, only 47 percent of those who reached the age of 21 after 1980 were able to reach this same level of earning power. Blacks do not fare half as well, reaching 29 and 19 percent, respectively. Since there are more people without a college education than people with the benefit of a higher education, these workers tend to be far more insecure and anxious. Education can be an influential factor as to how successful an individual will be in securing a well-paid job. Education is becoming a much more important factor in finding good job opportunities than ever before. As a result, the gap in income distribution is increasing, and this is adding to blue collar anxiety. We must find ways to encourage our workers to get the necessary jobs skills to compete in this high tech global economy. We must also find a way to provide this training to retrain our workers. We must expand our technological base and find creative and innovative methods to create new industries. In the past, we have been able to transfer a worker's knowledge and ability into learning new skills to allow them to participate in a new job market. A good example of this is when Henry Ford created the automobile and displaced the horse and buggy trade. What happened is a lesson that we should all try to emulate. These same workers started working in the Ford factories that had displaced them. The telecommunications bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President will provide the same type of opportunities by creating millions of new jobs. So far, President Clinton hasn't delivered. If we balance the budget, we will be well on our way to jump starting. Why is a 7-year balanced budget so important? Many leading economists believe that a balanced budget would result in a drop in interest rates of up to 2 percent. For a 30-year, $75,000 mortgage, that's $37,000 saved over the life of the loan. Americans will have more take home pay because our budget includes a $500 per child tax credit. We also have true welfare reform, which is a No. 1 priority for most Americans.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to have the gentleman from Kentucky, Jim Bunning, in my congressional district. I represented Ted Williams. Ted Williams being a constituent of mine, he wanted to meet with Jim Bunning, so the two of them met in my congressional district at a dinner, and we had a wonderful time. I would point out to my colleagues here that Jim Bunning struck out the greatest hitter of all time, Ted Williams, three times in one afternoon. He has that kind of staying power and that kind of pitching power. But one thing that Ted Williams did say to me confidentially is that ``Jim Bunning should be in the Hall of Fame, and God willing, Jim Bunning some day will be in the Hall of Fame,'' so I think Ted Williams was forecasting what has occurred. I congratulate him, and I think, on behalf of Ted Williams and others, we wish Jim Bunning the best. We are glad that he was finally recognized.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1986 mandates that on March 1 the President must announce which nation will be officially listed or certified as cooperating in the effort to halt drug production and trafficking. Mexico better not be on that list. It is imperative that we take action against Mexico, that we finally denote the country for what it is. Simply put, Mexico has become a narco-state. Each year, nearly three-quarters of all the Colombian cocaine consumed by Americans flows across the 2,000-mile United States-Mexican border. Mr. Speaker, the President has the opportunity to seize his accountability. He has the opportunity to right some of our wrongs. He has the opportunity to effect change. I urge him to act. America should not certify Mexico.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues an advertisement in the January issue of the Orlando ``TV and Visitors Guide.'' This is in all the motel rooms in Orlando. It claims that green cards are being issued on a first come, first served basis by making just one phone call. Anyone can get one. The truth is that it is not that easy, and private companies are charging money for a free service. Workers are exploited by these misleading and often illegitimate companies. This is just another example of the problems of the immigration system and how badly the broken system needs to be fixed. All too often, immigrants bring in their so-called extended family who become dependent upon the welfare state. I am continually asked by my constituents, why is it so easy for noncitizens to receive SSI, food stamps and Medicaid, while they are having problems obtaining their benefits? The system, Mr. Speaker, is being abused, with the burden placed on our hard-working citizens. Immigration laws must be reformed to ensure noncitizens are self-reliant, instead of dependent upon the American taxpayers.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am making part of the Record three documents. The documents referred to follow:

Mr. STEARNS. Further I would like to state that broadcast stations are important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and other local broadcast services. This category of service should be an important part of the public interest determination to be made by the Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television systems and those providing cable services, we must recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and regulations. The following is the understanding and agreement referred to in the colloquy between Representative Fields and Representative Stearns: The conference report directs the FCC to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or eliminate its duopoly rule, which prevents ownership of more than one television station in a market. Since the rule was last revised, the local media marketplace has undergone a breathtaking transformation. This has been characterized not only by a large increase in the number of broadcast stations (up one-third in the last decade alone), but more significantly by an onslaught of new multichannel rivals to traditional broadcasters, such as cable and satellite systems, and soon, video dialtone networks. It is agreed that, when it considers revision of the duopoly rule pursuant to this conference report, the FCC should give serious weight to the impact of these changes in the local television marketplace--changes which have left broadcasters as single-channel outlets in a multi-channel marketplace. It is also our intent that the FCC should revise the rule as is necessary to ensure that broadcasters are able to compete fairly with other media providers while ensuring that the public receives information from a diversity of media voices. It is also agreed that the FCC should consider granting waivers for combinations in which at least one station is a UHF and where the FCC determines that joint ownership, operation, or control will not harm competition or the preservation of a diversity of voices in the local television market. As our numerous hearings demonstrated, today's local television marketplace exemplifies the massive changes in the competitive landscape that we've witnessed in many sectors of communications. Viewers are no longer limited to a few TV channels. Rather, consumers have--or soon will have--access to dozens of cable channels, wireless cable, satellite and video dialtone systems. Broadcasters compete with these multi-channel rivals for viewers and ad dollars alike. In particular, interconnected and clustered cable systems are now capable of offering advertisers local spots throughout an entire local media market, thus directly impacting the local broadcasting market. Indeed, cable's share of local advertising revenues increased by 80% between 1990 and 1993, and this rate of increase is projected to continue for the foreseeable future. If we want free, over-the-air programming to survive and thrive, we need to give broadcasters the flexibility they need to compete effectively with their new multi-channel rivals. To this end, the conference report grandfathers Local Marketing Agreements, the innovative joint ventures that many broadcasters have been using to meet the new competition. The need to relax the duopoly rule is illustrated by the broadcast community's experience with LMAs. These joint ventures enable broadcasters to take advantage of the economies of scale and generate synergies that provide more outlets for free and innovative local and other programming. LMAs have enabled new stations to get on the air and struggling stations to stay on the air. Beyond grandfathering LMAs, this legislation charges the FCC to take a hard look at the duopoly rule, and Congress could not be more clear; the FCC is directed to determine whether to retain, modify, or even eliminate its limitations on television station ownership in a local market. It is my position that the FCC should waive or eliminate the duopoly rule in circumstances cases where a proposed combination involves at least one UHF station and there is no demonstration of harm to completion or diversity of voices in the market. Congress needs to closely monitor the FCC to ensure that it revises the duoploy rule in recognition of the changes in the local television marketplace and of the need to give local broadcasters some flexibility to respond and succeed in the challenging multi-channel marketplace. The 1934 Communications Act--accompanied as it is by a hodgepodge of FCC decisions and court rulings--is outdated. As we craft the communications policy that is going to carry us into the 21st Century, we must ensure that it reflects the flexibility of an ever-changing marketplace. We are standing at the precipice of a bold new era of communications, an era whose full impact we can only speculate about. But we can say this: That era holds great promise for America, economically and even politically. It will be an era in which America's already significant lead in communications technology continues to expand. It will be an era in which Americans will have greater access to information and education than ever before. And it will be an era in which democracy itself will be enhanced as Americans gain powerful new ways to communicating directly with their elected representatives. For these reasons, this telecommunications bill represents one of the most important pieces of legislation Washington will consider this year. Unlike many bills before Congress, which concern the routine functions of government, the telecommunications reform legislation will help transform the very fabric of American society. This is no small task and is fraught with controversy, but there is a common thread that holds all the elements of this massive bill together: deregulation. The fact is, government intrusion in America's communications industry has held us back, stifling innovation, competition, and the ability of America to maintain its global lead in key technologies. While this legislation did much in the way of loosening the regulatory chokeholds in the areas of long distance and local phone service, and cable, more could have been done in the area of broadcasting. Broadcasting occupies a unique and critical position in the world of telecommunications. Broadcasters fulfill a number of important roles in their communities--reporting school closings, covering local news, and providing emergency information. In addition, broadcasting is unlike other communications technologies. Broadcasting is not only the only technology available to 100 percent of American households, the content it provides is free. The only cost is for a receiver. Not surprisingly, broadcasting remains the principal means Americans use to get the information and entertainment that make up an important part of their lives. In fact, broadcasting has the widest coverage of any media today. More households have television and radios--99 percent--than have telephones--94 percent--or cable service--61 percent. Broadcasting to this day is the one medium that reaches the whole country. It is precisely for this reason that we must ensure that broadcasting remains a vital component in the information age. We must provide broadcasters with the flexibility to compete effectively not only with each other but also with their competitors. In 1964, the FCC last revisited the duopoly rule which prohibits an entity for owning two television stations in a local market. In 1964, there were very few VHF stations and the FCC felt this rule was necessary to ensure diversity. Well, the video landscape has changed dramatically since the implementation of the 1964 duopoly rule. Americans have access to many over-the-air broadcast channels. In the last decade alone, the number of commercial broadcast stations has increased by nearly one-third. This increase in free over-the-air viewing options, coupled with the availability of a multitude of video outlets--cable, wireless cable, DBS and the imminent entry of telephone companies offering video dialtone--evidences the fact that the duopoly rule has outlived its usefulness. Serving local needs in an expensive endeavor. Relaxing the duopoly rule would allow station owners to achieve economies of scale by sharing equipment, accounting, and other common station costs. Saving on broadcasting costs would enable broadcasters to compete with themselves as well as other nonbroadcasting competitors. Keeping the duopoly rule freezes broadcasters as single channel providers who must compete with other multichannel providers. Broadcasters have long found cable to be a formidable rival for viewers, but now local broadcasters are losing market share for local advertising revenues, too. For years, because of fragmentation of ownership in local markets, cables' share of local ad revenues has lagged behind its rapidly increasing penetration and viewership. But increasingly, cable operators are creating marketwide interconnects capable of offering local spots on all the cable systems in a market. Moreover, in order to compete with phone companies, cable operators are clustering at a rapid pace so that they dominate an entire local market. Driven by these interconnects and clustering, cable's share of local advertising revenues increase 80 percent from 1990 to 1993. Because of the increased competition from fellow stations and other video providers, many broadcaster stations are marginal operations, particularly in the smaller markets, where, according to the FCC, stations lost on average $880,000 in 1991. Adding a further financial complication, the conversion to digital broadcasting will be stressful for these smaller market stations. In this increasingly competitive communications market, it is not fair if one competitor remains leashed to outdated regulations. This is what will happen if we do not relax the duopoly rule, while we unshackle many of the broadcasters' competitors. To respond to the challenges of today's media and advertising marketplace under the existing regulatory scheme, many television broadcasters have emulated their colleagues in radio and entered into innovative arrangements called local marketing agreements, or LMA's. An LMA is a type of joint venture that generally involves the sale of a licensee of chunks of air time on its station to another station, in the same or adjacent market, which then supplies the programming to fill that time and sell the advertising to support it. Such agreements enable separately owned stations to function cooperatively, achieving significant economies of scale via combined sales and advertising efforts, shared technical facilities and increasing stations access to diverse programming. I'm pleased this legislation recognizes the benefits of LMA's and grandfathers them. By grandfathering LMA's, we are allowing broadcasters to continue to use a tool that has helped them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. My own State, Florida has 5 LMA's which have generated positive synergies. Channel 26 in Naples could not afford a real news department until it entered into an LMA with channel 20 in Ft. Meyers. Now it has an outstanding news operation. This particular joint venture shows how LMA's can increase the amount of local news programming. There are many other examples of LMA's across the country that evidence the benefits of such arrangements. While I am disappointed the conference did not accept the House provisions which relax the duopoly rule, I am confident that the FCC will, in its duopoly rulemaking, conclude that as this body did, that a 1964 rule is no longer applicable to today and more important, tomorrow's video marketplace. We must not continue to deny local broadcasters the flexibility they need to meet the challenges of an ever increasingly competitive market. Broadcasters must have more relief if they are to play a meaningful role in the information age. While grandfathering LMA's is a start, it certainly is not enough. The best solution to ensure the continued viability of free, over-the-air broadcasting is to relax the duopoly rule. I am also disappointed with the radio provisions which are a disservice to those in the radio industry. While the House and Senate bills completely deregulated the radio industry, the conference took a giant step away from deregulation and forces the radio industry to attempt to compete with others with a 50 pound weight of needless regulation around its neck. I prefer the original House position which would have enabled all in the radio industry to prosper. While the Telecommunications Act improves upon the Pole Attachment Act of 1978, our legislation fails to completely redress this issue. We have worked together to forge a compromise, but certainly we could have gone further, allowing the free market to work. Again, while I am deeply disappointed with some provisions in this bill, I will support it because of the effect it will have on our economy. Overall, Congress cannot afford to let this opportunity slip through its fingers one more time. We must seize this opportunity and pass this ground breaking legislation now.

Mr. STEARNS. Since the rule was last revised, the local media marketplace has undergone a breathtaking transformation. So I think this is important. Also, has the gentleman, the subcommittee chairman, had the opportunity to read the statement concerning the must-carry provision? It is my understanding there is language within S. 652 which requires all must-carry challenges submitted to the FCC to be resolved within 120 days. Is that correct?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would just like to commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he has done and also to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], who is retiring. I would like to echo a comment one of my colleagues said, this is a great opportunity for bipartisanship, and I hope the American people are watching and the people in the audience, and, of course, the people here on the floor. This is a bipartisan opportunity. I would like to put into the Record two colloquies with the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and this deals with the duopoly rulemaking. I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. Has he read the duopoly rulemaking that I gave him that I can make part of the Record here today?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], I just cannot resist to use your own words, ``Oh, Mrs. Schroeder, cool off.'' Those are your words. You and I were both in the conference committee together. You and I were both there; we voted on the Internet legislation together; and, in fact, I think we voted the same way. What we have here in this bill is satisfactory. In fact, it is superior, and it is something that we all voted together, both Democrats and Republicans. So I am not clear if I understand your argument. Let me just continue with what I was going to say. This follows up my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], when he talked about Bill Gates, the founder and CEO of Microsoft. This is what he said, my friends: ``We are beginning another great journey; we aren't sure where this one will lead us either, but again I am certain this revolution will touch even more lives. The major changes coming will be in the way people communicate with each other. The benefits arising from this opportunity and this revolution will be greater, greater than brought by the PC revolution. We are on the verge of a bold new era of communications.'' I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that this body may have the unique chance to ensure this country's ability to realize the great potential of the dynamic communications revolution that Mr. Gates speaks about. Today we have this opportunity, because the Republican majority has brought forth a bill that is important not only for the industry but for this country. Mr. Gates is right when he says this revolution will touch even more lives in addition to creating new jobs in the communications industry. It will have a dramatic impact on consumers. It will bring about benefits of greater choice, of new and exciting communications services with lower prices and even higher quality. Americans will have greater access to information and education than ever before. Clearly the consumer will be the winner. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule on this legislation that will take the American consumers and customers further than they ever imagined.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a Reader's Digest article in the February issue entitled, ``How Fair Are Our Taxes?'' The results should not be surprising. Simply put, and I am quoting from the article, ``Americans at every income level think we are overtaxed.'' Furthermore Americans, according to this poll, think a family of four should bear a maximum tax of 25 percent. And that is not just Federal income tax, that is all taxes at all levels. I remind my colleagues, the Reader's Digest is a publication which is fair. They conclude clearly that a large majority of Americans, nearly 70 percent of those polled, regard the tax burden as unfair. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we need to act now to reduce the tax burden for Americans. Not only is reducing taxes a matter of fairness, but a matter of economic opportunity for America and a matter of shrinking the Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton painted a rosy picture of our Nation's economy. He takes credit for reducing the deficit and a drop in crime rate. What he did not tell you is that since President Clinton took office, our national debt has increased by $800 billion, causing the debt to rise from $4.1 to $4.9 trillion. In addition, under the Clinton balanced budget proposal, our deficit would also increase from $172 billion in 1996 to $223 billion in 2002. As for the economy, which he claims is moving in the right direction, the economic growth is questionable. From 1982 until 1990, it a averaged about 4 percent a year. Under Clinton's watch, it only increased by 1.9 percent in the last year. If there has been a drop in the crime rate, it can be attributed to our Governors implementing tough truth-in-sentencing and three-strikes- and-you're-out. Mr. President, it is time to stop all the rhetoric and get down to business. We need a balanced budget and we need to lower our national debt.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri who is in the back here was incorrect when he alleged the Speaker, speaking about the welfare bill this morning, did not have the vote count right. It was 87 to 12 that the welfare bill passed out of the Senate, and it was 52 to 47 on the conference report. The gentleman was confusing the conference report with the original welfare bill in the Senate which passed overwhelmingly. The Speaker was correct. So with that, last evening the President gave his State of the Union. As I listened, I said to myself, it sounds like the Republican agenda. It is like the President has had a Damascus experience. He was reborn again. Sometimes he is reborn every 3 months. Republicans should feel very satisfied because we have overturned the Democrats' control here in Congress, made a balanced budget a national priority, bipartisan priority, ended the idea that entitlement spending is holy, and started the debate on the complete rethinking of the Tax Code.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, 1 day after the 23d anniversary of Roe versus Wade, many people were up here to recognize this fact, to address one of the most important and divisive moral issues our Nation faces. Abortion clearly stands as America's greatest and most tragic moral failing of the modern era. In the last century America was called upon to address the moral blight of slavery. And we did it. Though the struggle was great and tore the country in two, good ultimately triumphed over evil and the scourge of slavery was banished from the land. In this century we face a different fight--the fight against what anyone with a moral conscience can only consider the taking of a human life. Will America rise to this new challenge? Will we come to our moral senses? Only time will tell. But we can say this: Whatever happens, those who believe abortion is simply wrong will continue to take their case to the American people. Although the courts still consider abortion a legal right, that doesn't make it a moral right. And although any change in the legal status of abortion may still be a long way off, there are still measures we can take not to combat this crime against humanity. It is my belief that political change in America only happens as a result of cultural change. Until we change America's culture--until America regains a commitment to the sanctity of human life--all our efforts will produce little change. We need to argue our case forcefully. We need to convince America by the power of our ideas and by the depth of our passion that abortion deserves no place in any society that would call itself civilized. We condemn Hitler for the slaughter of 6 million Jews. We condemn Stalin for the murder of 20 million Russians. We condemn Pol Pot for the extermination of 1 million Cambodians. But we raise nary a peep about the 1.5 million innocent children who are killed on our own shores every year. My colleagues, I ask you: Where is our conscience? Where is our shame? Now our foes on the other side of this debate refuse to admit that what is at stake in abortion is a human life. No; they insist that abortion is just a medical procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy. The fetus to them is not life. It is not even potential life. It is merely a blob of tissue, or worse, a parasite that needs to be excised from the victimized mother. Abortion is solely about the so-called rights of the mother. The rights of the unborn child are never part of the equation, because for them the fetus has no rights. But I have a question for the pro-abortion forces in this country: How can you be so sure? How do you know the fetus is merely human tissue with no claim to personhood? How do you know abortion is not, in fact, the taking of a human life? Their answer, of course, is that they just know. Never do they produce any evidence that the fetus is not a human life. They simply assume that the fetus is not life. And after all, what other choice do they have? The only way they can feel comfortable morally is to pretend what they advocate is the surgical equivalent of having a tooth pulled. In his book ``The Unaborted Socrates,'' the moral philosopher Peter Kreeft poses this analogy for abortion. Pretend you're a hunter going off into the woods with your friend, but you get separated. Now you're alone hunting for deer and you hear something rustle in the bushes in front of you. You can't see what it is, but you know something is there. What do you do? Do you shoot, hoping the noise is caused by a deer and not your friend? Or do you play it safe and hold your fire until you're sure that it's not your friend? My friends, the abortionist faces the same quandary every day of his life. He can't say for sure that the fetus is not human. But does he play it safe? No, he takes a chance that the fetus he is aborting is really a human being. He literally risks that he is a murderer. We all know there are deep divisions within our society over abortion. But the one thing I hope we all can agree on is that it is morally risky at best to practice a procedure that even an abortionist must admit could be murder. But it is up to us, my colleagues, to make these arguments, to persuade the country that it is best to err on the side of caution when contemplating abortion. If we do not act, who will? If we do not speak up on behalf of the unborn, will they speak up for themselves? But I have hope. I believe we are beginning to turn the corner. Congress, through the hard work of Representatives like Chris Smith, Bob Dornan, and Henry Hyde, has finally succeeded in passing the first legislation ever that would prevent a particular abortion procedure from being used. I speak here of the so-called partial-birth abortion, a gruesome act whereby the fetus is delivered right to the base of the skull, at which point the abortionist plunges in a pair of surgical scissors to facilitate the evacuation of the brain. The baby, of course, is then fully delivered, but dead. In this act of barbarity, only 3 inches separates a legal abortion from murder. But of course, we all know it is murder anyway. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has promised to veto this bill, despite bipartisan support. This is interesting, because even the President has said his goal is to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. Well, here was a chance to make it a little rarer, and what did he do? He promised a veto. But I wonder something? Why does the President want abortion to be rare? If it is just a harmless medical procedure that improves the lives of women--as the President believes--then why should it be rare? In his world abortion is a good thing and therefore it should be plentiful. But the reality is that even the President knows the American people are uncomfortable with abortion. He knows that even if he sees nothing wrong with 1.5 million abortions, the majority of the American people do. Fortunately, America's moral climate is changing. Americans never thought legal abortion would be used for anything other than extreme cases. But now they realize they were sold a false bill of goods. Now they realize that abortion, far from being used to save the life of the mother, is little more than a convenient form of birth control for countless women. It is my contention that had Americans known that, they never would have consented to legalizing abortion in the first place. Simply put, abortion detracts from our national greatness. As Alexis de Toqueville said in his pioneering study of American democracy more than 100 years ago: ``America is great because America is good.'' If we lose our goodness, our greatness is sure to follow. I think most Americans realize this, which is why abortion troubles them. But as with all great public debates, we must reinforce our truths again and again. Together, we can make a difference. So let's make a commitment, right here and right now, that we will labor to restore America to greatness by restoring it to goodness. And do we really have any other choice? Basic morality demands that we who possess the power to speak, stand up for the rights of those who lack the power to speak for themselves.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about our Federal workers and the need to find a way to end this shutdown. While no one wants to see this situation continue, there is an even more overwhelming concern that is being voiced by the majority of the Members in the House. Their greatest fear is that if we comply with requests to pass a continuing resolution [CR] to get us through this month then the President will renege on his promise once again. As we all know, in an effort to work in a bi-partisan manner, back in November we passed a CR that would run through December 15. We did this in good faith. What happened to the promise made by the President to produce a balanced budget in 7 years using congressional budget numbers? We are still waiting that document to be put on the table. You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes it tremendously difficult to negotiate when only one side has produced the necessary budget that meets all the requirements that were previously set down by the President in his State of the Union Address in January of 1993. What caused this shutdown? Quite simply, the President vetoed appropriations bills that currently force this partial shutdown. The agencies that have not yet had funds appropriated for 1996 are the State Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, Interior Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans Affairs Department, Forest Service, Housing and Urban Development Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency. People need to realize that most of the Federal Government would be open today if the President had either signed a balanced budget or signed the funding bills for the affected agencies. We are willing to work out a compromise with the President, but he has to tell us what he wants. So far, he has simply vetoed every bill that has hit his desk. That's not leadership, it's gridlock. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago there was no national debt to speak of, and Americans paid only 3 percent of their income to the Federal Government. Today, we have a $5 trillion national debt, and the average American family pays a full 25 percent of its income to the Federal Government. Taxes at all levels of government now consume 40 percent of the average family's income--more than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations process is proof of our commitment to balance the budget through thoughtful and sound spending. The representatives of the people of America have some very difficult spending. We have had to make cuts in many important programs; we have been forced to prioritize our spending--just as American families have been doing for years. We have done this because we are interested in the future of our country. We have put aside partisanship and self- interest so that our country will not buckle under the burden of its debt, so that our children may have a future. I find it not only frustrating but also terribly disheartening that the President has chosen to veto a majority of the appropriations bills we have sent to him. He says that the appropriations bills don't provide enough money. The President feels that the Government does not spend enough money. Mr. President, we have a $5 trillion debt. This President has made it clear that his administration's goals are quite different from the vast majority of the American people. These Presidential vetoes make it abundantly clear that he is committed to more of the tax-and-spend policies that have nearly ruined our country financially; the bills he vetoes have caused the shutdown of portions of the Federal Government, thus punishing his own employees simply because he refuses to adhere to the promise he made to produce a 7 year balanced budget using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] numbers. Congress has done what it had to do. We have proven our commitment to reduce Federal spending and to make the Government more efficient. Apparently, the President has a different agenda. Why is a 7-year balanced budget so important? Many leading economists believe that a balanced budget would result in a drop in interest rates of up to 2 percent. For a 30-year, $75,000 mortgage, that's $37,000 saved over the life of the loan. Americans will have more take home pay because our budget includes a $500 per-child tax credit. We also have true welfare reform which is a No. 1 priority for most Americans. What happens if we don't achieve our goal of a balanced budget in 7 years? Five years from now all Federal revenues will go to just five programs--health care entitlements, federal retirement, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Our children will be faced with lifetime tax rates of 80 percent just to pay interest on the debt. That's why it is so important that we stick to our principles. Our country needs to go in a new direction. We must cut taxes and cut spending. We must think of our children and their children. Currently, future generations will have to deal with a soaring debt and outrageously high taxes. Is this the legacy we want to leave them? I do not think so. I believe we will work out an agreement with the President. I pray that we do so for all those federal employees who have been asked to bear the brunt of this budget impasse. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask my colleagues to please give consideration to cosponsoring legislation I have introduced, H.R. 2828. This bill provides for the comparable treatment of Federal employees, Members of Congress, and the President during a period in which there is a Federal Government shutdown. Let's put our paychecks where our values are and disavow special treatment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to give a 1-minute speech, but I thought I would reply to the gentleman before me, because I think he knows and I know that his party shut down the House of Representatives, shut down Congress, shut down the Government nine times. You were involved in the last 10 or 12 years in almost every kind of parliamentary move, chicanery, in dealing with the White House at that time, owned and operated or run by Republicans, the Republican Presidents there. And your party was involved in doing much more than we have even started to do, which is to try to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the folks on that side of the aisle that I hear time and time again that the Republicans are doing all this for tax cuts for the rich. Let me give them a quick review of the Los Angeles Times story from yesterday, where it says ``Clinton set to accept capital gains tax.'' If you are going to run around here saying we have tax cuts for the rich, you better talk to your own President.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this bill. Let me say to the people on this side of the aisle, no one party has a corner on compassion. For 30 years we have had this program and we have spent $5 trillion. It has become obvious to the Democratic Party and obvious to our party that this program, as it is configured now, does not work and we have to change it. For some of my colleagues to come on the floor all the time and say they have all the compassion, really the compassion comes when we try to take away, when we take an individual and take away their incentive to work. What happens is they do not want to work. We have doomed their life to continued dependency. That is not being compassionate, and that is what the debate is about. To show compassion is to give individuals incentive. We must instill in our young people a sense of pride that can only be realized through hard work and personal achievement. What is wrong with that? This country was founded on the work ethic. Passage of this legislation sends a clear signal that we are no longer going to subsidize and reward individuals who have chosen to take a check instead of a job.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, there are two arguments the Democrats and the President use to justify their not signing a 7-year balanced budget agreement. One is the Medicare scare. Right now the difference between what the President and we are proposing is .7 percent a year or $11 billion. So how can Americans believe the President when he said, ``I simply cannot sign a budget that devastates Medicare to the elderly.'' Come on, Mr. President, we are in agreement on Medicare so stop the scare. The other sound bite for Democrats and the President is tax cuts. The American people have suffered through at least 19 different major tax increases since 1981 without one single tax cut. There is no reason why they should have to wait another 7 to 10 years for tax relief. Our tax cuts were paid for on April 5, 1995, before the debate began on saving Medicare. And they have nothing to do with saving Medicare. In fact we have a lock box in the Medicare legislation to keep all savings there. The President and the Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-scare and tax cut connection because it is useful politically. ``It allows them to attack and to duck responsibility, both at the same time.'' Those are not my words. That is from the Washington Post editorial on September 25, 1995. Come on, Mr. President, sign the agreement and let us stop ducking responsibility.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with today.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, what kind of message are we sending tonight to those currently stationed in various war zones around the world? We really should not be blaming each other, no matter what party we are from. All of us should urge passage of this legislation. I think it is clear tonight, if the President had signed the VA-HUD bill, we would not be in this sorry position that we are in here tonight. We would not have to have a continuing resolution to ensure that our veterans receive their rightful and hard-earned benefits. I could sit here tonight and blame you and you could blame us. But tonight we should all come together and pass this continuing resolution. Maybe the President had a good reason to not sign the VA- HUD appropriations bill. Maybe he had his reasons and maybe a lot of your agree with him, but I have been here before when I saw you provide a VA-HUD bill that we did not like. But now the bickering is over. There is no use screaming and hollering. Let us think about our veterans first and let us proceed and pass this continuing resolution. But, frankly, I think all of us should realize that this problem can be solved by the President signing the VA-HUD appropriations bill; we would not be here tonight this close to Christmas discussing this if he had signed the VA-HUD appropriation bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, until the cows go home, that is how long the President and Secretary Rubin can run this place under our present situation, where they could use the term ``disinvest'' to borrow from these trust funds, not only Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, Federal employees' thrift savings account, and others. So we do not want to do that. That is why we are passing this legislation. Another expert knowledgeable with this system, Louis Crandall of Wrightson & Company has said, ``The creative accounting to which the President and Secretary Rubin could resort could get them through for a couple of years.'' That is why this legislation is being put before us today. We need to address this problem directly with a balanced budget, my colleagues have mentioned that, rather than hiding further debt by borrowing from the seniors and other U.S. citizens who have paid their hard-earned dollars into these trust funds. We were not sent here to come up with creative accounting techniques, we were sent here to make the decisions that are best for the American people. A question I might pose for the people on that side of the aisle, as well as my side of the aisle: When Secretary Rubin disinvests, does that not add to the debt ceiling, which in a sense violates the law that we have for the debt ceiling? I think that is a question we should ask and have that side of the aisle explain to us if he disinvests, using the pension funds from the Federal employees, is he not in a sense putting up as collateral their pension funds and thereby borrowing against it, increasing the debt ceiling, even though Congress has not legislated to do that? I pose that question rhetorically. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill. Then we will not have to listen to this side when we have a Republican President complain, and then this side will not have to complain when we have a Democrat President.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats love to chant over and over that ``heartless'' Republicans are ``slashing'' Government to give tax breaks to their friends. False. But it is true that in some areas of Government, like foreign aid, we are cutting. In other areas, like Medicaid and Medicare, we are increasing spending. And it is also true that we advocate tax cuts. Remember, higher taxes means more spending in Washington. I am proud that Republicans are going to give a $500 tax credit to children and to working families. The money that Americans make belongs to them; it does not belong to the Government. And let me say this about lower taxes: We need lower taxes to help grow the economy. It is essential to balancing the budget that we have strong economic growth. This time lower taxes will be coupled with spending restraints in Washington. Mr. Speaker, let us end the excuses and let American families keep more of what they earn.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate my colleague Tom Campbell from California for his stunning victory in California. He and I came in together in 1988 and I am just very pleased to have him return here to Congress. Former Speaker Sam Rayburn quipped, ``A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' Well, the truth of Mr. Rayburn's words has never been more apparent as it is today. The donkeys are kicking at the barn doors, but we have a carpenter trying to work, trying to build a better form of government, and that carpenter is Newt Gingrich, our Speaker. Despite all their efforts to the contrary, they are trying to offer these frivolous charges. Instead of working on the difficult issues ahead, they trump up another bogus ethics charge against the Speaker. They, in fact, have fabricated a total of 65 charges against the Speaker. All but one of these charges have been dismissed. The remaining charge simply pertains to a technical section of the IRS code. In time it will be resolved. The Democrats' attempt in the Campbell election to demonize the Speaker has not worked. I call on all our Members to welcome Tom Campbell again in to our fold.